Lord Monckton's views supported by American physicists
A surprising number of American physicists have said that they do not believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
They are opening their debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity - the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause - has been grossly overstated by the IPCC modelling of the United Nations.
Monckton says that natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years. . .Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
There was, as you know, little human-caused warming on those planets.
One of our earliest posts covered Lord Monckton's telling disagreements with Al Gore.
In related news, scientists in Switzerland have just reported that Europe's temperature warming is caused by cleaner air.
Lord Monckton noted the "courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom."
We note his courage in facing the hot blasts of anthropogenic global warming theorists - and the key, graph from his paper -
It is of no little significance that the IPCC's value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind's effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.
David adds - We would like to see our dependence on oil-rich nations eliminated and real pollution addressed.
This post has been edited.