Here is an email I sent to Hannity and Colmes about a discussion they ahd on the IPCC report of climate cahnge.

The discussion you had on the latest IPCC Global Warming Summary Report was a waste of time. The lady you had on in support of draconian measure to “stop” global warming obviously knew nothing about the subject, and recited “talking points.” I couldn’t tell if the guy in opposition knew anything or not because Colmes kept asking an irrelevant question about some offer of $10,000 for anyone writing an article debunking something; I’m not sure what.

I’m an engineer, not a scientist, though in the media I would be a “rocket scientist,” but let me tell you about something called “The Law of Scientific Contention.” That law states that in cases of scientific debate, the consensus is always wrong. For example, few scientists believed that Einstein was correct in his theory that gravity could bend light. After it was proven there was no dispute. Later, Einstein didn’t believe in the quantum theory because he didn’t believe “God would play dice.” But now everyone accepts the Heisenberg Uncertainty Theory because it can be proven. Global Warming is an entirely different situation. It involves science, but is not a scientific theory. The IPCC work is based on computer models of the Earth’s Eco-System called Global Circulation Models. It is almost certain that people expert in many different disciplines have made input to the models, but it is doubtful that any single individual is knowledgeable about all of the disciplines involved. In fact, I would wager that not all of the important factors have been included in the models, because not all of the necessary experts have been involved. (The statement that 3000 scientists or whatever number all agree with the work is meaningless since any one of them is an expert in only a limited field, and has no idea of the quality of the other’s work.)

I think part of the problem is that the IPCC starts with a few simple concepts that no one disagrees with. The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has been increasing. Carbon dioxide absorbs energy in some infrared wavelengths (around 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns). The temperature of the average annual temperature of Earth has increased around 1.2 F over the past century. (Actually there is some debate about this due to paucity of measurements in some locations, accuracy of measurements, and the “heat island” effect at some measurement locations, but most agree that the temperature has gone up.) These facts suggest that increases in temperature are due to the increased Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere. But, correlation is not causality. For one thing, temperature had already been going up for some time without a significant increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With the increasing power of computers it became possible to make GCM’s of the Earth’s eco-system, and then to make predictions of future climate changes. But, computer power is still not great enough so that the GCM’s do not still require some gross simplifications. The GCM’s do not do well in predicting cloud formation, something with obvious importance in temperature at the ground. The GCM’s do not model the past without addition of what we call “fudge factors.” Freeman Dyson has pointed to this as an obvious problem. The actual temperature in recent years has not acted as the GCM’s predict. For example, the GCM’s predict a monotonically increasing annual average temperature, that the Poles would heat much more than the mid-latitudes, that the effect would be more pronounced in the winter than in the summer, and that the primary effect would be an increase in minimum night-time temperatures rather than an increase in day-time temperatures. None of these things have happened. The Temperature has not increased since 1998, the Artic temperature has been rising, but the Antarctic temperatures have fallen significantly, and night-time winter temperatures have not increased (except in urban areas due to the heat island effect). There is evidence that the Artic temperatures have been influenced by underwater volcanic activity (which I would guess is not in the models) and there is evidence, backed by some repeatable experiments that solar activity influences cloud behavior. I suspect that is not in the models either, since it is not well understood. Another minor problem is that concentration of the greenhouse gas methane in the atmosphere has been declining rather than increasing as being predicted.

The lady you had on as an expert; at least I guess that was what she was supposed to be, couldn’t even name James Hansen as the best known proponent of cataclysmic climate change. (By the way Mr. Colmes, I’ve read that Mrs. John Kerry’s foundation gave Hansen $250,000 for something. Maybe you could chase that down for us, and give us the politically correct spin on it.) The lady couldn’t name any critics of the IPCC. There are a lot of them that have better qualifications than the IPCC experts. Such as Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, Iain Murphy, Madhav Khandekar, and John Christy to name a few. Then there is Pat Michaels, who believes that man is affecting the climate, but doesn’t agree with the IPCC conclusions. See his book “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.”

Personally, I’m pretty much with Pat Michaels’ position. It is obvious that man has had an impact on the environment; I’d say it is 100% certain rather than 90 % as the IPCC says. But it is much less certain that carbon dioxide has had the major impact, and that the draconian measures being proposed by the UN would be beneficial. I think there is a greater than 50 % probability that temperature will fall over the next 30 years rather than increase. We need to be looking at new energy sources, but with a 50-year timeframe rather than immediately.

There are some IPCC actions that are quite troubling to me. Why publish a summary written by politicians while the underlying report by the actual workers is being revised under rules that technical changes must support the summary? The IPCC report emphasizes the negative impact of global temperature increase, asserts some impacts that are not scientifically supportable, and ignores that warmer has historically been better than colder for humans. The assertions of more catastrophic weather events because of increased temperature are not supported and history indicates that cooling causes worse weather events than warming does. (See the book “The Little Ice Age.”) The idea being tossed about by the left that people who disagree with the IPCC, the so-called Global Warming Deniers, should be silenced, fired and subjected to Nuremberg style trials is frightening, and illustrates the fascist tendencies of the left