There is a lot of inconsistency in the IPCC's and Al Gore's Global Warming catastrophe scenario. Today's Ft. Worth Star-Telegram at least tentatively broached two of these.

First, it is mentioned that addition of ethanol to gasoline may actually increase smog since burning ethanol produces some undesirable stuff, like formaldehyde. Ethanol has less energy per pound than gasoline, so more of the stuff has to be burned to go the same distance. And ethanol made from corn doesn't reduce the net amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere.

Then, there was a piece that says that Global Warming may not result in more severe weather after all. Historically, there was less severe weather during the medeival warm period than there was later as the "little ice age" started. The reason is that severe weather is driven by the atmospheric temperature differential between the mid-latitudes and the polar regions. The global warming theory calls for more temperature increase at the poles than at the mid-latitudes, thus there should be less severe weather if global warming actually happens. Ignoring this, the MSM and Al Gore have had a tendancy to attribute every bad weather event to global warming.

There is another inconsistency in Global Warming theocracy I have noticed. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, responsible for about 95% of the effect. The theory is that a small atmospheric temperature results in much more water vapor in the air, producing a large temperature increase. (The amount of water vapor air can hold goes up exponentially as temperature increase.) The IPCC summary reports always predict that more droughts and floods will occur as a result of the increased load of water vapor in the air (and also that there will not be an increase of cloudiness, which would reduce daytime temperatures). It has always seemed more likely to me that there would be more rain everywhere. I'm not the only person who has noticed this inconsistency. One of the 2500 scientists working for the IPCC did also, though whoever makes the decisions for the IPCC ignored him. (An interesting question: who is the person who makes the decisions for the IPCC?) Here is an interesting email from one of the 2500 experts.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Willful ignorance in IPCC report (WG2 SPM)

An email below to Benny Peiser from Prof. Aynsley Kellow [Aynsley.Kellow@utas.edu.au], Head of the School of Government, University of Tasmania.

Thank you for publishing Indur Goklany's insightful critique of the SPM for the WG2 Fourth Assessment Report.

I would like to add a couple of comments, if I may be permitted. I was a referee for Ch 19 in the Report on 'Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment', and made in essence the criticism Indur does that the whole exercise fails to take account of the increases in wealth that give rise to the emissions that drive the climate models, that drive the impact models. It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite willful. It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely too be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts.

The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I'm not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no mattter how flawed it might be.

But then I'll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!