New Study: EARTH IS SAFE FROM ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ SAY THE MEN WHO PUT MAN ON THE MOON
'The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world's recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent. So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers - the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon - in a new report. "It's an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA's name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming," says the project's leader Hal Doiron. Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees - including seven astronauts - who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization's promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.
Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.
Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.
This is because, as scientists such as the Cato Institute’s Pat Michaels have long argued, “climate sensitivity” (ie how the planet’s temperature responds to CO2 emissions) is considerably lower than the IPCC’s computer models project. So much so that it should be called “climate insensitivity”, he believes.
Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don’t agree with each other and don’t agree with empirical data.