One of the constant allegations by global warming fanatics is that among reputable scientists, there is an overwhelming consensus than man-made carbon-dioxide is speeding us to eco-catastrophe and that reputable scientists who say this is a load of bunkum are virtually non-existent. Well, as the excellent CCNet electronic network reveals, there’s been a lot of non-existent scientific activity recently. For example, Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London has said that the collapse of some of Antarctica's ice shelves — the subject of huge excitement recently — is likely to be the result of natural current fluctuations, not global warming. He observed :

‘Taken as a whole, Antarctica is so cold that our present efforts to raise its temperature might be regarded as fairly puny. Change is undoubtedly occurring: in the collapse of the northerly Peninsula ice shelves, and elsewhere in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, where the circumpolar current appears to reached the ice edge and is eating away drastically at the ice shelves. One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labelled “the contribution of anthropogenic warming”. But the warming of the Peninsula has been going on for a considerable time, and the pattern of regional change is variable, and neither of these is favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming’.

The next non-existent sceptical scientist to pop up is geologist Craig Loehl who fitted two 3000-year temperature series to seven time-series models. He writes:

‘Of the seven models, six show a warming trend over the 20th Century similar in timing and magnitude to the Northern Hemisphere instrumental series. One of the models passes right through the 20th Century data. These results suggest that 20th Century warming trends are plausibly a continuation of past climate patterns. Results are not precise enough to solve the attribution problem by partitioning warming into natural versus human-induced components. However, anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th Century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results. Six of the models project a cooling trend (in the absence of other forcings) over the next 200 years of 0.2–1.4 °C.’

The next non-existent sceptical scientist is actually a group of no fewer than 125 climate researchers. Reporting on a climate seminar run by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in Gummersbach, Germany a few days ago, Bernd Ströher and Benny Peiser write:

‘Particularly revealing were the almost sensational results of a survey conducted by Prof. Bray among some 500 German and European climate researchers. The results show impressively that the much- repeated claim of a "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic global warming is a carefully constructed piece of fiction: According to the survey results, some 25% of European climate researchers who took part in the survey still doubt whether most of the moderate warming during the last 150 years can be attributed to human activities and CO2 emissions.

The detailed investigations by Prof Mangini likewise left little place for any justification of Mann's ‘Hockey Stick’ (see post below). In fact, his results showed quite the opposite. Mangini presented the results from his research on stalagmites which show a very pronounced medieval warming period and an even warmer Holocene Climate Optimum. Mangini attributed these climatic fluctuations to the varying influence of the sun. He also stressed that, at least with regard to geological past, scientists are agreed about ice core evidence which suggests that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels followed an increase of temperatures - and not the other way round…

[The] perhaps most controversial presentation was that by Prof Gerlich. He did not find a good word for climate modellers and their models and even went so far to suggest that some of the CO2-global- warming theories contradict fundamental laws of physics. In a highly temperamental presentation he argued that atmospheric CO2 with a fraction of only 0.03% of the atmosphere's total volume was quantitatively much too insignificant in order have any measurable temperature effect. With help of mathematical computations that were far too complex and difficult to understand, Prof Gerlich maintained that climate modellers were worse than astrologers, the latter of whom at least observed real planets and their movements.’

The last word for today should go to Lord Taverne, who supports reducing emissions of carbon dioxide but seems to be a genuinely puzzled observer of the climate change controversy and who, having fairly set out some of the many uncertainties that seem to contradict the global warming zealotry, told the House of Lords:

‘There is a sort of political taboo about the issue. If you express doubts, you must be in the pay of the oil industry or a Bush supporter. There is a slight whiff of eco-McCarthyism about’.

A whiff? Some of us can’t breathe for the stink. Of course one has to be wary of reserachers who are funded by any kind of vested interests. And of course, not all research is reliable. But one can use common sense to spot facts which are not true, arguments riddled with holes or false logic, and deductions which are not supported by evidence — and when studies are shredded, one looks to see how these researchers defend themselves. And so far, the arguments presented by the global warming lobby are being knocked down like skittles — and are not bouncing back up.