March 05, 2007

French Scientist Has Second Thoughts On Global Warming

One of the original Global Warming alarmists - French scientist Claude Allegre, one of France's leading Socialists - is now saying, "Eh, maybe not".

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

I guess "consensus" isn't what it's cracked-up to be.

When you start losing French Socialists, you know you have problems.

UPDATE:
Coming to British TV March 8th: Globaloney!!

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

Lovely.

Include the names of those who disagree and lie and say they do. That's quite a "consensus".

UPDATE DEUX:
BTW, for those late to the game it's a given that my commitment to the debunking of the "Global Warming as caused by Human Folly" meme is in direct proportion to commenter LB Buddy's need to defend it.

The difference is that I enjoy it whereas he gets annoyed.

Posted by Gary at March 5, 2007 08:54 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Another heretic to be burned at the stake.
(But don't worry, Al Gore will pay himself for more "carbon offsets," presumably by not buying a cow for a dirt poor family in Africa.

Posted by: rbj at March 5, 2007 02:43 PM

In response I give you McArthur Fellow and preeminant climate researcher Stephen Schneider:

A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there. Like all scientific fields, when contrary claims appear in climate research, they are to be given due attention by climatologists. But initially, they are not usually given much weight, as it is highly likely that most claims calling for radical revisions to conventional wisdom will be disproved or contain many inconsistencies that lead scientists to doubt them. When asked about my opinion of the paradigm-altering claims of most contrarians (wasn't Galileo also dismissed by the establishment?), I typically reply that indeed, we must carefully examine all claims that, if true, would lead to paradigm shifts like that caused by Galileo, but at the same time, it is wise to note that for every real Galileo or Einstein who radically alters conventional wisdom, there are probably a thousand "fossil fools". Nevertheless, these contrarians are given disproportionate representation in the media (see Mediarology) and by certain governments, especially the Bush Administration, so far (see below).

And Claude Allegre is a Geochemist, not a climate researcher. I can find plenty of physicists and chemists (even a few biologists) that don't believe in evolution. It has little relvence to the consensus.

Posted by: LB Buddy at March 5, 2007 03:12 PM

pullquote from article in the post:
"Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed 'World Scientists' Warning to Humanity,' a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's 'potential risks are very great' and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off 'spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.'

But since he was only a "geochemist" you wouldn't have taken him seriously then either?

Posted by: Gary at March 5, 2007 03:48 PM

BTW, I love that "It has little relvence to the consensus" line.

Very ominous sounding. Resistance is futile, eh?

Posted by: Gary at March 5, 2007 03:51 PM

I'm digging the peer reviewed Lancet study, myself.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/04/questions-raised-about-lancet-study-on-iraqi-death-toll/

Posted by: The Colossus at March 5, 2007 07:18 PM

Gary, I saw that part of the story (read the whole thing). It means nothing (in terms of the GW science) that he signed the letter. I have signed the Union of Concerned Scientists letter even though I am a biologist, not a climate researcher. Allegre has been politically active for a long time (he was France's Science minister for a while). By signing it he is showing that he trusts the evaluation of the experts. Not an unreasonable position. When he goes against the experts, he has no bona fides because he is not an expert. If he was arguing against a theory of the Earth's crust, sure. Global Warming, not so much. His opinion on GW is probably only slightly more relevant than Michael Chrichton's or Iaian Murray's, meaning not at all relevant.
The IPCC is a collection of 2500 scientists. They are not all going to agree on every word on every page. Some wanted stronger language and some weaker. Regardless, they all agree on the central point that there is anthropogenic GW.

You have linked to opinion pieces in magazines and newspapers. Not a single primary research article. There is significant differences in how the two are vetted and those differences are not trivial. It is like letting a guy perform an operation on you because he's read a couple of books on heart surgery and is pretty sure he can do it too...

Posted by: LB Budy at March 6, 2007 12:54 AM

All things being equal, I'll take a geochemist's opinion over a biologist's.

But of course a biologist is entitled to his opinion. Even if he favors shutting out all others.

Posted by: Gary at March 6, 2007 08:55 AM