Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global ...

climate models disagree strongly about how climate change will affect the British Isles."
[Smith was moved to this section to more accurately reflect his views.] (LINK)
Veteran climate researcher Erich Roeckner of the Max Planck Institute for
Meteorology laments the lack of climate computer model reliability. "Clouds are still our
biggest headache," Roeckner conceded, according to a May 7, 2007 article in DER
SPIEGEL (LINK) According to the article, "Even the most powerful computer models are
still too imprecise to simulate the details. However, the clouds alone will determine
whether temperatures will increase by one degree more or less than the average predicted
by the models. This is a significant element of uncertainty. Roeckner is a conscientious
man and a veteran of climate research, so he, of all people, should know the limits of
simulation programs. Roeckner, who constantly expects surprises, neatly sums up the
problem when he says, ‗No model will ever be as complex as nature.'" The Der Spiegel
article continued, "‗According to our computer model, neither the number nor intensity of
storms is increasing,' says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck
Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers. ‗Only the
boundaries of low-pressure zones are changing slightly, meaning that weather is becoming
more severe in Scandinavia and less so in the Mediterranean.'" Roeckner also questioned
some of the computer ―scenarios‖ used by the UN IPCC to predict the future impacts of
global warming. "Some emissions scenarios are perhaps already demonstrably wrong,"
Roeckner said according to January 26, 2006 interview in the journal Nature. ―It is possible
that all of them are wrong." (LINK) [Roeckner was moved to this section to more
accurately reflect his views.]
Statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and
professor at the Copenhagen Business School, questioned former Vice President Al
Gore's scientific presentations. "But if we are to embark on the costliest political project
ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best
facts, not just the convenient ones," Lomborg co-wrote in a January 21, 2007 Wall Street
Journal op-ed titled "Will Al Gore Melt?" Lomborg, who proclaimed he "has provided one
of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune," accused Gore of "chicken[ing]" out of a
debate. "But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of
life, the costs are not trivial," Lomborg wrote. "In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the
average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will
face, climate change or no climate change. Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr.
Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the
question," he continued. "It would have been great to ask [Gore] why he only talks about a
sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida,
San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic
levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise
over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years.
Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a
factor of 20?" Lomborg wrote. "[Gore] considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but
again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is
dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years.
The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century.
Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't
mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those
298