An igNobel act

This year, a Nobel prize was awarded, split between Algore and the IPCC, for their work in warning the world of the coming disaster of Manmade Catastrophic Global Warming (cue the screams of the panicked public)....

Gore is one man, but the IPCC is thousands. Nonetheless, one of the thousands has publicly rejected his share of the Nobel (0.0001%, as he jokingly says) due to the uncomfortable fact that he disagrees with these 'scientific conclusions'.

He says it's far too complicated to fully understand. He says we've had warming and cooling before, many times throughout thousands and millions of years, and that it's all cyclical. He says one year you have hippoes swimming in the Thames, and in a geological eyeblink you have an ice bridge between Britain and America. He says if we can't predict the behavior of one storm system over five days, we can't possibly begin to understand the entire world's climate over a hundred years, and yet other panel members pretend loudly that they can predict such climate change over such a long term.

He does note a loose equitability between the carbon record and the temperature record, but does not go on to remind us of an important fact Gore never mentions; that the carbon dioxide increases in history come hundreds of years AFTER the temperature increases, not before or during. This means, logically, that increased temperatures cause increased CO2, and not the other way around.

Nevertheless, it's nice to see an actual Nobel winner rejecting the prize out of principle. He worked on the IPCC panel, but his work and his conclusions are nowhere near what the panel as a whole has claimed.

I wonder how many other scientists out of those thousands of panel members are similarly uncomfortable with its claims.

HT Atlas.