of climate that's been used for literally a half a century. and on the bottom are the northern hemisphere temperature departures from average from the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change of which by the way i am a member and a rather active one. what you see here if you look at the y axis. here's the 49% that gore was talking about. now, is there any relationship between this and global warming. simple fact not checked. or we could look at the longer term climate history of the pacific southwest which is one of the places we really care about drought. the energy secretary who has a nobel prize in particle physics which is really somewhat not related to climatology said recently that global warming will destroy agriculture in

california and cause the loss of major cities in california. this is absurd. but the reason he said that is because of stories about major drought in the pacific southwest and the colorado river system. and, in fact, if we take a look at the history of colorado water stream flow as measured by tree rings and other kinds of fossils this is by dave meko in 2007. here's the more recent drought and you can see that it is nothing compared to what we have seen -- that's lowest in the current drought. nothing compared to what we saw here in the 12th century. this thing lasted 60 years. so to say that there's any signal of warming in this record, which would begin somewhere around 1900 is absurd. again, we have extremely wet conditions in the early part of the 20th century which by the way resulted in the migration of people to colorado as a green paradise. i'll show you that in a second and then it dried and then it

got wetter. in fact, let's segue to california. we have fires in california, mr. gore said in his response. senator reid chimed in a little bit later, by the way, not in the show. one reason we have the fires in california is global warming. let me tell you about forest fires and range fires in california. they occur because÷8hrá rains a lot in a previous winter. you've all been to california. by the time april 1st rolls around in southern california, there's not a cloud in the sky except for the morning fog if the marine layer is thick. and it does not rain until next october and next december if you're lucky. and so it dries out every year to the point that normally you can support decent fires but the fires become enhanced if the previous winter or the winter before thatñlñ was very wet. the reason they become wet is because of el nino that causes excessive rain in southern california. so one could have checked gore's statement to see if indeed the

frequency of rainy winters in california has been increasing. this is about five mouse clicks away from the united statess÷ national climatic data center. you can see a very interesting thing. first of all, most winters are pretty dry around 10 inches and you can see the el nino poking above the mean here where you either have a very dry winter or a very wet winter and it's those that predispose southern california to massive fires. this period here, by the way, of the current era obviously pales in comparison to the early 20th century when california was sold as a green paradise as was arizona, et cetera and that began or continued some of the great migration to california and it was a green paradise, of course, in the summer it exploded but nobody lived there. eventually, they moved in there and paid the price. gore, in response to the ten-year question. this is a real whopper.

you know, even a 1 meter sea level rise, even a 3-foot increase in sea level would cause millions of climate refuges. that's a response to a 10-year question. let's check the sea level rise forecast from the intergovernmental panel on panel. this is a1b, which is called the midrange emissions scenario and if we take a look at the increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we are pretty 5 scenario. any way, the median value here is about three-tenths of a meter. that's for about 100 years. the median value is 1.26 inches. he got away with 3 feet on the larry king show. we have a very serious threat of losing enough soil moisture in a hotter world that agriculture here in the united states would be greatly affected. z in ten

years. well, the planet has been warming and you might want to take a look at agriculture in the united states with respect to warming. this is the intergovernmental panel on climate change temperature history for the world. we have two periods of warming here. one in the early 20th century which couldn't have anything to do with carbon dioxide 'cause we hadn't put enough in the air than this period where it sort of cools a little bit and then from here on out where we see warming beginning in v3ñ1977 a y interesting period beginning in 1998 where it doesn't warm which i'll talk about in a second. but let's compare this to wheat yields and corn yields. corn yields have quintupletled in the united states. as the planet warmed a degree celsius. they have continued at the exact same rate of increase that wa@"% established by the time people were talking about the end of

the world. the climate of extremes began a go, didn't it? extremes began a and take a look here at wheat yields. whea1yy this is much m drought tolerant than corn shows an increase of about 100% over an increase of aears.100% over to take a look at agriculture just in general let's get closer to home. this is augusta county virginia write used to live. the mean annual average temperature is 53 degrees. annually precipitation, 38 inches. here in sussex county in southeastern virginia at 5 degrees warmer and about 20% more precipitation and the corn yields are exactly the same. why? becauseé?ñ people adapt. they adapt their practices. what's different between the temperature warming 5 degrees or a farmer moving from suffolk county to augusta county? the answer is absolutely nothing.sbr so people adapt to varying and large changes. well, that's the climate of extremes. now i'd like to ask a very, very interesting question in this climate.

i'm going to ask you the question, have the global warming climate models failed?kñ and this is touched on in the book. i want to expand on that.ñ when we talk about the effects of global warming like mr. gore was talking about in 10 years, we start with changing in the atmosphere meaning changes in the carbon dioxide concentration. ñ climate models and then we put these into usually economic impact models for agriculture or energy or whatever you might want to do. there are many of these models. i'm going to take a look at 21 of the ipcc, intergovernmental panel and climate control models and i'm going to run these things for thousands of iterations. they give you differeó answers each time you run them. because of roundoff errors and strange things. they have el ninos put in as random spots. they have cold la ninas so you

can get the actual frequency distribution of warming trends that comes out of these models. and then you could make a statistical test, couldn't you? you could find out if the observed warming trends, say, for five years, six years, on out to 15df÷ years back or even years back are running within the statistical confidence levels of these models. each one of these colored lines by the way is a computer model. they go up and down. this is an el nino in this model. this is a la nina which is colder in that model. they don't have volcanos in them but we'll take care of that in ú second. and the average volatilities which is in a straight line which is part of the greenhouse effect theory. the change in carbon dioxide is large. the response to carbon dioxide is log rhythmic and i guess we spent $10 spending you get a straight line which is something somebody in precalculus will do.

anyway, this is a close-up of the behavior of the models in the nearágterm. we are right here. so we've gone through half of this -- a little less than half of 2000 to 2020 period and you can see that, in fact, the change models are very linear, constant rates of warming. and this is the warming since the beginning of the second warming of the 20th century beginning around 1977 and, in fact, if you fit a straight line to it, that's the best statistical fit to the estate. you could fit a log rhythm but it won't explain much variance. you could pit an exponent. any second order fit doesn't fit as well as a first order straight line. so we got a test on our hands, don't we? the models predict a constant rate of warming. and we've observed a constant rate of warming. that allows us to compare apples and apples in a statistical test. now, bear with me on this.

this is the 95% confidence range for the computer models for iterations of different lengths of time. 5 years, 6 years. do you notice some of these models predict cooling trends for five-year periods in their 95% confidence range. this is integrated overall. the models why? because they might start with a la nina which is a cold event in the pacific ocean but eventually they hone in on this mean warming trend of about .2-some odd degree odd per c decade. here's are the temperature trends for the last five years, six years, on out to the last 50 years. this is the 90% confidence system. 95% of the model runs are in here. 2.5% -- if we're below here, we are at 2.5% of the data on the cold side or 2.5% on the warm side. and guess what? it's very obvious that we are following the line of failure. if the model doesn't work at the .05 level or the .025 level on

the one side, scientists say you must reject the hypothesis by these models. there was a very important case held that an award could not be given in a lawsuit where the testimony for the science was on science that did not meet the normal criteria for statistical science. this may have very interesting ramifications. they interesting ramifications if indeed congress does not pass an cap-and-trade and epa instead chooses to regulate this could be a lot of fun. now, we could do this out for 20 years. you know, you might pick on me michaels you picked the last 15 years that began -- 1993, somewhere around in here. and, you know, maybe there's something funny about that. so let's go all the way back to 1988 and do all the way out to the last 20 years. and what you see -- here's the same trump these are five-year

trends and this is out to 20. in 1992 a volcano went out. the graphs do not have volcanos in them and they would blow up and that's a joke so i can take out the effect of the volcano. it's a very easy thing to do that. i published a paper on that with my colleague a couple of years ago, a few years ago. anyway, you see now on out 15 to 20 years it's very clear that the models are falling beneath 95% confidence level on both sides or the .97.5 confidence level on the cold side. this is failure. a1b models are failing. this is the dirty secret. and the temperature record i'm using here for comparison happens to be the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate changes, most cited temperature record, the record from the university. and it's, in fact, the one that they relied upon solely for most of their publications.

another problem is this. this is published by a year ago. it was a paper on the distribution of sea surface temperatures in the atlantic and in the tropical pacific and it was concluded that it's not likely to warm for another few years. more recently, another paper came out a couple weeks ago where somebody said -- i think it was from the university wisconsin-milwaukee that this could run out for 30 years. but, therefore, we need to do something now. excuse me, but i want to ask you a question. taking a look at the -- each one of these individual models does anybody here see a 15-year period in which there's no warming in any one of these models? no. and by the way, here's a cooling in one of these down here. you can see it starts with a la nina in a five-year interval. no, all of them show warming trends so it's very, very clear so what's happening is outside

of the range, the statistically confident range of our computer models. other misconceptions in the climate of fear. unchallenged assumptions. this one is a whopper. atmospheric methane. that's the second most important green house gas that we put in. and it has generally thought to result from four sources. one, bovine flatulence. you think that's funny. but the new zealand government is spending an incredibly amount of money to try to get sheep that produce less methane because new zealand has an awful lot of sheep and there's a lot of pressure to reduce emissions in the cap-and-trade program or something like that. bovine flatulence is not going down and there are an increasing number of bovines. rice paddy agriculture. the last i heard more people are eating more food. coal mining. well, that's not going down. people might think it is but it's not. and there's a lot of methane

that's released at the face where you mine the coal down there. or leaky pipes. it was thought that the soviet union's pipes were so -- natural gas pipes were so leaky that methane was leaking in the atmosphere but that was a long time ago so we've got to end that. let's take a look at the assumptions for methane in the atmosphere. this is from the united nations again their a1b mid range scenario. what do you see? it starts at about 1500 parts per billion in the atmosphere and it keeps going up, up, up to 2050, at the same rate. this is what's used today. in the latest compendium by the ipcc. here are the concentrations of methane in the atmosphere. while they were being predicted to increase at the same rate. the concentration was beginning to drop.

so that finally in recent years, there are actually some years in which the concentration in the atmosphere has gone negative. and yet this wasn't -- nobody challenged this in the ipcc process. i was a reviewer. i wrote, hey, look at these numbers. no change. so that's the climate of extremes that's not just in public discourse. it's clearly in the scientific discourse. well, you know, this is cato and i would be foolhardy if i said this but, in fact, there's an assumption that people are, that as places warm, as our cities warm, people will just slowly fry and die. that there will not be adaptation. the united nations wrote that by the year 2020 the death rate in cities in north america, that's here, from heat-related deaths in heat waves will increase several fold. you know, obviously, the temperature has been going up so let's take a look. the cities provide us is

wonderful natural laboratory but before we do that, let's take a look at the heat wave of the summer of 2003 in europe, which we all know was caused by global warming. this was the integrated atmospheric temperature in the lower atmosphere. this is published by case in 2006. i talk about it in my book. this is the best way we measure temperature. and you can see if you look at the temperature departures from normal that most of the world is kind of this color right here for the summer of 2003. in other words, it was a cool summer. embedded in this cool summer is this tiny bubble of hot, very, very hot air which just happened to be centered over europe. if you take a look at other summers, particularly, el nino summers, you'll see this entire map might be a little bit orange or have an awful lot of orange on it. this was not an unusual summer at all and it's very, very hard to relate an anomaly of that scale that small to say it was

caused by global warming but nonetheless we might as well and we can make a computer model to predict how many deaths that would produce. this is in 2008. 2003, the solid line is the observed mortality. whoops, solid line is the observed mortality and the dash line is a standard computer model for mortality in france. and you can see that the observed deaths dramatically exceeded those from the computer. about 19 or 20 per 100,000 people with the computer predicting about 15 per 100,000 people. this is a disaster of major proportion. but the fact is that people aren't stupid. and that they do adapt. down here is the heat wave of 2006 in france which i bet you didn't hear about. nobody heard about it. but, in fact, it was just about as warm as 2003. not enough people died to make

headlines. here's the predicted warming. you can see the predicted warming in 2006. it's just about the same as the predicted warming in 2003. or predicted number of deaths, i'm sorry. and here are the observed number of deaths in 2003. what happened? people adapted and they do it worldwide. they've been doing it in the united states. we in our cities, heat-related death has been declining for decades. and, in fact, the more frequent heat waves are in our cities, the fewer people die. you know, we hear it's the old and it's the infirm that die in the city in a heat wave. well, the places where there are the least heat-related deaths are tampa and phoenix. these are cities with the oldest age distribution in the country. there is one city in the united states where heat-related deaths are going up. that's seattle.

it has the youngest age distribution amongst the population of cities that we looked at. but it also has the coldest summers so it's very clear. where heat excursions are frequent, people are adapted and there's not very much mortality and where they are infrequent they will begin to adapt. they did in france. in france so many people died in 2003 because of lack of air conditioning. it was thought to be an american invention. we don't want this artificial air. you should see what air conditioners sales did between 2003 and 2006 in france. and the political process adapted. shelters were set up where you could go if it was hot that had this wonder called air conditioning. and mortality dropped dramatically. we saw the same thing in chicago. the great heat wave in the mid-1990s had 700 excess deaths. a similar heat wave took place and excess death toll was

minimal. the city adapted. nobody -- elected officials do not do well when bodies pile up in the street when it gets hot. adaptation occurs of global warming. i have two more examples of simply not checking the facts. these two are shocking to me and will demonstrate the bipartisan nature of climate of the change. my favorite here is something called warming island. now, you may remember this story from couple of years ago. this is john collins rudolf writing in the "new york times" january, 16th, 2007.

>> and it's a cult. type google warming island and see how many hits you get on it. here's warming island. it's got an interesting shape. this is a lancet image from 1985 and you can see it's connected to the rest of greenland. by 2002, the ice ridge is become less and less and by 2005, in fact, it opens up and reveals itself to be an island. here's a current relatively current map of greenland showing what people thought. this is the place called carlsbad fjord and you see this on the edge of greenland and this was presumed to be a part of the mainland. now, every scientist who studied greenland knows that it was

warmer or as warm for an integrated period much longer than the current time in the early and mid-20th century. and it just turns out that there's a weather station which is about 50 nautical miles away from warming island. it's not very far at all. it doesn't take that many clicks to get to this data either. it takes a few more than it does to get to the u.s. data but the danish meteorological institute has a very, very nice set of weather records around greenland. the integrated warming for the last 10 years around warming island would average somewhere around here and i would submit that's not much different than what you see here from the mid-1920s to the mid-1960s. what fact-checking editor would not ask, hey, has that been this warm in the past? or, b, is it really true that this thing has not been uncovered for millennia or something going back into the last ice age.

and a climate of extremes you don't bother. more importantly, apparently, no scientist chimes in and says, hey, wait a minute, it was warmer back in the early 20th century. you better check on that before you go with this story. well, how long did it take my assistant to find this book? not very long. published by a fellow -- written by a guy named ernst hofer. it was a book talking about how warm it is in eastern greenland. he did aerial photography. he assisted the expeditionary and scientific crews that would go out to greenland. you know, it's a lot cheaper to go to greenland than antarctica. you still see a lot of ice and it's real thick and you can do a lot of scientific work in greenland. well, anyway, so arctic riviera

contained a map, which i would like to show to you. here's northeast greenland. if you read closely that's carlsbad fjord and if you look closely, oh, my god! there's the three-fingered island from a book published in 1957. nobody bothered to check on this. and it was covered not in the "new york times" print edition when this map was uncovered by my assistant but in a blog. and mr. schmitt's response was his map has to be wrong. well, i haven't seen another map yet. so things that we say are true go unquestioned in this climate and like i said, it's not just one party. i'd like to close with the red red koyapigaktoruk comes bob,

bob, bobbin along. robins in the arctic. you've all heard this. senator john mccain, 2004, the language 10,000 years never had a word for robin and now there are robins all over their villages. the bbc program on climate change title, no word for robin, climate change in the canadian arctic. okay, where are the fact-checkers on this one. come on. there are staffers over here on the hill that had to have had a computer, which would be connected to the library of congress. there are fact checkers at the bbc who could connect with the british museum. or whatever. 1953, the journal arctic, volume

6 pages 35-43 by l. irving, the naming of birds by the nunamiut eskimo. robin equals koyapigaktoruk. nobody bothered to check. or in 1913, a great book by the way. this guy went and lived up there. my life among the eskimo. mackenzie eskimo or alaskan eskimo. and ironically, the 2004 quote by mccain was related to a trip to alaska. so there you have it. we have a book detailing this and we discuss why it happened. that's beyond -- i'll talk about it in the q & a if you want. is there are several reasons for it. be very careful when you hear one of the following.

there's no such thing as global warming or, two, it's the end of the world and here's why. usually, the facts have not been checked. the truth lies somewhere in between. and our computer models are clearly overestimating the amount of warming that's occurring. i think that's going to have enormous policy implications. now what i'd like to do is give this podium over to my colleague, dave, whom i worked with for years and years and years and you're going to find out that we don't agree. on everything. we agree on some things. he's an associate professor of climatology at the university of delaware and also in the college of earth, ocean and atmospheric scientist. he's been the delaware state climatologist from 2002 to the present. his governor enjoined him against speaking out against climate change as state climatologist so i'm sure he'll have nothing to say about

climate change as state climatologist. govenor kaine asked me not to do the same which is why i will be full-time at cato starting july 1. at least i can speak freely. and he is also the director of one of the world's most unique microand mesometeorological system where people have learned a tremendous amount of fine scale distribution of climate within a small city, within a large city from farm to farm. this is the real high tech stuff. dave is one of the best people in the world at this. he holds his b.a., m.a. and ph.d. from delaware but he left there to go to the university of oklahoma for 9 1/2 years and delaware, which is the only institution, by the way, in the united states that actually gives a ph.d. in climatology wanted him back at that program and that's why he is there now. david, your commentary.