This post is available in:
English
Version 2.10, Dec. 4, 2018: Update to the interesting addition
Version 2.00, Dec. 3, 2018: One very interesting addition
Version 1.00, Copenhagen, Nov. 28, 2018
It’s important to understand that there is not the huge consensus about the cause of the current climate changes among scientists that we are being told by the money-elite-controlled Western mainstream media. (About the hidden central control over the media, for instance search for Udo Ulfkotte. In Danish or German, see also Die Propaganda- Matrix.)
Most people probably believe that the UN climate panel – the IPCC – is a scientific organization. If that was the case, their purpose would sound something like this:
“Find the factors that control or have significant influence on Earth’s climate and try to quantify their importance.”
But the IPCC is a politically ruled organization. And its purpose is not to understand the climate and convey that understanding. The IPCC’s purpose is political – and a bit obscure or complicated to understand.
Many of the scientists who’s names are in the report as supporters and contributors have contributed with critical comments that have been distorted or censored out by the political leadership of the IPCC. But their names are still on the list as if they support the report’s conclusions!
Therefore there exist:
1: An alternative report.
2: A very critical analysis of whether the IPCC’s report can be regarded as science at all.
3: Several petitions of scientists against the false consensus of the IPCC on man made climate change.
Traditionally the oil (and coal) industry has been seen as the big crock, and in many ways it is a very dirty industry! (See for instance James Corbett’s documentary How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World.) But the idea that man made CO2 emissions is causing the climate change and extreme weather (and the earthquakes and volcanoes…?) is a very effective way of diverting the attention away from things like the approaching solar minimum (called the Eddy minimum), which might cause a new ‘mini ice-age’ like around The Maunder Minimum 400 years ago, also known as the “prolonged sunspot minimum” – the period around 1645 to 1715 during which sunspots became exceedingly rare!
| Addition in version 2.00, Dec. 3, 2018: |
|---|
The UN climate panel (IPCC) reveal themselves that they are editing the “scientific report” to conform to the political ‘messages’ of the UN!You wouldn’t believe it, but the IPCC’s own website reveals that their “scientific” report is NOT scientific! It is systematically edited to conform to the ‘messages’ or positions or political projects that the UN diplomats or politicians have negotiated and published in the form of the “Summary for Policymakers”!! Check it for yourself!: Jan. 17, 2019: Note! Now the above mentioned PDF-document has been moved to here Love, Update in version 2.10, Dec. 4, 2018: In the paragraph above there is a link called “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15)”. Originally (yesterday) this link pointed to https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/. But now that page has totally changed, and it does no longer contain a link to the document Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers! Therefore I have had to change the text above! Maybe the IPCC decided to change that page to hide that document, now that James Corbett has revealed it’s existence…!? |
1. An alternative report
The fact that the IPCC-reports do not reflect what science knows – and still doesn’t know – about the climate, has motivated a total of 83 climate researchers from around the world to write the Independent Summary for Policymakers – IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (ISPM) in 2007. 29 of them wrote the report itself and the other 54 evaluated and commented on it. Researchers are quite diplomatic, but among other things, they said the following in the preface to the report, about what is wrong with the IPCC:
” … chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a prominent or flattering light. … Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.
A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.
Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein.”
The fact that climate researchers feel pressured to conform to the idea of man made climate change by political and economic forces is reflected in the fact that 11 of the 54 reviewers asked for anonymity. The so-called ‘independent research’ is thus not actually free and independent! The fact that scientists do not dare say what they really think, means that we are on a slippery slope that can have very destructive consequences. The Danish climate professor Ole Humlum, who is one of the 54 reviewers, writes in his book Det ustyrlige klima (The Uncontrollable Climate) of 2009:
“Unfortunately, the politicization of the climate has had the alarming effect on free fundamental research, in many countries, that a number of interesting issues are not currently subject to a purposeful critical scientific analysis. Many researchers have an understandable disinclination towards working critically with these questions, even though, by the very nature of this problem, it is difficult to document the extent of the problem.”
2. A very critical analysis of whether the IPCC’s report can be regarded as science at all
The 19-page report Global warming: Forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasts is an analysis of whether the IPCC complies with the scientific principles for climate forecasts. It was printed in the scientific journal Energy & Environment, Volume 18, December 2007. It was written by Kesten C. Green, Monash University, Australia and J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania, USA. The latter is the author of the book “Long-Range Forecasting”. The article delivers a rather devastating critique of the methods of the IPCC. Here is the whole abstract:
“ In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The Report included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature increases. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked: Are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is “no”. To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one would need to forecast (1) global temperature, (2) the effects of any temperature changes, and (3) the effects of feasible alternative policies. Proper forecasts of all three are necessary for rational policy making. The IPCC WG1 Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term forecasts of global average temperatures by 31 of the 51 scientists and others involved in forecasting climate change who responded to our survey. We found no references in the 1056-page Report to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods despite the fact these are conveniently available in books, articles, and websites. We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder. “
3. Several petitions of scientists against the false consensus of the IPCC on man made climate change
The scientific article Environmental Effects of CO totally disagrees with the IPCC’s conclusions and recommendations. The article is the basis for Global Warming Petition Project – which has been signed by over 31,000 scientists and people with a university degree in the USA – 9,029 PhD; 7,177 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS. See also Qualifications of Signers. It calls on the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol or other attempts to reduce CO2 emissions.
For comparison, about 600 researchers have been involved in the UN IPCC reports. On the petition website in Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research you can find the following wording:
“ The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy. “
(In Frequently Asked Questions it says:
“ The authors chose to submit this article for peer-review and publication by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons because that journal was willing to waive its copyright and permit extensive reproduction and distribution of the article by the Petition Project. “)
Both the article Climate Change Reexamined from 2007 from the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years from 2007 claim that when the total number of signatories amounted to 19,000 (or 17,000 respectively), it included 2600 “with climate science credentials”.
That book – written by S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus from the University of Virginia and Dennis T. Avery, page 65 says:
” It is sheer fantasy to suggest that a huge majority of scientists with expertise in global climate change endorse an alarming interpretation of the recent climate data. In fact the footnoted studies in this book include hundreds of climate-science authors whose work argues against the alarmist view of climate change. “
That book mentions a number of other petitions, surveys etc. among climate researchers etc.:
In 1997: Survey of State Climate Experts Casts Doubt on Link Between Human Activity and Global Warming :
” Forty-eight states have official climatologists. Of the 48, American Viewpoints was able to contact and survey 36 of them. Ninety-two percent of the climatologists said they did not receive direct funding from state or federal environmental protection agencies, and 86 percent said they did not receive direct funding from business or industry. ”
“ Fifty-eight percent of the state climatologists surveyed said they disagreed with President Clinton’s claim that “the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real” and with the statement that “there is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate*” Only 36 percent of the climatologists agreed with Clinton’s assertion.
By a 44 to 17 percent margin, climatologists say that “recent global warming is a largely natural phenomenon,” while nine out of 10 of the climatologists surveyed agreed that “scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally-occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time.”
…
”Sixty-one percent of the state climate experts said historical data does not indicate “that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels,” and nearly all said the earth “experienced large global temperature fluctuations with both warming and cooling periods prior to the beginning of the industrial age” and the advent of burning fossil fuels.
Countering claims by theorists that weather patterns have been changing due to global warming, 72 percent of state climatologists say weather events in their states in the past 25 years have not been more severe or frequent. Among the19 percent who said they were, less than a third attributed the changed weather patterns to global warming. “
” In 1997 fully 90% of State Climatologists did not agree with the AGW Hypothesis ”
(AGW=Anthropogenic Global Warming).
In 1996: The Leipzig Declaration On Global Climate Change (over 100 climate researchers signed).
In 1992: Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (about 100 signed) and The Heidelberg Appeal (over 4000 signed).
Plus, on wikipedia you can find a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Love,
Henrik Rosenø
This post is available in:
English
