3.12.5 Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC
en Skeptical Scientists at the IPCC
fr Scientifiques sceptiques au GIEC
Mit folgenden Links wird von anderen Webseiten auf diese Seite verwiesen:
▶Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC
de Allgemein en General fr Générale
-
Climatism / Jamie Spry
2020-03-07 de 46 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Against The IPCC46 enlightening statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC:
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."Timothy Wirth
Fmr President of the UN Foundation
de Verzeichnis en Contents fr Sommaire
|
|
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Tom Tripp
| Tom Tripp |
Metallurgical engineer, Director of Technical
Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium IPCC-Leitautor, Member of the UN IPCC since 2004 ▶Tom Tripp: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Tom Tripp: Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC) |
Hadley (CRUT3v) and MSU (Satellite Lower Trop) Temps vs CO₂
|
|
|
|
de Das CO₂ steigt und die Temperaturen fallen.
Wenn das CO₂ die Erwärmung erklärt,
muss es auch die Abkühlung erklären ...
oder es muss eine andere Erklärung
gefunden werden, en CO₂ is rising and the temperatures are falling.
If the CO₂ explains the warming,
it must also explain the cooling ...
or another explanation must be found fr Le CO₂ monte et les températures baissent.
Si le CO₂ explique le réchauffement,
il doit aussi expliquer le refroidissement ...
ou bien une autre explication doit être trouvée, |
▶Das CO₂ steigt und die Temperaturen fallen
-
Klimaskeptiker Info
2009-07-17 de Tom Tripp, IPCC-Leitautor: "Menschengemachte Ursachen globaler Erwärmung sind nicht wissenschaftlich gesichert" (Wayback‑Archiv)Tom Tripp ist seit 2004 Mitglied des IPCC und steht auf der Liste der 450 "Leitautoren", hat die Berichte von 800 Wissenschaftler geprüft.
Seine Arbeit wurde wiederum von 2500 Experten weltweit geprüft.
Auf der Tagung des Utah Farm Bureau fand Tripp in den 250 Teilnehmern der Konferenz ein dankbares Publikum.
Er sagte, es gebe so viel natürliche Variabilität im Wetter, daß es schwer sei, zu einem wissenschaftlich gesicherten Schluß darüber zu gelangen, daß die globale Erwärmung vom Menschen verursacht wird.
"Es könnte so sein, aber wir sind wissenschaftlich noch nicht dort angelangt."
Er kritisierte auch Modellierungspläne zur Beurteilung der globalen Erwärmung, wollte sich aber nicht direkt zu den Klimamodellen äußern, wie sie vom IPCC verwendet werden, und sagte: "Ich bin kein Experte dafür."
-
Watts Up With That? (Anthony Watts)
2009-07-17 en IPCC lead author on Global Warming conclusions: "we're not scientifically there yet"Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004, is listed as one of 450 IPCC "lead authors" who reviewed reports from 800 contributing writers whose work in turn, was reviewed by more than 2,500 experts worldwide.
(Tripp, a metallurgical engineer, is the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.) [...]
At Thursday's [Utah Farm Bureau] convention, Tripp found a receptive audience among the 250 people attending the conference.
He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.
"It well may be, but we're not scientifically there yet."
Tripp also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying "I don't have the expertise".
-
The Salt Lake Tribune
2009-07-17 en Farm Bureau blasts human-cased global warming
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Nils-Axel Mörner
|
Nils-Axel Mörner *1938 †2020-10-16 |
Dr., Head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at
Stockholm University in Sweden. 2000-2007 Hauptberichterstatter beim IPCC für den Meeresspiegel-Anstieg. ▶Nils-Axel Mörner: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Nils-Axel Mörner: Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC) ▶Nils-Axel Mörner: Video (Präsentationen) ▶Ausschluss und Maulkorb für Kritiker (Nils-Axel Mörner und das IPCC) |
en "I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year (2007).
The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised.
First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them, none, were sea-level specialists.
They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue"
... "If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere.
But they (IPCC) need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat."
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Vincent Gray
| Vincent Gray |
Dr., M.A.,Ph.D., F.N.Z.I.C., Climate Consultant, Wellington, Neuseeland
▶Vincent Gray: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Paul Reiter: Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC) ▶Ausschluss und Maulkorb für Kritiker (Sind die IPCC Rapporte korrumpiert?) ▶Anschuldigungen an das IPCC (Sind die IPCC Rapporte korrumpiert?) |
Ist das IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) korrumpiert?
-
EIKE Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie
2008-07-25 de Ist das IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) korrumpiert ?Der international hoch geachtete Klimaforscher Dr.Vincent Gray aus Neuseeland - als IPCC Gutachter Insider dieses Gremiums und schon seit 1990 dabei - ist sich dessen sicher.
Er erhebt schwerste Vorwürde ("... the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage, would be its abolition.") gegen das IPCC und fordert dessen sofortige Auflösung.
Er belegt diese Vorwürfe umfassend in seiner gerade erschienenen Kritik "THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE: SPINNING THE CLIMATE" zu deutsch etwa:
"DAS IPCC DREHT SICH DAS KLIMA ZURECHT!"
Darin beschreibt er detailliert seine langen Erfahrungen, wie die führenden Leute innerhalb des redaktionellen Kreises des IPCC mit der Wahrheit, der wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis, erforderlichen Korrekturen, nicht genehmen Ergebnissen und unerwünschten Gutachtern umgehen.
Seine bittere und niederschmetternde Zusammenfassung liest sich so:
Ich war vom ersten Anfang an einer der 'Expertengutachter' des IPCC und habe eine recht große Anzahl von Kommentaren zu den Entwürfen beigesteuert.
Kürzlich wurde mitgeteilt, dass ich 1.878 Kommentare zum letzten Entwurf des gegenwärtigen 4. IPCC-Berichts eingereicht hätte.
Über den gesamten Zeitraum habe ich intensiv die Daten und Verfahren derjenigen untersucht, die an den IPCC Studien in ihrer ganzen Bandbreite mitgewirkt haben.
Ich habe eine große Bibliothek an Nachdrucken, Büchern und Kommentaren.
Viele meiner Kommentare liegen in gedruckten Aufsätzen, in einem Buch, und in gelegentlichen Rundschreiben öffentlich vor.
Ihre Zahl beläuft sich zur Zeit auf insgesamt 157.
Ich begann die Arbeit im Vertrauen auf die wissenschaftliche Ethik, nämlich dass Wissenschaftler Fragen ehrlich beantworten und ihre wissenschaftlichen Argumente ausschließlich auf Tatsachen, Logik und gültige wissenschaftlichen und mathematische Prinzipien gründen.
Gleich von Anfang an bereiteten mir die Verfahren des IPCC Schwierigkeit.
Eindringliche Fragen blieben oft ohne jede Antwort.
Kommentare zu den IPCC-Entwürfen wurden ohne Erklärung zurückgewiesen, und Versuche, den Fragen nachzugehen, wurden uneingeschränkt abgewürgt.
Im Lauf der Jahre habe ich mehr über die Daten und Verfahren des IPCC gelernt, ich bin zunehmend auf Widerstand gestoßen, wenn ich Erklärungen anbieten wollte, bis ich schließlich zu dem Schluss gezwungen war, dass die Datenerfassung und wissenschaftlichen Methoden, die der IPCC in beträchtlichen Teilen seiner Arbeit anwandte, unzuverlässig sind.
Der Widerstand gegen alle Bemühungen, diese Probleme zu untersuchen und zu diskutieren oder zu korrigieren, hat mich davon überzeugt, dass normale, wissenschaftliche Verfahren nicht nur vom IPCC abgewiesen werden, sondern auch davon, dass diese Praktiken endemisch und vom ersten Anfang an Teil dieser Organisation waren.
Ich gehe daher davon aus, dass der IPCC von Grund auf korrumpiert ist.
Die einzige 'Reform', die ich mir vorstellen könnte, wäre seine Abschaffung."
Das "International Panel for Climate Change", das in der deutschen Presse oft zum "Weltklimarat" hochstilisiert wurde, besteht nur aus einer relativ kleinen Gruppe von Klima-Experten, Verwaltungsbeamten und Politikern, und wurde 1988 von interessierten Kreisen speziell dazu gegründet, einen "menschengemachten Klimawandel" nachzuweisen.
Es war also nie die Aufgabe des IPCC, die Klimaentwicklung neutral oder sachlich zu untersuchen, sondern nur die anthropogenen Einflüsse zu propagieren.
Dieser angebliche "menschliche Einfluss" auf das Klima basiert auf der Hypothese, dass die CO₂-Emissionen einen globalen Temperaturanstieg verursachen würden.
Einen solchen Anstieg gab es jedoch nur von 1975 bis 2000.
Dies wird heute von seriösen Fachleuten als natürliche Klimaschwankung betrachtet, genauso wie die gegenwärtige globale Temperaturabnahme.
Die Theorie vom "Klimakiller" CO₂ konnte trotz großem Forschungs- und noch größerem Publicity-Aufwand bis heute nicht experimentell nachgewiesen werden.
Im Gegenteil, die Tatsache, dass trotz ständig steigender CO₂-Emissionen die globalen Temperaturen seit zehn Jahren nicht weiter steigen, sondern erst konstant klar unter dem Niveau von 1998 blieben und seit mehr als drei Jahren deutlich abnehmen, beweist, dass die Wirkung von CO₂ auf das Klima minimal ist.
Da sich viele Politiker und Journalisten im "Kampf gegen den Klimawandel" stark engagiert haben, fällt es ihnen jetzt außerordentlich schwer, einen Irrtum einzugestehen.
Stattdessen versucht man, das Märchen vom "menschengemachten Klimawandel", das in Deutschland zur Staatsreligion erhoben wurde, mit allen Mitteln aufrecht zu erhalten, um vor den Bürgern weitere Abgaben und Steuern zu rechtfertigen.
Dr. Gray hält nach vielen fruchtlosen Versuchen das IPCC für nicht reformierbar, überdies völlig von fremden Geldern total abhängig und fordert daher seine sofortige Auflösung.
Michael Limburg unter Mitwirkung von Dr. D. Kölle. Die Worddatei im Anhang enthält den vollständigen Text von Dr. V. Gray
SPINNING THE CLIMATE
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
-
Vincent Gray
2009-05-13 en SPINNING THE CLIMATE: THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)PREFACE
I have spent a lifetime on scientific research.
My father was a working class intellectual, eager for knowledge.
He took me to all the London museums and I remember a visit to the Royal Albert Hall to see the Exhibition which celebrated the discovery of Electromagnetic Induction by Michael Faraday.
This must have been 1931 when I was 9 years old.
My secondary school in London, Latymer Upper, had top scientists, as the only job those days was teaching.
I won a Major scholarship to Emmanuel College Cambridge and obtained a PhD degree from war work on flame thrower and incendiary bomb fuels.
I avoided academia as I wished to help industry, and over the years I had a range of jobs with industrial research organisations working on oil, protein, plastics, fibres, paint, adhesives, building, coal and forensic science in The UK, France, Canada and New Zealand.
I published well over 100 scientific papers, several patents and several Chapters on books.
After retiring from my job in New Zealand in 1987 I worked for four and a half years in China on coal slurries.
The colleges, in Hangzhou, and in Kunming, where I taught English during my last year, had excellent libraries of science journals in English.
I became interested in the Greenhouse Effect and gave several lectures on the subject in China.
In a visit back to New Zealand in 1989 I was invited to comment on the drafts of the Supplement to the First Report (published 1992) that had been circulated to my former employer from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
These comments were submitted, amongst others, by the Director, R.S Whitney.
I submitted comments as a Reviewer for all of the subsequent IPCC Reports, including the Fifth Report, which is now pending.
The IPCC is claimed by some to have provided evidence that the earth's climate is harmed by changes in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
These claims are false.
This report explains how dubious observations and some genuine science has been distorted and "spun" to support a global campaign to limit human emissions of certain greenhouse gases which has no scientific basis and no proven capacity to forecast future climate
-
Vincent Gray
2006-05-31 en
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
Consensus ? Vous avez dit consensus ? Même au sein du GIEC, il n'existe pas !
-
fr
Vincent Gray est depuis 1991 et jusqu'à nos jours inclus, un
des relecteurs officiels et attitrés des différents rapports
pondus par le GIEC
Evidemment, le rapport final du GIEC s'est empressé de passer sous silence ces critiques fondamentales qui viennent pourtant de l'un de ses membres les plus éminents tout comme d'ailleurs de celles de son Vice Président Yuri Izrael. Le bureau du GIEC serait obligé de renier tous les discours alarmistes qu'il a tenu depuis le début...
Bizarre .. et inquiétant. N'est-ce pas ? Le rapport final du GIEC ne tient aucun compte des préventions de son Vice-Président et d'un de ses meilleurs experts. Pas plus d'ailleurs que les vives critiques de trois autres de ses experts officiels : Paul Reiter, Richard S. Courtney et Peter Dietze qui ont tous signé en 2006 une pétition auprès du gouvernement Canadien le mettant en garde contre l'application du protocole de Kyoto sur des base scientifiques infondées. On se demande qui tire les ficelles au GIEC .
Pensée unique fr Vincent Gray
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Paul Reiter
| Paul Reiter |
Professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris,
France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society. He is a specialist in mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. ▶Paul Reiter: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Paul Reiter: Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC) ▶Paul Reiter: Video (Präsentationen) ▶Ausschluss und Maulkorb für Kritiker (Sind die IPCC Rapporte korrumpiert?) ▶Anschuldigungen an das IPCC (Sind die IPCC Rapporte korrumpiert?) ▶Paul Reiter: Sites web (français) |
de "Der Global-Warming-Alarm kommt im Gewand der Wissenschaft daher, aber es handelt sich dabei nicht um Wissenschaft. Es ist Propaganda."
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Richard Lindzen
|
Richard S. Lindzen *1940-02-08 |
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth,
Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences US-Klimatologe, Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), Membre de l'Académie des sciences américaine et ex-représentant auprès du GIEC ▶Richard S. Lindzen: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Richard S. Lindzen: Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC) ▶Richard S. Lindzen: Video (Präsentationen) ▶Ausschluss und Maulkorb für Kritiker (Richard Lindzen und das IPCC) ▶Ausschluss und Maulkorb für Kritiker (Das renommierte amerikanische Museum für nationale Geschichte (AMNH) in New York Opfer des Klimakriegs) |
de "Die Menschen werden mit Propaganda zugeballert.
Al Gore ist eine Kombination aus Verrücktheit und Korruption.
Ich weiß nicht, was er bezweckt.
Er hat starke finanzielle Interessen.
Ich glaube, er will Milliardär werden."
de
-
EIKE Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie Jena
2009-04-02 de Harvard Klimatologe Prof. Lindzen widerlegt postulierte Treibhau-Verstärkungseffekt des IPCCDie gesamte alarmistische Klima-Hypothese des IPCC basiert auf der Annahme einer positiven Verstärkung des minimalen theoretischen CO₂-Treibhaus-Effektes,durch Wasserdampf in der Atmosphäre, die man auch in allen Klima-Rechenmodellen zugrunde gelegt hat.
Der Effekt von CO₂ alleine ist außerordentlich gering: nur etwa 0,6 °C bei CO₂-Verdoppelung entsprechend dem international anerkannten MODTRANS-Rechenprogramm für die Strahlungsphysik der Atmosphäre.
Für die IPCC-Annahme einer 5-fachen Verstärkung durch Wasserdampf (beziehungsweise einer 2,5 bis 10-fachen Verstärkung, so genau weiß man es leider nicht) gab es jedoch bisher keinen Beweis.
Basierend auf seinem Vortrag bei der 2. Internationalen Klima-Konferenz in New York im März 2009 hat der bekannte amerikanische Klimaforscher und Meteorologie-Professor Richard Lindzen vom MIT nachgewiesen, dass es keinen positiven (Verstärkungs-) Effekt durch Wasserdampf existiert, sondern dass im Gegenteil eine negative Verstärkung auftritt, d.h. eine Abschwächung des Erwärmungseffektes durch CO₂-Anstieg eintritt.
Diese grundsätzliche Tatsache wird durch den TemperaturVerlauf in der Erdgeschichte bestätigt.
en
-
Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, gave one of the keynote addresses Sunday, March 8, 2009 at the second International Conference on Climate Change.
2009-08-03 de Climate Alarm: What We Are Up Against, and What to Do (Wayback‑Archiv)Global warming alarm has always been a political movement, and opposing it has always been an up-hill battle.
In this talk I wish to point out some simple truths that are often forgotten by our side of this issue.
First, being skeptical about global warming does not, by itself, make one a good scientist; nor does endorsing global warming make one, per se, a poor scientist.
Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming.
The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming.
Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier.
For example,
my colleague, Kerry Emanuel, received relatively little recognition until he suggested that hurricanes might become stronger in a warmer world (a position that I think he has since backed away from somewhat).
He then was inundated with professional recognition.
Another colleague,
Carl Wunsch, professionally calls into question virtually all alarmist claims concerning sea level, ocean temperature, and ocean modeling, but assiduously avoids association with skeptics; if nothing else, he has several major oceanographic programs to worry about.
Moreover, his politics are clearly liberal.
Perhaps the most interesting example
is Wally Broecker, whose work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates.
However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so.
For a much larger group of scientists,
the fact that they can make ambiguous or even meaningless statements that can be spun by alarmists, and that the alarming spin leads politicians to increase funding, provides little incentive to complain about the spin.
Second, most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority.
For much of the public,
authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with science.
For a basically political movement,
as the global warming issue most certainly is, an important task is to coopt the sources of authority.
This, the global warming movement has done with great success.
Thus, for over 20 years, the National Academy had a temporary nominating group designed to facilitate the election of environmental activists.
The current president of the academy is one of these.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has been headed by James McCarthy and John Holdren in recent years, and these have been public advocates for global warming alarm.
Holdren is now President Barack Obama's science advisor.
There are numerous further examples.
How often have we heard a legitimate scientific argument answered by the claim that the alarmist scenario is endorsed by, for example, the American Physical Society (regardless of their lack of expertise in the issue)?
How often have you heard innocuous claims by some society or another taken as endorsements of alarm?
How often have you heard that any particular argument has been dealt with by realclimate.org (a clear advocacy Web site designed to assure warming alarmists that the basis for alarm still exists)?
Third, the success with respect to the second item also gives the climate alarm movement control over carrots and sticks
- which, in turn, is what makes it convenient for most scientists to go along.
Note that the carrots are as important as the sticks.
Thus, for example, John Holdren was long on the board of the MacArthur Foundation, which has awarded 'genius' grants to numerous environmental activists.
Ironically, an award allegedly honoring the late Bill Nierenberg, a very perceptive and active skeptic of climate alarm, is now given annually to an alarmist.
One could go on at great length.
The process of coopting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science
- especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding.
Most funding for climate would not be there without this issue.
And, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change.
All impacts depend on regional forecasts,
and quoting the leading scientist at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (widely regarded as the foremost atmospheric modeling center), Tim Palmer,
such forecasts are no better than guesses.
Nonetheless, regional forecasts are at the heart of numerous state initiatives to 'fight' climate change.
These initiatives are usually prepared by the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), a Pennsylvania-based environmental advocacy group that purports to help states determine for themselves how to develop climate change policies.
In reality, according to Paul Chesser of the John Locke Foundation, CCS tightly controls these commissions, who consider proposals mostly from a menu of options presented by CCS themselves.
Nearly all the choices represent new taxes or higher prices on energy, increased costs of government, new regulations for businesses, and reduced energy-producing options for utilities, and therefore consumers.
CCS is funded largely by a multi-million-dollar global warming alarmist foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
What can be done?
The most obvious point is to persevere, to better understand the science, and to emphasize logic, which ultimately has to trump alleged authority.
Generally, there is a deep disconnect between consensus statements that commonly only repeat the trivial points that there has been some warming and that man's emissions have caused some part of this, and the claims of catastrophe made by advocates; stress these differences.
With respect to better understanding the science, it is my view that the observations of almost a decade ago that outgoing long wave radiation associated with warmer surface temperatures was much greater than models predicted; this was as good evidence that model sensitivities were much too high as one could hope for.
However, without an adequate understanding of the physics, the point is largely missed.
How can one communicate this to the public? Actually, the science isn't all that hard.
John Sununu offered an easily appreciated example of positive and negative feedback.
In your car, the gas and brake pedals act as negative feedbacks to reduce speed when you are going too fast and increase it when you are going too slow.
If someone were to reverse the position of the pedals without informing you, then they would act as positive feedbacks: increasing your speed when you are going too fast, and slowing you down when you are going too slow.
Stress that alarming predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks.
The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way?
The answer is unambiguously no.
In the common (though admittedly somewhat inaccurate) picture of the greenhouse effect,
greenhouse substances (mainly thin high clouds and water vapor, but also CO₂, methane, freons, etc.) act as a blanket, inhibiting the emission of infrared (heat) radiation.
We know that in the absence of feedbacks (in which water vapor and clouds allegedly act to amplify the effect of added CO₂), an increase in temperature will lead to a certain increase in this heat radiation (also known as outgoing longwave radiation, OLR).
With positive feedbacks, this amount of radiation will be reduced (in terms of the 'blanket' imagery, the blanket has gotten thicker).
Current models do, indeed, predict this.
We also know that the 1990s temperature was warmer than in the 1980s.
During this period, satellites were measuring the emitted heat radiation.
What at least four groups all confirmed was that emitted heat radiation during the '90s was not only much greater than what models predicted, but also greater than what would have been expected if there were no feedback at all.
This implies that nature is, as any reasonable person might suppose, dominated by stabilizing negative feedbacks rather than destabilizing positive feedbacks.
It has been noted that the climate in models is an example of unintelligent design -- something modelers are far more capable of than is nature.
Getting people (including many scientists) to understand this is crucial.
Once it is understood, the silliness of the whole issue becomes evident -- though those who are committed to warming alarm as the vehicle for a postmodern coup d'etat will obviously try to obfuscate matters.
As important as the above is, it does not eliminate the possible need for more institutional approaches.
These are limited by the minimal resources available to rectify the present situation.
Indeed, given the minimal resources available to those who are truly interested in how climate actually works, and the immense resources and power of the environmental movement, it is astounding that resistance has been as effective as it has been.
That said, one should not underestimate the impressive degree of organization behind the climate alarm movement.
Notable, in this regard, has been the Climate Action Network that has coordinated the activities of hundreds of environmental NGOs since 1989.
However, should some benefactor create a climate institute that could recruit outstanding scientists regardless of their position on global warming, and provide the resources for truly independent research protected from political manipulation, then it is possible that the corrupt state of the science could, in time, be rectified.
So far, however, this would appear to be a pipe dream.
A possibly more practical undertaking would be to undermine the authority of scientific organizations wherein a few activist members have managed to speak for the entire membership.
A major campaign is needed to get thousands of scientists to resign from professional societies
that have taken unrepresentative stands on the warming issue, while making the reason for the resignation unambiguous and public.
This would, in my opinion, be far more effective than simply collecting thousands of signatures for petitions.
The global warming issue has done much to set back climate science.
In particular, the notion that climate is one-dimensional -- which is to say, that it is totally described by some fictitious global mean temperature and some single gross forcing a la increased CO₂ -- is grotesque in its oversimplification.
I must reluctantly add that this error is perpetuated by those attempting to 'explain' climate with solar variability.
Unlike greenhouse forcing, solar forcing is so vague that one can't reject it.
However, acting as though this is the alternative to greenhouse forcing is asking for trouble.
Remember, we are dealing with a small amount of warming
(concentrated in two relatively brief episodes) in an inadequately observed system.
The proper null hypothesis is that there was no need whatsoever for external forcing in order to produce such behavior.
The unsteady and even turbulent motions of the ocean and atmosphere are forever moving heat from one place to another on time scales from days to centuries and, in doing so, they leave the system out of equilibrium with the sun leading to fluctuations in temperature.
The thought that these turbulent fluctuations demand specific causes is absurd -- almost as absurd as calling for specific causes for each whirl in a bubbling brook.
Finally, I would suggest that however grim things may appear, we will eventually win against anthropogenic global warming alarm simply because we are right and they are wrong.
There are many reasons for being confident of this.
However, we have just gone over one of the most important scientific reasons.
The satellite records of outgoing heat radiation show that the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks and that the response to doubled and even quadrupled CO₂ would be minimal.
In a field as primitive as climate science, most of the alleged climate scientists are not even aware of this basic relation.
And these days, one can be confident that once they are, many will, in fact, try to alter the data.
Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the public is not likely to understand this as well.
On the other hand, the fact that the global mean temperature anomaly has not increased statistically significantly since at least 1995, does not actually disprove anthropogenic global warming, but for the public this fact is likely to be crucial.
For some of us, this is an occasional source of frustration, but one must always remember that this is a political rather than a scientific issue, and in a political issue, public perception is important.
Moreover, the temperature record does demonstrate at least one crucial point: namely, that natural climate variability remains sufficiently large to preclude the identification of climate change with anthropogenic forcing.
As the IPCC AR4 noted, the attribution claim, however questionable, was contingent on the assumption that models had adequately handled this natural internal variability.
The temperature record of the past 14 years clearly shows that this assumption was wrong.
To be sure, this period constitutes a warm period in the instrumental record, and, as a result, many of the years will be among the warmest in the record, but this does nothing to mitigate the model failure to show continued warming.
To claim otherwise betrays either gross ignorance or grosser dishonesty.
When it comes to global warming hysteria, neither has been in short supply.
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Yury Izrael
| Yury Izrael |
Directeur de l'Institut de l'Ecologie et
du Climat du Globe de l'Académie des Sciences Russe Vice-President of IPCC (Vice-Président du GIEC) ▶Yury Izrael: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Yury Izrael: Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC) ▶Ausschluss und Maulkorb für Kritiker (Sind die IPCC Rapporte korrumpiert?) ▶Anschuldigungen an das IPCC (Sind die IPCC Rapporte korrumpiert?) |
de "Der Zusammenhang zwischen menschlicher Aktivität und globaler Erwärmung ist nicht erwiesen."
en "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."
fr "Il n'y a aucun lien prouvé entre réchauffement global et activités humaines"
en "The European Union has established by fiat that a two-degree rise in global temperatures would be quite dangerous. However, this data is not scientifically sound."
fr
"L'Union européenne a établi par décret qu'une hausse de 2°C de la
température global serait très dangereuse.
Cependant, cette valeur n'est pas scientifiquement saine."
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Bjørn Lomborg
| Bjørn Lomborg |
Prof. Dr, Dänischer Politologe, Statistiker und Buchautor Danish author, academic, and environmentalist. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. ▶Bjørn Lomborg: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Bjørn Lomborg: Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC) ▶Bjørn Lomborg: Video (Präsentationen) ▶Ausschluss und Maulkorb für Kritiker (IPCC ⬌ Bjørn Lomborg) |
-
Video Report 2007
2007-05-23 de
IPCC zensiert Klimawissenschaftler Klimaschwindel
Das IPCC macht renommierte Klimawissemschaftler mundtot.
Report München ARD - Global Warming Swindle Klimaschwindel
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Stephen McIntyre
| Stephen McIntyre |
He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the
University of Toronto. He studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford. ▶Stephen McIntyre: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Stephen McIntyre: Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC) ▶Stephen McIntyre: Websites (English) ▶Ausschluss und Maulkorb für Kritiker (Stephen McIntyre und das IPCC) |
-
en Stephen McIntyre is the primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data.
He is most prominent as a critic of the temperature record of the past 1000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, and the data quality of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Wikipedia en Stephen McIntyre
-
fr Stephen McIntyre, l'un des membre du GIEC AR4 a trouvé que des portions du rapport étaient basées sur des informations non publiées.
Quand il a tenté d'obtenir ces informations, le GIEC a menacé de lui retirer son accréditation en tant qu'expert du GIEC.
McIntyre recommande que « le GIEC devrait exiger des auteurs qui ont soumis des travaux pour citation à fournir leurs études ».
Le GIEC a refusé de le faire disant que cela interférerait avec le journal.
Wikipedia fr Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat
Stephen McIntyre: La non disponibilité d'informations
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Christopher (Chris) Landsea
| Christopher (Chris) Landsea |
Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. ▶Christopher (Chris) Landsea: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Christopher (Chris) Landsea: Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC) ▶Ausschluss und Maulkorb für Kritiker (Christopher Landsea und das IPCC) |
-
Wikipedia fr La démission de Christopher Landsea (Wayback‑Archiv)
En janvier 2005, Christoper Landsea a démissionné de son rôle du GIEC AR4, disant qu'il avait vu le processus comme étant aussi bien motivé par des agendas préconçus que scientifiquement défectueux à cause du contentieux public crée par Kevin Trenberth qui avait avancé la thèse que le réchauffement global contribuait à la récente activité des ouragans.
-
lavoisier.com.au
2005-01-17 en An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Wayback‑Archiv)After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.
In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns. ...
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
-
WEBCommentary/Bob Webster
2007-03-07 en Inconvenient Truths about Global WarmingEvidence of the politicized atmosphere of the IPCC comes from the resignation of Christopher Landsea.
In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying that he viewed the process as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
-
Pensée unique fr Christopher Landsea
Christopher Landsea, de la Division de la Recherche "ouragans" de l'Administration Nationale Océanographique et Atmosphérique (NOAA) qui est le "leading expert", l'expert mondial, sur la question des ouragans, a démissionné avec fracas des instances du GIEC en 2005, parce que cet organisme avait affirmé, contrairement aux évidences scientifiques que l'intensité et le nombre des ouragans avaient augmenté.
Christopher Landsea a rédigé une lettre de démission (voir plus haut) destinée aux dirigeants du GIEC qui explique tout cela en détail.
Cette lettre restera dans les mémoires même si elle n'a pas fait bouger d'un iota les instances du GIEC, toujours fortes de leurs "certitudes"... même si elles contredisent carrément les résultats de la Science..
↑ Who is who (Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC)
Richard Courtney
| Richard Courtney |
Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. IPCC Scientist ▶Richard Courtney: Who is who (Skeptiker) ▶Richard Courtney: Skeptische Wissenschaftler des IPCC |
UN IPCC Scientist Richard Courtney: Climate models "fundamentally wrong"
-
CFP Canada Free Press / Marc Morano
2009-07-16 en UN IPCC Scientist: 'Natural climate change denial of the last decade is not sustainable anymore'UN IPCC Scientist Richard Courtney responds to new peer-reviewed study calling climate models "fundamentally wrong."
'Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong'
It is a scientific conclusion that the data does not indicate whether future warming or cooling will occur.
And it is a political decision to ignore that unarguable scientific conclusion.
But deniers of natural climate change do ignore it and they proclaim that human activities alone cause global warming
-
CFP Canada Free Press / Marc Morano
2009-07-15 en Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrongUA new peer-reviewed study may shake the foundation upon which man-made global warming fears are based.
The new study discovered "something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
CO₂ was not to blame for a major ancient global warming period.