FN:s klimatpanel sägs bestå av ”tusentals av världens bästa klimatforskare” – och de är eniga! Kan verkligen alla dessa experter ha fel?
1989 förutsåg FN att höjningen av havsnivån till följd av global uppvärmning skulle ha utplånat hela nationer redan år 2000. 2005 trodde man att det skulle det ske 2010 (Myers, 2005).
2011 hade katastrofen skjutits fram till 2020 (mindre än ett år från nu):
Så ja, visst kan de ha fel. Det är i och för sig inte så märkvärdigt. Alla seriösa forskare har fel ibland, det är en del av den vetenskapliga metoden att ha fel.
Det viktiga är att man lär sig något av misstagen. Korrigerar sin hypotes. Och är försiktig med att dra lika drastiska slutsatser i fortsättningen. Så det borde väl skada klimatpanelens trovärdighet åtminstone lite grann att man gång på gång gör så dramatiska förutsägelser som slår fel?
Hur vetenskaplig är egentligen FN:s klimatpanel?
FN:s klimatpanel har en enorm prestige och trovärdighet – ingen verkar komma ihåg misstagen. De flesta antar nog också att det just handlar om tusentals av världens bästa klimatexperter, som gemensamt sammanställer det bästa av all aktuell forskning.
Men det är en missuppfattning. FN:s klimatpanel är en politiskt styrd organisation. På engelska heter den ”the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” – IPCC – en organisation som styrs av de medverkande regeringarna.
Journalisten Donna Laframboise har i sin bok ”The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” visat att de forskare som tillsätts ofta inte håller den kvalitet som påstås. Alla som deltar har inte ens doktorsexamen, och all litteratur man hänvisar till är inte vetenskapligt granskad. Många av deltagarna i klimatpanelen är tillsatta snarare för att skapa global representativitet än för att ”toppa laget”, och aktivister från miljöorganisationer har stort inflytande, även på högsta nivå.
FN:s klimatpanel påstår att man enbart förlitar sig på vetenskapligt granskade och publicerade (”peer-reviewed”) artiklar. Men av 18 531 referenser i rapporten 2007 var 5 587 inte det. I 21 av 44 kapitel (48%) var färre än 60% av referenserna granskade vetenskapliga artiklar. En del av dessa är legitima referenser till exempelvis statliga utredningar och liknande, men i många fall handlar det om rapporter som måste betraktas som partsinlagor från miljöorganisationer som World Wildlife Fund och Greenpeace.
Den australiske klimatdata-analytikern Dr. John McLean uppmärksammade i en studie att det också är mycket få forskare som är aktivt inblandade i processen. Bland annat noterade han följande angående klimatpanelens centrala slutsats, d v s att människan högst sannolikt är huvudorsak till den globala uppvärmningen sedan 1950: ”The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.”
Intervju med Donna Laframboise, journalist och författare till boken ”The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert”:
FN:s klimatpanel är ett institutionaliserat samarbete mellan regeringar, och dess sekretariat i Geneve utser medlemmar och deltagande forskare utan transparens. Panelen har egentligen inte heller ett öppet vetenskapligt mandat, utan arbetar utifrån politiska direktiv som förutsätter att det pågår en farlig klimatförändring orsakad av människan.
Därför intresserar man sig inte särskilt aktivt för att hitta bevis för motsatsen, eller undersöka naturliga klimatfaktorer.
Klimatpanelens direktiv talar om objektivitet, men har inbyggda antaganden som inte är förutsättningslösa: ”Att analysera – på ett uttömmande, objektivt, öppet och transparent sätt – den vetenskapliga, tekniska och socioekonomiska information som är relevant för att förstå den vetenskapliga grunden till riskbedömning av klimatförändring orsakad av människan, dess möjliga påverkan och möjligheter till anpassning och mildring av effekterna” (min fetstil). Utgångspunkten är med andra ord att det pågår en klimatförändring orsakad av människan som är riskabel och kräver åtgärder. Detta är inte så konstigt, eftersom klimatpanelen bildades just mot bakgrund av en oro för att människans utsläpp av växthusgaser skulle orsaka global uppvärmning. Det mål som fastställdes redan från början var att stabilisera växthusgaserna i atmosfären för att förhindra en farlig klimatförändring.
Och processen som leder fram till den rapport, Summary for Policymakers (SPM), som får mest uppmärksamhet, är väldigt olik den som gäller vanlig forskning. Det är nämligen inte forskarna som bestämmer vad som ska stå i den, utan politiker och byråkrater, och allt sker bakom lykta dörrar. Många menar att klimatpanelen blivit politiserad, och att verksamheten snarare syftar till att bekräfta på förhand bestämda slutsatser, än att ge en sann bild av var klimatforskningen står idag.
Dr. John Christy, klimatolog vid University of Alabama i Huntsville och Alabamas statsklimatolog, var huvudförfattare 2001 i FN:s tredje rapport: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
Dr Johannes Oerlemans, Professor i meteorologi vid fakulteten för Fysik och Astronomi, Utrecht University, var “lead author” för tre IPCC Working Group Assessments: ”The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
Dr. Andrew Lacis, klimatolog vid NASA och “IPCC contributor”: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
Dr Martin Manning, chef för ”Working Group 1 Support Unit” i FN:s klimatpanel (IPCC) och koordinator av rapporten 2007: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
Dr. Philip Lloyd, sydafrikansk kärnfysiker och kemiingenjör, har varit “co-coordinating lead author” för IPCC: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
Dr Niel Hutton, geolog, tidigare ”District Geologist for Northwest Territories and the Arctic islands” i Kanada: “In an extraordinary move last spring the IPCC released the 21-page SPM [Summary for Policymakers] for the Fourth Assessment Report (2007) more than three months ahead of the 1,600-page scientific report. This was to ensure that the scientific report was consistent with the SPM. In other words the science was not to conflict with the politics. […] Most of the statements of the SPM are unproven assumptions, and a review of the literature on the basis of a truly multidisciplinary approach involving physics, geology, history and archaeology leads to much different conclusions.”
Dr. Steve McIntyre, ekonom och ansvarig för webbpublikationen Climate Audit: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Processen i FN:s klimatpanel är alltså allt annat än vetenskaplig, eftersom det till sist är politiker som bestämmer, rad för rad, vad som ska stå i Sammanfattningen. Och sen anpassar man det vetenskapliga underlaget för att stämma med de politiskt styrda slutsatserna.
Så här radikalt ändrades exempelvis klimatforskarnas slutsatser i FN:s klimatpanel 1995 (bilden nedan, citerat från John McLean, 2010):
En av de mest kända och citerade passagerna i rapporten från FN:s klimatpanel 1995 hade alltså inget stöd av panelens egna forskare. Men det har passerat obemärkt, och denna och andra liknande ”slutsatser” används sedan dess som underlag för politiska beslut som kostar mångmiljardbelopp.
Fler kritiska forskare
Dr. Richard Tol, professor i “the economics of climate change” vid Vrije University i Amsterdam. Han har varit författare (contributing, lead, principal and convening author) för arbetsgrupp I, II och III för IPCC: ”The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralizing opposite voices.”
Dr Roy Spencer, klimatolog, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center vid University of Alabama, Huntsville: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-caused global warming are only a means to that goal.”
Dr Richard Lindzen, professor i meteorologi vid institutionen för Atmosfärfysik vid Massachusetts Institute of Technology och ”expert reviewer” för IPCC: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
Dr. Tom Segalstad, professor i miljögeologi vid Oslo universitet och ”expert reviewer” i FN:s expertpanel: ”The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
Dr. Robert Watson, kemist, “chief scientific advisor” för the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK), och ordförande för IPCC 1997-2002: ”The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying.”
Dr Vincent Gray, kemist vid Cambridge University, “expert reviewer” för IPCC: ”The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
Dr. Willem de Lange, “Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato” och “expert reviewer” för IPCC: ”In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 ”scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.“
Dr. Tom Tripp, “lead author” för IPCC sedan 2004: “Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. 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.”
Dr. Fred Singer, atmosfärfysiker, professor Emeritus i miljövetenskap vid University of Virginia: ”Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”
Dr Hans Labohm, ekonom, tidigare rådgivare till Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) och “expert reviewer” för IPCC: ”The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spindoctoring.”
Dr. John Brignell, professor emeritus i ingenjörsvetenskap vid University of Southampton: “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. New circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list.”
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., tidigare statsklimatolog i Colorado: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system. The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow. We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Dr. Christopher W. Landsea vid NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, har varit både “author” och “reviewer” för IPCC:s 2nd Assessment Report 1995 och 3rd Assessment Report 2001, men avgick från the 4th Assessment Report efter att ha anklagat FN för att ha politiserat orkanvetenskapen: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. 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.”
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor i medicinsk entomologi vid Pasteurinstitutet i Paris och medlem av WHO. Han deltog i IPCC:s tredje rapport men avgick på rund av politisk inblandning. Han kämpade för att få sitt namn struket från rapporten: ”As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
Ännu fler kritiska forskare
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist at Environment Canada; editor at Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member at Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus’. Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence. Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change.”
Dr. Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round… A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Dr. Philip Lloyd, South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
Dr Robert E Davis, Professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia , IPCC contributor: ”Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Georg Kaser, professor from the University of Innsbruck and glaciologist, and IPCC contributor: ”This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
Dr. Hajo Smit of Holland, Meteorologist, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee: “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
Dr John Everett led work for the IPCC on five impact analyses from 1988-2000: Fisheries (Convening Lead Author), Polar Regions (Co-Chair), Oceans (Lead Author), and Oceans and Coastal Zones (Co- Chair/2 reports): “I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
Dr. Andrew Lacis, NASAClimatologist and IPCC contributor: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behaviour is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
Dr. Lee Gerhard, retired Kansas State Geologist, is past president of the AAPG Division of Environmental Geosciences and IPCC contributor: ”I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
Dr. Yuri Israel, vice-chairman of the IPCC until September 2008: ”There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
Dr. Lucka Bogataj, Climatologist, IPCC committee member: ”Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
Dr Indur Goklany, B.Tech. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2005-2007): ”Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
Dr. Harry Lins managed the USGS Global Change Hydrology Program from 1989 to 1997, and served as Co-Chair of the IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group: ”Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
Dr. Chris De Freitas, Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand IPCC Contributor: ”Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist: “Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Essen, Germany, IPCC contributor: ”Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
Dr. Pat Michaels, IPCC reviewer, research fellow for Research and Economic Development at George Mason University: ”The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
Dr Aynsley Kellow, former professor of Social Sciences of the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University, Referee for Chapter 19 in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report: ”I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
Dr Robert Balling, professor of geography at Arizona State University, and the former director of its Office of Climatology: “The IPCC notes that ‘No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected’. This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Rosa Compagnucci, Climatologist at the Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, IPCC author 2001: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld, Climate scientist at Texas A&M University, contributing author for the 2007, IPCC Working Group 1: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen, geophysicist and Director of Danish National Space Center: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
Dr Kenneth Green, environmental scientist and director at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, Canada: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”
Dr Mike Hulme, professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”
Dr Steven Japar, atmospheric chemist who was part of the IPCC’s Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
Dr Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He was a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
Dr Jan Pretel, director of the Climate Change Department of the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute. For years, until August 2009, he was the top Czech representative in the IPCC: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future – 100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”
Dr Miklos Zagoni, Hungarian physicist, reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report Four: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong. New developments in the physics of greenhouse effect and radiative transfer show that the accepted theory leads to largely exaggerated global warming projections.”
Dr. Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist with Australia’s (CSIRO) who was awarded the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists (ASEG) Gold Medal in 2006: “The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both here in Australia and around the world.”
M.Sc. Bill Kininmonth headed Australia’s National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998. He was Australia’s delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology, was a member of Australia’s delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent IPCC negotiations: ”Climate change is naturally variable and it poses no serious hazards for human kind…… Focusing on man-made global warming is self-delusion on a grand scale.”
Dr. David Packham is a former principle research scientist with Australia‟s CSIRO, a senior research fellow in a climate group at Monash University in Australia, and an officer in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology: “Research funding for environmental research in Australia, in my case mercury and wildfires, is almost impossible unless it is part of yet more greenhouse data gathering. There is also an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train.”
Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia‘s CSIRO: “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?”
Dr. John Reid, Atmospheric Physicist who worked with Australia‘s CSIRO‘s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography: “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith… My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”
Ännu fler kritiska forskare
Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and has spent time at the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia: ”I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the ”science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia : “There is new work emerging …. that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation. What if global warming has nothing to do with human activity? What happens if the astronomers are right, and the world is actually entering a cooling period?”
Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia, was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research: ”They have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science.”
NASA Astronaut and Physicist Dr. Walter Cunningham of NASA‟s Apollo 7: “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.”
Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Dr. Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey: “The global warming scare‟ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.”
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”
Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: “You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
Nobel Prize-winning Economist Dr. Gary S. Becker, University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago: ”Future generations would be better off if the present generation, instead of investing the $800 billion in greenhouse gas-reducing technologies, invested the same amount in capital that would be available to future generations.”
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, formerly of NASA, authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man‟s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace: “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”
Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.”
Senior NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA‟s vocal manmade global warming fears promoter, has publicly declared himself a sceptic: “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it) My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.”
Dr. Charles Clough, an atmospheric scientist and Chief of the Atmospheric Effects Team with the Department of the Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground from 1982 until 2006: “It certainly does not follow logically that CO2 emissions drive a warming trend that began prior to widespread fossil fuel use and that has yet to reach the magnitude of the medieval warm period when Vikings colonized Greenland. Nor is a climate catastrophe implied by the presently observed rate of warming. Not only is the debate not over; it is expanding.”
Dr Reid Bryson, one of the “Fathers of Meteorology”, University of Wisconsin: ”All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
Dr. Edward J. Wegman, Professor for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, played a prominent role in questioning the statistical validity of Michael Mann’s UN promoted ”Hockey Stick” temperature graph: He found that Mann’s ”small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.”
Renowned hurricane forecaster Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University: ”[Gore’s] one of these guys that preaches the end-of-the-world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Us older guys that were around in the pre-satellite, pre-computer age, we had to deal with the real weather. Most of these people don’t forecast. They don’t live in a real world. They’re living in an imaginary world.”
Climate Scientist, Dr David Douglas, University of Rochester: ”The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
Geologist Dr. Brian R. Pratt, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, award-winning sedimentologist and paleontologist: ”I have reviewed the observational evidence of climate change which leads me to interpret climate fluctuations and weather patterns as natural phenomena not caused by anthropogenic activities. I am very concerned that Earth’s physical, chemical and biological processes are being widely misunderstood by the public, by politicians and even by many scientists. Consequently, stopping global warming has been adopted as a mission by people with the power to cause severe economic harm and divert efforts away from more critical measures involving conservation, population growth, poverty and so forth.”
Dr. Jeffrey P. Schaffer, Professor at the Department of Science & Mathematics at Napa Valley College in California: ”Environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club create imaginary crises. Having been on the board of one organization and observing others, I can vouch for this. A perceived crisis really boosts your membership! For example, here is a global-warming quote by Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider: ‘We need to get some broad-based support to capture the public’s imagination. That of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.'”
Och ännu fler kritiska forskare
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Dr. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Dr. Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
Dr. David Evans, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia
Dr. William Evans, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
Dr. R. W. Gauldie, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Dr. Fred Goldberg, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Howard Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Craig D. Idso, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona.
Dr Nils-Axel Morner, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Dr. Andrei Illarionov, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Jon Jenkins, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia
Dr. Wibjorn Karlén, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Olavi Kärner, Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Dr. Joel M. Kauffman, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Dr. David Kear, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Dr. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Dr. Salomon Kroonenberg, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Dr. David R. Legates, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Dr. Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. William Lindqvist, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Dr. A.J. Tom van Loon, Professor of Geology.
Dr. Adam Mickiewicz, University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors.
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Dr. Richard Mackey, Statistician, Australia
Dr. Horst Malberg, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
Dr. David Deming, Geophysics, Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Dr. John Maunder, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Dr. Owen McShane, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Dr. Fred Michel, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Dr. Frank Milne, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University
Dr. Asmunn Moene, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. Alan Moran, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia
Dr. Lubos Motl, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Dr. John Nicol, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. James J. O’Brien, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Dr. Cliff Ollier, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Dr. Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Dr. Alex Robson, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
Dr. R.G. Roper, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
Dr. L. Graham Smith, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Dick Thoenes, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Len Walker, Power Engineering, Australia
Dr. Stephan Wilksch, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Raphael Wust, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
Dr. A. Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Dr. Nir Shaviv, professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, of which he is chairman.
… och många fler: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
En reaktion till “Hur vetenskaplig är FN:s klimatpanel?”
De lögner som påvisas i den långa raden av uttalanden ovan visar entydigt att IPcc:s uttalande är en politisk konstruktion.
En konstruktion som används av Mp för att kunna fortsätta att existera.
En konstruktion som användes för att formulera Parisavtalet som i sin tur används för att obefogat anklaga människans avgivning av CO2 som orsaken för en påstådd förhöjning av jordens medeltemperatur.
Politiska partier och vår regering har tacksamt använt Pariavtalet för att kunna beskatta energi och då i synnerhet bränsle till bilar och flyg.
Det är uppenbarligen politiska beslut utan grund.
GillaGillad av 2 personer