Meer dan 650 wetenschappers
verwerpen de Global Warming claims !!!
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around
the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This
new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report
of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming
“consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international
scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned
against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing)
scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over
650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who
authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices
grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peerreviewed studies, analyses, real world data
and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's
claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a
range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of manmade climate fears.
Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures
failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed
attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and
studies regarding rising CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s
ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods;
Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of
atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
Download
het rapport
Voorbeelden van studies die het tegendeel
beweren:
1) New peer-reviewed study finds
global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in
Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the
collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the
North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific
Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the
systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was
followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state
was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature
changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism
explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th
century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric
Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized
Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK)
2) Belgian weather
institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming:
Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming.
This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal
Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state
that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role
that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said.
"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for
at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's
movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder.
"Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the
last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this
has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (LINK)
3) New
peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the
last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric
CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon
dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests,
contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual
reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core
records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist
Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in
Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice
ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface
ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests
the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the
meltdown – but was not its main cause. < > “The climate dynamic is much
more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott
said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate
system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.” (LINK)
4) New peer-reviewed study
finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on
August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test
against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism
is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by
over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's
natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under
the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change
with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade.
Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of
certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama
Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK)
5) New
peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate
- The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of
Coastal Research - Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the
variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth
(and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the
earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities
on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK) & (LINK)
6) New peer-reviewed study on
Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle: Excerpt: The study found that times of high
solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and
that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a
statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the
authors note. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Source: Geophysical Research Letters
(GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007 (LINK) [EPW
Blog Note: Despite the fact that one of the co-author’s protests this study being
used to chill climate fears, this paper is an important contribution to establishing the
solar climate link.]
7) SURVEY: LESS
THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY - Excerpt:
"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of
the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without
explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject
the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral
papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no
'consensus.'" (LINK)
A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals
from 2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of
global warming skeptics. Excerpt: “There appears to be little evidence in
the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm.” (LINK)
8) Chinese
scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be
“excessively exaggerated.” Excerpt: “The global climate warming is
not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature
obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s.
Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have
been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global
climate change,” the two scientists concluded. (LINK)
& (LINK)
9) Danish National
Space Center Study concludes: “The Sun still appears to be the main
forcing agent in global climate change.” The report was authored by Physicist Henrik
Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. (LINK)
Several other recent scientific studies and scientists have debunked a media hyped UK
study alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. UK
Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn confirmed the Danish study and also debunked the “No
Solar-Climate Link Study” on July 14, 2007. Excerpt: “[The study claiming
to prove a] ‘refutation’ of the decisive role of solar activity in driving
climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the
winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the
world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s
activity,” Corbyn, who heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather
Action, wrote. (LINK)
Other studies and scientists have found also confirmed the solar-climate link. (LINK)
& (LINK)
& (LINK)
10) A June 29, 2007 critique by
Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science
Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually
warm. Excerpt: “Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn
and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to
observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the
statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the
appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly
significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century
disappear.” (LINK)
Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: “Osborn and Briffa
(Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the
Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies.
However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional
ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After
appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly
disappears.” (LINK)
11) An April 2007 study revealed
the Earth’s climate “seesawing” during the last 10,000 years, according to
Swedish researchers Svante Björck, Karl Ljung and Dan Hammarlund of Lund University.
Excerpt: During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and
South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund
University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and
vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than
predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. < > We can
identify a persistent "seesaw" pattern. When the South Atlantic was warm it was
cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa. This is most certainly related to large-scale
ocean circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. The main current system - "the Great Ocean
Conveyor" - is driven by sinking of dense, relatively cold and salty water in the
northern North Atlantic. This results in southward-flowing deep-water that is replaced by
warm surface water brought to high northern latitudes from the tropics and ultimately from
the South Atlantic, says Svante Björck. < > Our results from Nightingale Island in
the Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for the first time
give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic associated with cooling in the north. This
is a major breakthrough in palaeoclimate research. (LINK)
12) An August 2007 NASA temperature
data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared
the hottest in U.S. history since records began. Revised data now reveals four of
the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930's while only three of the hottest
years occurred in the last decade. Excerpt: "NASA has yet to own up fully to its
historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to conform to the Global Warming
hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org." (LINK)
[EPW Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after
1940. (LINK) ]
13) Numerous U.S. temperature
collection data errors exposed by team of researchers led by Meteorologist Anthony Watts
in 2007 (LINK) -
“The (U.S.) National Climate Data Center (NCDC) is in the middle of a scandal.
Their global observing network, the heart and soul of surface weather measurement,
is a disaster. Urbanization has placed many sites in unsuitable
locations — on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust
vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills! The data and
approach taken by many global warming alarmists is seriously
flawed. If the global data were properly adjusted for urbanization and station
siting, and land use change issues were addressed, what would emerge is a cyclical pattern
of rises and falls with much less of any background trend,” Meteorologist Joseph
Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
14) Team of
Scientists Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature' – The study was
published in Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Excerpt from a March 18, 2007
article in Science Daily: “Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global
temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an
impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University
of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher
Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph,
Canada.” The Science Daily article reads: "It is impossible to talk about a
single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne
Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a
homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature.
Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea
currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.” He explains that while it is
possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a
global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one
cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone
number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make
sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in
talking about an average 'global exchange rate.’” The article concludes:
“Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been
used, the researchers point out.” (LINK)
15) New Report
from the international group Institute of Physics’ finds no “consensus” on
global warming. Excerpt: As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level
UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists
urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing
that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete. Recognizing
that powerful computer-based simulations are a key element in predicting climate
change, a new Institute of Physics (IOP) report, published on 26 September
2007, shows that leading climate-physicists' views on the reliability of these models
differ. The IOP is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest
scientific thought on climate change". (LINK)
16) A July 2007
analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic
melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research
in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955,
temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between
1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941
being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or
warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about
50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining
ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In
addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a
subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific
studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute
Fears of Greenland Melt – (LINK)
]
17) Antarctic ice GROWS to record
levels. Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent
since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere
(Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen
on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated
snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is
the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since
1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. < > This winter has
been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in
Australia, South America and Africa. (LINK)
& (LINK)
A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following
predicted global warming models. Excerpt: “A new report on climate over
the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century
did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." The research was
led by David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of
Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University.
[See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions - (LINK) ]
18) A soon to be
released survey finds Polar Bear population rising in warmer part of the
Arctic. Excerpt: Fears that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will die
off in the next 50 years are overblown, says [Arctic biologist] Mitchell Taylor, the
Government of Nunavut’s director of wildlife research. “I think it’s naïve
and presumptuous,” Taylor said. < > The Government of Nunavut is conducting a
study of the [southern less ice region of the] Davis Strait bear population. Results of
the study won’t be released until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some
3,000 bears in an area - a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears.
“That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of
reality,” he says. And despite the fact that some of the most dramatic changes to sea
ice is seen in seasonal ice areas such as Davis Strait, seven or eight of the bears
measured and weighed for the study this summer are among the biggest on record, Taylor
said. “Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp there.
They're fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape,” Taylor said,
according to a September 14, 2007 article. (LINK) [EPW
Blog Note: In a classic case of observed reality versus unproven computer model
predictions, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear
population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in
the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge
Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic
highs.’ ]
19) Even the
alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced
man’s estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile a separate 2006 UN
report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2
emissions from cars and trucks. (LINK)
20) New study
claims UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." A
September 2007 analysis of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific
review process entitled “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” by climate data analyst
John McLean, revealed very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review
process. According to the analysis, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports
are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse
the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and
disturbing story.” The paper continued: "In [the IPCC's] Chapter 9, the key
science chapter, the IPCC concludes that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas
forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50
years.' 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. Moreover,
only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." The
analysis concluded: “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus
of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding
is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence
self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.” (LINK)
