The paper's authors are:
Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU), where he lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology.
Dr. Sherwood B. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a research physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author or co-author of more than 500 scientific publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served as an adjunct professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology at Arizona State University. He earned a Ph.D. in soil science from the University of Minnesota.
Dr. Robert M. Carter is a stratigrapher and marine geologist with degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and University of Cambridge (England). He is the author of Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change (2013). Carter’s professional service includes terms as head of the Geology Department, James Cook University, chairman of the Earth Sciences Panel of the Australian Research Council, chairman of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, and director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program. He is currently an emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs (Melbourne).
Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished atmospheric physicists in the U.S. He established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. He is coauthor, with Dennis T. Avery, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years (2007, second ed. 2008) and many other books. Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971-94), and is founder and chairman of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project. He earned a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.
Here are some reviews.
“I fully support the efforts of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and publication of its latest report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change.” Kumar Raina, Former Deputy Director General Geological Survey of India
“Climate Change Reconsidered II fulfills an important role in countering the IPCC part by part, highlighting crucial things they ignore such as the Little Ice Age and the recovery (warming) which began in 1800–1850. In contrast to the IPCC, which often ignores evidence of past changes, the authors of the NIPCC report recognize that climatology requires studying past changes to infer future changes.” Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Founding Director & Professor of Physics Emeritus International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks
“The work of the NIPCC to present the evidence for natural climate warming and climate change is an essential counter-balance to the biased reporting of the IPCC. They have brought to focus a range of peer-reviewed publications showing that natural forces have in the past and continue today to dominate the climate signal.” Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa, Canada
“The CCR-II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global warming and its impacts on sea-level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc. There is a need to look into these phenomena at local and regional scales before sensationalization of global warming-related studies.” S. Jeevananda Reddy, Former Chief Technical Advisor United Nations World Meteorological Organization
“Library shelves are cluttered with books on global warming. The problem is identifying which ones are worth reading. The NIPCC's CCR-II report is one of these. Its coverage of the topic is comprehensive without being superficial. It sorts through conflicting claims made by scientists and highlights mounting evidence that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide increase is lower than climate models have until now assumed.” Chris de Freitas, School of Environment The University of Auckland, New Zealand
“Rather than coming from a pre-determined politicized position that is typical of the IPCC, the NIPCC constrains itself to the scientific process so as to provide objective information. If we (scientists) are honest, we understand that the study of atmospheric processes/dynamics is in its infancy. Consequently, the work of the NIPCC and its most recent report is very important.” Bruce Borders, Professor of Forest Biometrics Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia
“I support [the work of the NIPCC] because I am convinced that the whole field of climate and climate change urgently needs an open debate between several ‘schools of thought,’ in science as well as other disciplines, many of which jumped on the IPCC bandwagon far too readily. Climate, and even more so impacts and responses, are far too complex and important to be left to an official body like the IPCC.” Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography, Hull University Editor, Energy & Environment.
A few Excerpts from the Preface.
------------------------------------------------
Global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation. • Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.
• Solar forcing of temperature change is likely more important than is currently recognized.
• No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.
• Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.
• A phase of temperature stasis or cooling has succeeded the mild warming of the twentieth century. Similar periods of warming and cooling due to natural variability are certain to occur in the future irrespective of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
-------------------------------------
A careful reading of the chapters below reveals thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles do not support and often contradict IPCC’s alarmist narrative. ----------------------------------
Oftentimes, IPCC’s pessimistic forecasts fly in the face of scientific observations. The global ecosystem is not suffering from the rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels IPCC has called “unprecedented,” despite all the models and hypotheses IPCC’s authors marshal to make that case. Real-world data show conclusively that most plants flourish when exposed to higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2 and that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great post-Industrial Revolution greening that is causing deserts to retreat and forests to expand, enlarging habitat for wildlife. Essentially the same story can be told of global warming’s impact on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this perspective missing from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing volumes containing this research for five years—long enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But the draft of the Working Group II contribution to IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggests otherwise. Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research because it runs counter to their thesis that any human impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is misleading the scientific community, policymakers, and the general public. Because the stakes are high, this is a grave disservice.
We are not alone in questioning the accuracy or reliability of IPCC reports. In 2010, the InterAcademy Council, an international organization representing the world’s leading national academies of science, produced an audit of IPCC procedures. In its report, Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC, the IAC decried the lack of independent review, reliance on unpublished and non-peer-reviewed sources, refusal by some of the lead authors to share their data with critics, and political interference in the selection of authors and contributors.
No comments:
Post a Comment