Rationalistic viewpoints of the IPCC, Ivar Giaever, Kiminori Itoh, Dr Arun D Ahluwalia, Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Geoffrey G Duffy, Dr David Gee, Hajo Smit, James A Peden, Professor Delgado Domingos, Dr Takeda Kunihiko, Dr Eduardo Tonni, Professor Ian Plimer, USSenate Committee on climate change.
The skewed results of the IPCC
I have become aware, since starting this project, of factors mediating scientific rigor. This factor is the extremely polarized viewpoints on the so called ‘global warming’ debate. I suspect the vast majority of people are persuaded that global warming (if it indeed is still persisting and this is against the facts conclusion) is due to human causes (or at least partially so). This is due largely to the work of a body of scientists calling themselves paleo climatologists. They have become a very powerful director of governmental and public opinion.
It is important that as you read my submission you understand that a vast body of climatologists and other related scientists doubt not only their veracity but lately their integrity. To this end I will be attaching a note on the objection of 650 international scientists, of undoubted credibility, who object to what I would label global warming dogma.
I see these highly credible scientists as essential to combat the seemingly rationalistic viewpoints of the IPCC
U.S Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works” website
A selection of the 600 international scientists’ objections
I am a sceptic … Global warming has become a new religion – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain sceptical – Atmospheric Scientist Dr Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds … I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists – Indian geologist Dr Arun D Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will – Geoffrey G Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing sceptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet – Climate statistician Dr William M Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on? – Geologist Dr David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the sceptic camp … Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a sceptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined – Atmospheric physicist James A Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Centre in Pittsburgh.
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense … The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot – Dr Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds – Award-winning Palaeontologist Dr Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Palaeontology Department at the University of La Plata.
Why is this issue for this research paper? According to one international scientist the largest advocate of warming due to anthropogenic causes is the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is under the auspices of the UN’s World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environmental Program). According to Plimer it has become a self serving body with a vested interest in promoting anthropolog’ on climate change over the last millennia only to reinsert the undesirable climate spikes due to public scrutiny. Its influence is so profound that associated research organizations have become tightly bound to producing scientific papers that support desired outcomes. In other words researchers are arguing towards a predetermined result. It’s chief advocate, Mann, has come under severe scrutiny by the U.S. Senate investigating climate change for his lack of scientific rigor. Plimer in particular criticizes him for “scientific dishonesty”.
I mention this since many papers now being presented are funded by bodies biased towards anthropogenic causes of “global warming”. Global warming has become a major world industry with highly vested interests in its position. To my mind this is a great danger to unbiased scientific research and I mention this since the IPCC specifically has tried to seriously underestimate the existence of a little Ice Age and a Roman and medieval warming. Plimer believes this is because these phenomena put global warming merely as a ‘natural’ cyclical change unrelated to their credo of anthropogenic fundamental cause. Since, for better or worse, this has become the politically correct topic of our time I urge you to carefully scrutinize the work of the many contributing authors to this paper and be aware that many are trying to undermine their credibility. This at least is my considered opinion and perhaps my bias.
Peter Mungo Jupp