Have you ever wondered what would happen if a group of expert scientists came together to analyze climate change, without the vested interest of socialist governments driving the agenda? Well, wonder no more. It was past time to take a closer look at the oft-touted but seldom-scrutinized “findings” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
If you can wade through the figures, graphs, charts, acronyms, and scholarly references embedded in the vast new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), you’ll get the answer to three basic questions:
The central problems for policymakers in the debate over global warming are (a) is the reported warming trend real and how significant is it? (b) how much of the warming trend is due to natural causes and how much is due to human-generated greenhouse gases? and (c) would the effects of continued warming be harmful or beneficial to plant and wildlife and to human civilization?
In this NIPCC report we have presented evidence that helps provide answers to all three questions. The extent of the modern warming â€“ the subject of the first question â€“ appears to be less than is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations. Data from oceans, covering 70 percent of the globe, are also subject to uncertainties. The only truly global observations come from weather satellites, and these have not shown any warming trend since 1998, for the past 10 years.
This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well-established and generally agreed-to â€˜fingerprintâ€™ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models.
It is significant that the IPCC has never made such a comparison, or it would have discovered the same result â€“ namely that the current warming is primarily of natural origin rather than anthropogenic. Instead, the IPCC relied for its conclusion (on AGW) on circumstantial â€˜evidenceâ€™ that does not hold up under scrutiny….
The third question concerns the effects of modest warming. A major scare associated with a putative future warming is a rapid rise in sea level, but even the IPCC has been scaling its estimates. We show here that there will be little if any acceleration, and therefore no additional increase in the rate of ongoing sea-level rise. This holds true even if there is a decades-long warming, whether natural or manmade.
Other effects of a putative increase in temperature and carbon dioxide are likely to be benign, promoting not only the growth of crops and forests but also benefitting human health…. [emphases added]
Don’t buy into the hype or the hysteria. Get the facts. Educate yourself. Think for yourself. The generation that thought it was “groovy” to “question authority” has stopped doing so, at least when it comes to the Green agenda of the Eco-church and its High Priest Algore. In this case, don’t be like them.
If science is going to dictate radical changes in government policy, it had better be a lot more convincing than the quasi-religious platitudes from the Enviro-socialists.