Source; GLOBAL CLIMATE INTELLIGENCE GROUP WWW.CLINTEL.ORG
There is no climate emergency
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.
Harris notes that historical warming and cooling preceded changes in CO2 concentrations. In addition, he points out that the recent modest increase in global average temperature began in the later part of the 19th century and early 20th century, before significant human greenhouse gas emissions, and that temperatures since then have risen and plateaued a couple of times even as carbon dioxide concentrations steadily increased. As a result climate changes are now, and historically have been, driven by external factors like solar activity, and internal factors, and how the Earth’s rotation moves fluids, and the way the Earth responds to: “uneven solar heating of the surface of the Earth and the movements of the excess heat in the tropics towards the cooler polar regions, primarily by the movements of ocean currents, modified by the movements of air masses.”
Whether or not the factors Harris identifies are driving present climate change, 2 things we can say with some certainty about them: they impact the climate; and they are inadequately accounted for, or completely ignored, in climate model representations of the Earth’s climate and model outputs.
The authors, Igor Khmelinskii and Leslie V. Woodcock, climate researchers with nearly 500 peer-reviewed articles published between them, argue(1) that authoritarian censorship makes factually incorrect assertions, and suggestions that threatens to undermine scientific progress by subverting the scientific method.
The theory that CO2 emissions are causing present warming is just that, a theory, not established fact! Its “consensus” is political, not a scientific process—not through testing and confirmation as demanded by the scientific method. Whether correct or not, their point about CO2 driving climate change not being an established fact is certainly correct. Even more important, however, is their analysis of how scientific progress is threatened by scientific truths established by “consensus,” accompanied by the dismissal of the scientific method, and attempts to prevent skeptical climate analyses from being published, out of fear that it would give alternative views of why the climate is changing legitimacy.
That paper presented research indicating the residence time of any molecule of CO2 entering the atmosphere is between 5 and 10 years, far shorter than the hundreds of years commonly asserted by those pushing the narrative human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic climate change. Based on this analysis the author concluded the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was likely not stable at 280 ppm in pre-industrial times and that approximately 90% of all anthropogenic CO2 emitted by humans has already been removed from the atmosphere, and thus can’t be driving dramatic climate change. This paper passed peer review, but because it presented a view that contradicts the “consensus” position on the residence time and impact of CO2 affirmed by the u.n. intergovernmental panel on climate change, the climate-crisis extremists claim the research is wrong on its face and its analysis didn’t even merit scientific consideration. In other words, demonize and ignore anything that proves them wrong.
Quashing alternative theories without even review and testing is not what the scientific method prescribes or how science progresses. Such treatment of research is rejecting science.
Meanwhile, what’s coming out of the european union is a foul multilayered onion. On the outside is its laughable, juvenile, impossible utopian idealism. Thus the european green deal, approved in 2020, to show member states the way to climate neutrality by 2050. A key component of this deal – one layer deeper – is a legislative package called Fit for 55, which aims to reduce EU emissions by 55% by 2030. When we go deeper still to this thing called the Buildings Directive, which regulates building energy efficiency in the EU. In 2021, the European Commission proposed extensive revisions to bring this Directive into alignment with its Fit for 55 aspirations. The climate-neutral utopia of 2050 is supposed to be an all-electric world. All this promised abundant electricity will be generated by fields upon fields of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels. How building energy efficiency will matter for emissions at all in this promised electrical utopia is a hard thing to understand.
1) "… statements inconsistent with, and illustrate ignorance of, the laws of classical thermodynamics, of the limitations of the Earth’s global energy budget multivariate computer models, and of the known absorption and emission spectroscopy of CO2...The scientific method of establishing truth requires hypotheses to be tested against experimental results by circumspective scientific scrutiny. Scientific knowledge cannot be established by consensus politics. We question the wisdom of a policy of rejecting articles that may disparage the greenhouse-gas hypothesis. By this criterion of science by consensus, … Nicholas Copernicus’s research … disputing the prevailing consensus of the Ptolemaic hypothesis of a static Earth system, would have been rejected by Copernicus Publications. A policy of only publishing consensus science enhances an ascendancy of politically motivated subjective pseudoscience, causing a stagnation of our scientific understanding and description of Earth systems."