http://heartland.tem...m/pdf/22835.pdf
Here are a few excerpts from the Preface and Conclusions:
"When a nation faces an important decision that risks its economic future, or perhaps the fate of the ecology, it should do the same. It is a time-honored tradition in science to set up a ‘Team B,’ which examines the same original evidence but may reach a different conclusion. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
was set up to examine the same climate data used by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
"On the most important issue, the IPCC’s claim that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," (emphasis in the original), NIPCC reaches the opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause. Note: We do not say anthropogenic greenhouse (GH) gases cannot produce some warming. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a significant role."
"We donated our time and best efforts to produce this report out of concern that the IPCC was provoking an irrational fear of anthropogenic global warming based on incomplete and faulty science.Global warming hype has led to demands for unrealistic efficiency standards for cars, the construction of uneconomic wind and solar energy stations, the establishment of large production facilities for uneconomic biofuels such as ethanol from corn, requirements that electric companies purchase expensive power from so-called ‘renewable’energy sources, and plans to sequester, at considerable expense, carbon dioxide emitted from power plants. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with initiatives to increase energy efficiency or diversify energy sources, they cannot be justified as a realistic means to control climate."
"We regret that many advocates in the debate have chosen to give up debating the science and now focus almost exclusively on questioning the motives of ‘skeptics,’ name-calling, and ad hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate has shifted toward climate realism."
"The central problems for policymakers in the debate over global warming are (a) is the reported warming trend real and how significant is it? () how much of the warming trend is due to natural causes and how much is due to human-generated greenhouse gases? and 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 – the subject of the first question – 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 ‘fingerprint’ 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 – namely that the current warming is primarily of natural origin rather than anthropogenic. Instead, the IPCC relied for its
conclusion (on AGW) on circumstantial ‘evidence’ that does not hold up under scrutiny."
"If the human contribution to global warming due to increased levels of greenhouse gases is insignificant, why do greenhouse gas models calculate large temperature increases, i.e., show high values of ‘climate sensitivity’? The most likely explanation is that models ignore the negative feedbacks that occur in the real atmosphere."
"If current warming is not due to increasing greenhouse gases, what are the natural causes that might be responsible for both warming and cooling episodes – as so amply demonstrated in the historic, pre-industrial climate record? Empirical evidence suggests very strongly that the main cause of warming and cooling on a decadal scale derives from solar activity via its modulation of cosmic rays that in turn affect atmospheric cloudiness. According to published research, cosmic-ray variations are also responsible for major climate changes observed in the paleo-record going back 500 million years."
"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."
"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 ... CO2 levels have been up to 20 times the present value during the Phanerozoic Period, the past 500 million years. During this time Earth’s climate has been
remarkably stable, with no ‘run-away’ greenhouse effects – indicating strong negative feedbacks."
"If, for whatever reason, a modest warming were to occur – even one that matches temperatures seen during the Medieval Warm Period of around 1100 AD or the much larger ones recorded during the Holocene Climate Optimum of some 6,000 years ago – the impact would not be damaging but would probably be, on the whole, beneficial. [Table 1]"
"In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible
for current warming."
"It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue."
Edited by colion, 07 March 2008 - 02:17 AM.
