The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued further dire warnings about the impact of man-made global warming.
The IPCC maintains that “Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence).”
The purpose of the study is to “strengthen” the global response.
What should be made of the IPCC report? According to a Heartland review, the organization’s predictions are based more on preconceived notions than scientific research. H. Sterling Burentt writes:
“From its very formation, the IPCC was a political, not a scientific organization, directed by politicians to research the ‘human causes’ of climate change—as if nature—the Sun, clouds, and oceanic cycles, for example—plays no role in climate. ‘Government,’ not ‘science,’ is in the IPCC’s name, and its most recent ‘Summary for Policymakers’ was shaped by bureaucrats’ desires for ever-greater government intervention in the economy and people’s lives, delivering more money and power to government bureaucrats and anti-capitalist nongovernmental organizations. To produce this result, the 2018 report, like each previous Summary for Policymakers, ignored or downplayed significant scientific uncertainty regarding the causes and consequences of the present period of climate change.
“The most basic assumption built into climate models is carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases drive temperature changes. Thus, the foundational projection climate models make is that as greenhouse gas emissions rise, the planet’s temperature will rise as well. Numerous peer-reviewed studies, however, demonstrate climate models grossly overstate the amount of warming the Earth has experienced as carbon dioxide levels have increased. In addition, climate models entirely missed a recent 18 year hiatus in rising temperatures.
“The failure of the IPCC’s temperature projections to match recorded temperatures provides ample reason for not trusting any of the organization’s other projections. If IPCC can’t get basic temperature measurements right, why trust its projections about disease, drought, extinctions, famine, flood, hurricanes, and sea levels, especially when real-world data demonstrates past IPCC predictions on these matters have been consistently wrong?”
This cialis wholesale india is primarily due to the fact that many online pharmacies sell only cheap imitations. You have to take care of the fraud cheap cialis for sale companies that do not supply the medicine you want and sometimes the individual himself stays completely unaware of the fact. The only one or two medicine like Tadalafil and Vardenafil are its primary viagra 25 mg competitors. Because of gel form, this remedy concludes the effect to be visible in minimal period of unica-web.com buy cialis cialis 20 minutes. The response to the IPCC warnings has been underwhelming. There are several reasons for that. First, very substantial questions exist as to the lack of scientific analysis of key factors. The IPCC continues to overlook essential points, including: To what extent do current temperature variations differ from those experienced in the past, particularly in pre-industrial times, and, if there is any significant change, to what extent is it due to human activity?
A report by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, and Dr. Craig D. Idso questions the validity of key pro-global warming data, including that provided by NOAA, NASA and the Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data, as well as The Validity of the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. The findings of those agencies essentially rely on the same flawed data.
The study concludes that “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.”
Dr. Philip Lloyd, a physicist researching climate change, has found that the variation in temperature over the past century is within the planet’s natural variability over the past 8,000 years. Lloyd formerly was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His conclusions are the result of ice-core based data.
Second, the revelations that key studies from both government agencies and academic institution , which have been central to man-made global warming reports, were falsified and/or misstated common sense questions,has shaken confidence in the accuracy of those advocating the theory. Questions such as why Earth’s temperature was warmer in the 10th Century AD, as well as in the era of the Roman Empire, have been ignored. The thousands of scientists who have expressed significant doubt about global warming were completely ignored by those claiming the idea was “settled science.”
A Wall Street Journal analysis of the IPCC report asks “Have we reached peak alarmism on climate change? The question occurs after the muted reaction last week to the latest forecast from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In case you hadn’t heard we’re all doomed, yet the world mostly yawned. This is less complacency than creeping scientific and political realism… not tested over time are the panel’s climate models, which are sensitive to forecasts of population growth, ocean currents and radiative forcing, among myriad scientific variables that are not well understood. The IPCC’s forecasts keep changing because climate models are still in an early stage of development.”
Photo: Yellowstone Park (U.S. Interior Dept.)