The generally accepted climate science is false and dangerously wrong ...

 There are still genuinely brave scientists who understand that the generally accepted climate science is false and dangerously wrong with deadly consequences for humanity. 

a)   Dr John Clauser[20]

The US physicist Dr John Clauser was the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize. He is a leading authority on quantum mechanics. In 2010, he was awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics, considered the second most prestigious physics award after the Nobel.   

On 5 May 2023, when he joined the board of the CO2 coalition, he was quoted as saying: “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people…. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.” b)   Dr Patrick Moore

The Canadian environmentalist; Dr Patrick Moore, believes that the anti-carbon-dioxide narrative is a scam, and that the inverse is true. He argues that an increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial. 

Dr Patrick Moore was also a co-founder of Greenpeace. He explains why he left the organisation: 

It was an easy decision to make because I had no choice. We started out with a fairly strong humanitarian orientation to save civilisation from nuclear war. That must mean you care about people at least a little bit. And it came to the point where the environmental movement, including Greenpeace, was basically characterising humans as the enemies of nature. We are the enemies of the earth. It was sort of like, “human beings are the only evil species on the planet, and even cockroaches are better than we are” type thing. So, this is the high philosophical level, this judgmental idea that human beings are the enemies of nature.[21]

c)   Dr Walter Manheimer PhD

Wallace Manheimer is a leading US nuclear physicist. He wrote a paper in September 2022 called “While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There Is no Climate Crisis”. The abstract follows:

The emphasis on a false climate crisis is becoming a tragedy for modern civilization, which depends on reliable, economic, and environmentally viable energy. The windmills, solar panels and backup batteries have none of these qualities. This falsehood is pushed by a powerful lobby which Bjorn Lomborg has called a climate industrial complex, comprising some scientists, most media, industrialists, and legislators. It has somehow managed to convince many that CO2 in the atmosphere, a gas necessary for life on earth, one which we exhale with every breath, is an environmental poison. Multiple scientific theories and measurements show that there is no climate crisis… Over the period of human civilization, the temperature has oscillated between quite a few warm and cold periods, with many of the warm periods being warmer than today. During geological times, it and the carbon dioxide levels have been all over the place with no correlation between them. 

d)   Professor Dr Friedrich-Karl Ewert 

“It is important to understand whether CO2 truly causes climate change,” said Professor Dr Friedrich-Karl Ewert, “We rely entirely on simulation models.  Reality looks very different from simulations.” 

Dr Ewert is professor emeritus of geophysics at the University of Paderborn.  He spoke at a scientific conference put on by EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy in Essen, Germany that was co-sponsored by CFACT and the Heartland Institute.

Ewert conducted exhaustive research comparing climate computer models to real world temperatures.  His findings confirm what others have concluded, that the models run far hotter than measured observations. He points out that the UN IPCC likes to carefully select the dates and data it presents, but that, “if we look at temperature changes over a larger period, any temperature trend disappears.”

In the course of his research, Ewert found something shocking.

“In 2012, we realized that the data offered by NASA was not the same as that offered in 2010.  The data had been altered.  If in 2010 someone had, for instance, looked up the data for Palma de Mallorca, they would have seen a cooling of .0076 degrees.  But in 2012 it suddenly showed a temperature increase of .0074 degrees.  This is not a one-off.”

“Until then measurements were sacrosanct.  Can you call it fraud or falsification?  I’m not a lawyer, but I can say it has been changed retroactively.  If I show you the data a negative judgment is justified.  In 2012 there was twice as much warming in the sample we examined compared with just two years prior.”

Warming campaigners have been confounded by a lack of any global warming since last century.  This contradicts large numbers of computer model projections that warming should have occurred.  They’ve attempted to gloss over this inconvenient fact by trumping up records.  They routinely claim some period of time as the “hottest ever,” in the expectation that the casual observer will never realize that their records are set by meaningless hundredths of a degree.  These tiny measurements run far below the margin of error.   Even the word “hottest” is unjustified.  Global temperature has been running around one-half degree above baseline with just a few years above.  Nothing hot about that.

It is fundamental to the scientific method that scientists must adapt their conclusions to fit their data.  They must never alter their data to serve a favoured conclusion.

Dr Ewert presents a powerful case.  If we cannot trust the keepers of the scientific data taxpayers paid for, what is there about global warming we can trust?[22]

e)   World Climate Declaration

The World Climate Declaration was issued on June 27, 2022. It baldly states that there is no climate emergency and that the climate models are wrong. It was signed by a global network of over 1,800 scientists and other professionals.

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 modelled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modelled 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 CO2-mitigation 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.

OUR ADVICE TO THE EUROPEAN LEADERS IS THAT SCIENCE SHOULD STRIVE FOR A SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM, WHILE POLITICS SHOULD FOCUS ON MINIMIZING POTENTIAL CLIMATE DAMAGE BY PRIORITIZING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES BASED ON PROVEN AND AFFORDABLE TECHNOLOGIES.

To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?[23]

OVERCOMING THE GERM THEORY MEDICAL MYTH

James McCumiskey