Archives par mot-clé : Consensus

11th International Conference on Climate and Energy IKEK-11, Contre-COP 23

IKEK-11, Contre-COP 23, November 9, 2017


Introduction: EIKE against the World?

Dr. Holger Thuß

President, Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE)

US Climate and Energy Policy after 10 Months Trump
Zero Hour for Climate Alarmists?
Marc Morano
Editor in Chief www.climatedepot.com and Director of Communication CFACT

The German Energiewende – Germany’s Green Path, between Illusion and Reality,

Prof. Dr. Helmut Alt, FH Aachen

Measurements vs. Models

(…)

60 scientists call for EPA endangerment finding to be reversed

by  Anthony Watts, October17, 2017 in WUWT, Press release


Electricity Consumers Fully Support Scientists’ Letter to EPA Calling for Immediate Reopening of its GHG Endangerment Finding

 Key Points: This Letter from over 60 highly credentialed scientists states that: “We the undersigned are individuals who have technical skills and knowledge relevant to climate science and the GHG Endangerment Finding. We each are convinced that the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding is fundamentally flawed and that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is in order.”

NEW STUDY: CLIMATE SCIENCE CONTROVERSY IS GOOD FOR SCIENCE

by Ferenc Janko et al., , September 2017, in GWPF


Debate and controversy concerning the issue of climate change generally results in the hindering and obstruction of social and governmental action on this issue. This paper analyses the scientific background, i.e. the reference list of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report ‘‘The Physical Science Basis’’ and an alternative climate change report of a US think tank institute ‘‘Climate Change Reconsidered II. Physical Science’’.

See also here

Natural climate variability, part 2: Interpretation of the post 2000 temperature standstill

by N. Scaffetta et al., September1, 2017 in Int.J.Heat.Technology


The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves.

See also here

Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists

by Habibullo I. Abdussamatov  +125/et al., November 29, 2012, in Washington Post


On November 13, 2012, you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

An Inconvenient Split?

by Paul Matthews, August 13, 2017 in CimateScepticism


In many ways, the climate debate has hardly changed since I got interested in it about ten years ago. Public opinion wobbles up and down with hardly any real change. The same tired arguments and claims come round again: every climate conference is the last chance to save the planet; the Arctic ice is always about to vanish in one or two years, or ten years; climate scientists continue to be accused of selecting data sets to create hockeysticks and manipulating data; and teams of climate scientists keep producing reports saying almost exactly the same thing as the previous reports, which then get misrepresented and hyped by the media.

Alarm about alarmism

by Judith Curry, July 15, 2017 in ClimateEtc.


In understanding climate change risk, and deciding on the ‘if’ and ‘what’ of ‘action’,  we need to acknowledge that we don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will play out (Deep Uncertainty, folks).  Four possibilities:

  1. It is possible that human-caused climate change will be swamped by much larger natural climate variability.

  2. It is possible/plausible  that the sensitivity of the climate is on the low end of the IPCC envelope (1.0-1.5C), with a slow creep of warming superimposed on much larger natural variability.

  3. It is possible/plausible that the IPCC projections are actually correct (right for the wrong reasons; too much wrong with the climate models for much credibility, IMO).

  4. It is possible that AGW and natural variability could conspire to cause catastrophic outcomes

MOST EUROPEANS AND 2/3 OF BRITONS REJECT IPCC ‘CLIMATE CONSENSUS’

from Global Warming Policy Forum, July 12, 2017


A new opinion poll of 10,000 European citizens reveals majority of Europeans reject the claim that climate change is mainly or entirely caused by humans.

For the last few decades, questions about the causes and impacts of climate change have dominated the climate debate. The IPCC and many climate scientists have been claiming relentlessly that the global warming trend since the second half of the 20th century is mainly if not entirely man-made, i.e. as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This dogma is habitually claimed to be the global climate consensus.