Before the United Nations released the summary of its widely ridiculed global-warming report last week, another major scientific report on climate change was already casting serious doubts on the escalating alarmism being peddled by the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Produced by dozens of scientists with the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, the landmark document reviewed much of the same evidence as the UN body, but came to widely different conclusions about what the science really shows.
The UN report, which is already becoming a laughingstock as top climate scientists and experts ridicule its claims and failed forecasts, argues that the IPCC is now 95 percent sure that human activity is behind global warming. The biggest problem for the UN, critics point out, is that in brazen defiance of IPCC theories and predictions, there has been no real global warming for the last 17 years. Indeed, many independent experts and scientists are forecasting global cooling as solar activity declines.
Meanwhile, the 1,200-page NIPCC report, dubbed “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science,” counters much of the hysteria being propagated by the UN and national governments in their effort to secure a planetary carbon regime. Among other key points, the dozens of independent scientists found that the human impact on climate is very small. Any warming that may be caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, the report argues, is likely so small that it is essentially invisible against a background of natural variability.
The NIPCC experts also challenge the radical notion that carbon dioxide — an essential gas exhaled by all humans but relentlessly demonized by the UN and many governments — can be considered “pollution.” Of course, there is no argument over the fact that human emissions of CO2 represent a fraction of one percent of the greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere. But the NIPCC scientists point out that the gas is not only not harmful, it is largely beneficial.
“CO2 is 'the gas of life,’” said NIPCC contributing author Dr. Tom Segalstad, associate professor of resource and environmental geology and geochemistry at the University of Oslo. “The more CO2, the more life. More CO2 means we can feed more people on Earth. CO2 is contributing very little to the 'greenhouse effect'. Clouds have much more influence on temperature.” NIPCC lead author and meteorologist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, who worked with the IPCC until becoming outraged by its lack of interest in proper scientific review, also pointed out that human-added CO2 is not destabilizing the climate.
The NIPCC authors, whose report contains thousands of citations to peer-reviewed literature, also do not believe man-made global warming represents a crisis. They argue that not enough is even known about the climate to make policy-relevant recommendations at this point. Executive Director Tom Harris with the International Climate Science Coalition, however, went further, saying the NIPCC report “demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong.” Indeed, the independent scientists even point out that whatever small warming may occur would probably produce some benefits as well.
Click here to read the entire article.