On March 2-4, 2008 a  panel of 500 hundred professional Climatologists met in New York to dicuss the Climate Changes . They call themselves the NIPCC (The Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change).
They Are sceptic to the IPCC
(
the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) the 2007 Nobel Prize winners alongside with Al Gore  who preaches climatic Apocalypse just around the corner. So, was Al Gore present with the NIPCC? No! He was invited -
but Al Gore declined!
And that is understandable: He and the IPCC received the Nobel Peace Prize for amateur mess: Their land based temperature measurements were made by stations receiving irrelevant heat. E.g. they were placed at a parking bay,  beside a major air conditioning machine etc.

This blog has previously described the global warming swindle  and the huge gains made on it by the masterminds behind the the New World Order.
Now the New World Order/EU is panicking us with WW3 because of these climate changes. And war is not the only threat from Solana and Benita Ferrero Waldner according to the Guardian, March 10, 2008: They even painted a more scaring bogey of millions of migrants due to loss af arable land because of receding coast linies - due to CO2-triggered climate change.

NIPCC graph of  temperature  from boreholes of the inland ice of Greenland. Up left: Temp. over the last 100.000 years. Up right over the last 10.000 years.

The acme of the NIPCC Conference was the presentation of the findings of the NIPCC by the highly respected S. Fred Singer.
He and Frederick Seitz stated: "It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report as well as many research papers ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.

The central problems for policymakers in the debate over global warming are
(1) is the reported warming trend real and how significant is it?
(2) how much of the warming trend is due to natural causes and how much is due to human-generated greenhouse gases?
(3) 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.

(1) 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.

Temperature variations during the last 3000 years in the Sargasso Sea

The only truly global observations come from weather satellites, and these have not shown any warming trend since 1998.
We show that the twentieth century is in no way unusual and that warming periods of greater magnitude have occurred in the historic past – without any catastrophic consequences.

(2) This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. 

Increase in sea level since 1900: the increase is constant, 2 mm a year. The speed of the increase did not accelerate as CO2 emission increased in the 20. century. Solana´s and Ferrero Waldner´s bogey is pure, political scaremongering by the New World Order

(3) 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.
We show here that there will be little if any acceleration, and therefore no additional increase in the rate of ongoing sea-level rise. This holds true even if there is a decades-long warming, whether natural or manmade.
Atmospheric CO2 content  (red graph) and the content due to calculated human emission (green graph). They do not go together.

The increase of the red graph is due to CO2-release from the oceans in connection with the Northern Hemisphere emerging from a minor glacial age from 1500-end of 19. century. 

 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. Ocean acidification is not judged to be a problem, as indicated by available data. After all, 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 agothe impact would not be damaging but would probably be, on the whole, beneficial.

Average glacier shortening of 169 glaciers.  Note: The decrease  occurs at the same speed before and after the break-through of industrialisation and car-driving in the 20. century and their accompanying increasing CO2 emission.

Sources of error in  IPCC´s model calculations.
A: 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.
Instead, the IPCC relied for its conclusion on circumstantial ‘evidence’ that does not hold up under scrutiny.

B: We also discuss the many shortcomings of climate models in trying to simulate what is happening in the real atmosphere. Why do greenhouse gas models calculate large temperature increases. The most likely explanation is that models ignore the negative feedbacks that occur in the real atmosphere. New observations reported from satellites suggest it is the distribution of water vapor that could produce suchstrong negative feedbacks.

C: The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of man-made warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty (Kyoto 1997). The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.

Cause of Climate Change

Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance,
which correlates well with Arctic temperature ,while hydrocarbon use  does not correlate.

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.
Climate changes are primarily of natural origin rather than man-made.

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.

Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary

The Kyoto Protocol – even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations – would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount. 

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."

Yes, it is indeed regrettable, but what can be expected, when the IPCC "experts" are people like Trilateral Commissionist Jimmy Carter and biased NGOs payed by the UN and EU?

The EU has agreed upon 20% reduction of CO2 emission by 2020, the UK by 15% - and Denmark by 30%!! as compared to 1990 values. Therefore, the EU will increase biofuel production  - in spite of the fact that occupying arable land for that purpose means reduction of food production and increasing food prices. All for a lie!!
And even just after Solana and Ferrero Waldner told us, that arable land will disappear in the next decade!! In a later post I shall deal with this topic.

I shal return to this topic later.