Alaska Employer Registration Form 2007: Fill & Download for Free

Excellent question. But you could also ask why not listen to the 1000s of other scientists who do not agree with the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 global warming, including climate scientists, physicists, chemical engineers, geologists, paleoclimatologists, astrophysicists, atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, climate computer modelers, mathematicians, statisticians, marine biologists, etc.The 97% consensus is just one of the lies from CAGW alarmists, and has been debunked time and again:https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Dispatch'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% WrongGlobal Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' ClaimsClimate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now SkepticsA Climate Falsehood You Can Check for YourselfAll "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-ReviewOne of the most recent studies (performed by a division of the Dutch government) revealed less than half of climate scientists agree with the theory of CAGW. What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certaintyIn 2009, over 100 scientists, with the courage to speak out, allowed their names to be added as signatories to newspaper advertisements, created by the libertarian Cato Institute, opposing President Obama’s claims that combating climate change was urgent and that the science was beyond dispute. Here is the content of the ad:“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” — PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19, 2008With all due respect Mr.President, that is not true.We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.(1,2) After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.(3) The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.(4) Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.1. Swanson, K.L., and A.A.Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022. 2. Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at Temperature data (HadCRUT4, CRUTEM4) Climatic Research Unit global temperature. 3. Pielke, R.A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481. 4. Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651SYUN AKASOFU, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALASKAARTHUR G. ANDERSON, PH.D DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,IBM (RETIRED)CHARLES R. ANDERSON, PH.D ANDERSON MATERIALS EVALUATIONJ. SCOTT ARMSTRONG, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIAROBERT ASHWORTH CLEARSTACK LLCISMAIL BAHT, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIRCOLIN BARTON CSIRO (RETIRED)DAVID J. BELLAMY, OBE THE BRITISH NATURAL ASSOCIATIONJOHN BLAYLOCK LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY (RETIRED)EDWARD F. BLICK, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA (EMERITUS)SONJA BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF HULLBOB BRECK AMS BROADCASTER OF THE YEAR 2008JOHN BRIGNELL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON (EMERITUS)MARK CAMPBELL, PH.D U.S.NAVAL ACADEMYROBERT M. CARTER, PH.D JAMES COOK UNIVERSITYIAN CLARK, PH.D PROFESSOR,EARTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, OTTAWA, CANADAROGER COHEN, PH.D FELLOW, AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETYPAUL COPPER, PH.D LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)PIERS CORBYN, MS WEATHER ACTIONRICHARD S. COURTNEY, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEUBERTO CRESCENTI, PH.D PAST-PRESIDENT,ITALIAN GEOLOGICAL SOCIETYSUSAN CROCKFORD, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIAJOSEPH S. D’ALEO, FELLOW, AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETYJAMES DEMEO, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS (RETIRED)DAVID DEMING, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMADIANE DOUGLAS, PH.D PALEOCLIMATOLOGISTDAVID DOUGLASS, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTERROBERT H. ESSENHIGH, E.G. BAILEY EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF ENERGY CONVERSION THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITYCHRISTOPHER ESSEX, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIOJOHN FERGUSON, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE (RETIRED)EDUARDO FERREYRA ARGENTINIAN FOUNDATION FOR A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGYMICHAEL FOX, PH.D AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETYGORDON FULKS, PH.D GORDON FULKS AND ASSOCIATESLEE GERHARD, PH.D STATE GEOLOGIST, KANSAS (RETIRED)GERHARD GERLICH, PH.D TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAT BRAUNSCHWEIGIVAR GIAEVER, PH.D NOBEL LAUREATE,PHYSICSALBRECHT GLATZLE, PH.D SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, INTTAS (PARAGUAY)WAYNE GOODFELLOW, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWAJAMES GOODRIDGE CALIFORNIA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST (RETIRED)LAURENCE GOULD, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORDVINCENT GRAY, PH.D NEW ZEALAND CLIMATE COALITIONWILLIAM M. GRAY, PH.D COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITYKENNETH E. GREEN, D. ENV. AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTEKESTEN GREEN, PH.D MONASH UNIVERSITYWILL HAPPER, PH.D PRINCETON UNIVERSITYHOWARD C. HAYDEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT (EMERITUS)BEN HERMAN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA (EMERITUS)MARTIN HERTZBERG, PH.D. U.S. NAVY (RETIRED)DOUG HOFFMAN, PH.D AUTHOR,THE RESILIENT EARTHBERND HUETTNER, PH.DOLE HUMLUM, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OSLOA. NEIL HUTTON PAST PRESIDENT, CANADIAN SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTSCRAIG D. IDSO, PH.D CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL CHANGESHERWOOD B. IDSO, PH.D U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (RETIRED)KIMINORI ITOH, PH.D YOKOHAMA NATIONAL UNIVERSITYSTEVE JAPAR, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGESTEN KAIJSER, PH.D UPPSALA UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)WIBJORN KARLEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF STOCKHOLM (EMERITUS)JOEL KAUFFMAN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF THE SCIENCES, PHILADELPHIA (EMERITUS)DAVID KEAR, PH.D FORMER DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NZ DEPT. SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCHRICHARD KEEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF COLORADODR.KELVIN KEMM, PH.D LIFETIME ACHIEVERS AWARD, NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FORUM, SOUTH AFRICAMADHAV KHANDEKAR, PH.D FORMER EDITOR, CLIMATE RESEARCHROBERT S. KNOX, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER (EMERITUS)JAMES P. KOERMER, PH.D PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITYGERHARD KRAMM, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKSWAYNE KRAUS, PH.D KRAUS CONSULTINGOLAV M. KVALHEIM, PH.D UNIV. OF BERGENROAR LARSON, PH.D NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYJAMES F. LEA, PH.DDOUGLAS LEAHY, PH.D METEOROLOGISTPETER R. LEAVITT CERTIFIED CONSULTING METEOROLOGISTDAVID R. LEGATES, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARERICHARD S. LINDZEN, PH.D MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYHARRY F. LINS, PH.D. CO-CHAIR, IPCC HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES WORKING GROUPANTHONY R. LUPO, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURIHOWARD MACCABEE, PH.D, MD CLINICAL FACULTY, STANFORD MEDICAL SCHOOLHORST MALBERG, PH.D FREE UNIVERSITY OF BERLINBJORN MALMGREN, PH.D GOTEBURG UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)JENNIFER MAROHASY, PH.D AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATIONJAMES A. MARUSEK U.S.NAVY (RETIRED)ROSS MCKITRICK, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF GUELPHPATRICK J. MICHAELS, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIATIMMOTHY R. MINNICH, MS MINNICH AND SCOTTO, INC.ASMUNN MOENE, PH.D FORMER HEAD, FORECASTING CENTER, METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE, NORWAYMICHAEL MONCE, PH.D CONNECTICUT COLLEGEDICK MORGAN, PH.D EXETER UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)NILS-AXEL MÖRNER, PH.D STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)DAVID NOWELL, D.I.C. FORMER CHAIRMAN, NATO METEOROLOGY CANADACLIFF OLLIER, UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIAGARTH W.PALTRIDGE, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIAALFRED PECKAREK, PH.D ST.CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITYDR. ROBERT A. PERKINS, P.E. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKAIAN PILMER, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE (EMERITUS)BRIAN R. PRATT, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWANJOHN REINHARD, PH.D ORE PHARMACEUTICALSPETER RIDD, PH.D JAMES COOK UNIVERSITYCURT ROSE, PH.D BISHOP’S UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)PETER SALONIUS http://M.SC. CANADIAN FOREST SERVICEGARY SHARP, PH.D CENTER FOR CLIMATE/OCEAN RESOURCES STUDYTHOMAS P. SHEAHAN, PH.D WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.ALAN SIMMONS AUTHOR, THE RESILIENT EARTHROY W. SPENCER, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA—HUNTSVILLEARLIN SUPER, PH.D RETIRED RESEARCH METEOROLOGIST, U.S. DEPT. OF RECLAMATIONGEORGE H. TAYLOR, MS APPLIED CLIMATE SERVICESEDUARDO P. TONNI, PH.D MUSEO DE LA PLATA (ARGENTINA)RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER, PH.DDR. ANTON URIARTE, PH.D UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAISVASCOBRIAN VALENTINE, PH.D U.S.DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYGOSTA WALIN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG (EMERITUS)GERD-RAINER WEBER, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEFORESE-CARLO WEZEL, PH.D URBINO UNIVERSITYEDWARD T. WIMBERLEY, PH.D FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITYMIKLOS ZAGONI, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEANTONIO ZICHICHI, PH.D PRESIDENT, WORLD FEDERATION OF SCIENTISTShttp://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/climatead_chicagotrib_rev.pdfIt’s interesting to note that quite a few research scientist skeptics are retired/ emeritus. They have the most experience in their fields and can speak out against CAGW without fear of losing grants or jobs! That’s not a luxury that most currently employed climate scientists enjoy.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair“Only scientists who are outside the power structure can significantly criticize science. This situation alone guarantees runaway fraud in science. Any power structure that polices itself will eventually disintegrate in corruption.”- Gary Novak About Gary Novak, Independent Scientist.Nevertheless, by 2010, the number of scientists willing to speak out against the theory of CAGW had grown to over 1,000 and included many actively working scientists. The names appeared in a report to the US Senate: “More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore.” The report included many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who had turned against the organization and its agenda. It also noted that the number of dissenting scientists was more than twenty times the number of UN scientists (52) who had authored the media-hyped 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers.Here’s a comment from one of the dissenters: UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita - “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process. Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas. 12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a U.N. global warming report are up to their necks in ClimateGate.” Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, he has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research in Germany. He has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.The International Climate Science Coalition is a non-partisan group of independent scientists, economists and energy and policy experts that works to promote better understanding of climate science and policy worldwide. ICSC aims to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. It has a Climate Scientist Register signed by over 140 individuals, mostly PhD scientists who endorse the following statement: “We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming." Welcome to the International Climate Science Coalition Web Site CLIMATE SCIENTISTS' REGISTER ENDORSERSAs you already mentioned, a group of over 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields sent a letter to Secretary-General António Guterres of the United Nations on Sept. 23, 2019 declaring that “…there is no climate emergency. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models.” The letter states that current climate policies undermine the economic system and put lives at risk by denying countries affordable energy. The letter’s release coincided with the U.N. climate summit in New York. Exemplifying some of the alarmism that prompted the letter, teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg told the summit that the planet is in the beginning stage of “mass extinction.” The scientists point out that the warming projected by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show temperature increases four times higher than the warming that was actually observed. The letter also states the recent increase in global average temperature is no surprise, considering that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850s, and that global warming hasn’t led to more natural disasters. 500 Prominent Scientists Warn U.N.: 'There Is No Climate Emergency'90 leading Italian Scientists sign Petition: “Anthropogenic Origin of Global Warming is an unproven Hypothesis” publicized in June, 2019, which challenges the assertion that humans cause global warming as a theory based on models that have failed to adequately predict climate changes. “It is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for the warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data. All the evidence suggests that these models overestimate the [human] contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.” 90 leading Italian Scientists sign Petition: “Anthropogenic Origin of Global Warming is an unproven Hypothesis” … Catastrophic Predictions “Not realistic”In 2015, a weather forecaster for French state television, Philippe Verdier, was fired after publishing a book called Climate Investigation, denouncing the close ties "between scientists, politicians, economic lobbies, environmental NGOs". He also sent an open letter to French President Hollande pointing out the uselessness of the 2015 UN Paris Climate Conference, aka Conference of Parties 21 (COP21). In response to these events, a group of mathemeticians from the French Société de Calcul Mathématique SA wrote a White Paper titled: The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade. Because of so many salient points by this group of skeptical mathematicians, exposing so much fraud and poor science by alarmist scientists, I have included it in its entirety here:The Battle Against Global Warming: An Absurd, Costly and Pointless Crusade September 2015 http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM...Summary- All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming. The initial credo is simple: temperatures at the surface of the planet have been rising constantly for the past thirty years, and human beings are to blame.This is leading to all sorts of discussions, conferences and regulations, which are having an enormous impact on our economy. Every area of activity is affected: transport, housing, energy – to name just a few. Why do we need to save energy? It is quite simple: we have to reduce human impact on the planet. This is the fundamental credo.The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone‘s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational?At the root lie the declarations made by the IPCC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the ̳good boy of Europe‘, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous.But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments.This White Paper is divided into three parts:Part 1: The factsChapter 1: The crusade is absurd There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ̳disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.We are being told that ̳a temperature increase of more than 2 C by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9C ? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1 C every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.Chapter 2: The crusade is costly Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ̳virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ̳energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs. But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2 emissions, haven‘t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2 have continued to rise, including those generated by France in designing and manufacturing its own products, as the Cour des Comptes clearly states. Quite simply, manufacturing that is held to be environmentally damaging has been relocated. So the same products are now being manufactured in countries that are far less respectful of the environment, and we have lost all the associated jobs. As Baudelaire says, ̳Nature‘s irony combines with our insanity‘.Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.French policy on CO2 emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector.International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases.This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.Part 2: Scientific aspects Having looked at the facts and their social impact, we now look at some more or less well- established scientific knowledge.Chapter 1: The natural variability of the climate There have already been innumerable variations in the climate in the past, some of them enormous (such as glaciations). The main causes are linked to the Sun and the albedo of the cloud layer (does sunlight penetrate right to the ground, or is it reflected back by the clouds?). Human beings obviously have a role to play, but the natural causes of climate variations are never taken into account by the crusaders, who put all the blame on human activity.Chapter 2: Are human beings influencing the climate? One might wonder whether human beings are influencing the climate, with their buildings, transport networks and very civilization. The answer is that their influence is tiny, quite negligible in comparison with natural causes. Nature makes major changes, human beings make small ones, which our natural arrogance lends a significance they simply do not have.SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/094Insurance companies know what is what: the cost of natural phenomena (such as tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions) is ten times greater than the cost of any man-made disaster.Another vital question here: do human beings have the technological ability to change the climate? The answer is no: human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, the temperature of the Earth‘s magma, or the composition of the atmosphere. On the other hand, human beings are very capable of getting worked up about all sorts of things, of ̳skipping and swooning‘, as Baudelaire put it.We should like to suggest here an especially interesting and original measure, which is the greenhouse effect, only bald people should be allowed to go out on sunny days; people with a full head of hair should be allowed to go out only at night or on rainy days.Chapter 3: The consequences of so-called global warming One might wonder about the potential consequences of so-called global warming for human beings and the natural world. The answer is very simple: the natural world will adjust very well, as it has always done. Plants, in particular, would enjoy an increase in CO2 concentrations. In France, the positive effects would far outweigh the negative ones. If there were such a thing as global warming, then we should celebrate. And if it does not exist, then we shall simply have to carry on switching on the central heating nine months a year.Part 3: The IPCC We are not in a position to question the composition of the IPCC, or its legitimacy and policy decisions, and we shall not do so. However, as mathematicians, we have every right to respond to the following question: if the IPCC‘s work were to be submitted for publication in a reputable scientific journal, would it be accepted? This decision is the task of a referee, in a procedure that is common practice in the sciences.The answer is very simple: no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPCC‘s work. The IPCC‘s conclusions go against observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty), and the natural variability of phenomena is passed over without comment. This is a French measure whereby a ban is imposed on city-center. traffic during periods of heavy pollution, with cars whose registration plates have even numbers and those with odd numbers being barred from the roads on alternate days. The IPCC‘s report fails to respect the fundamental rules of scientific research and could not be published in any review with a reading panel.Conclusion: In a democracy, there is an opposition, and this opposition has a right, in principle, to express its views: this is what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship. But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition – people who do not believe in global warming – have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals. They have simply been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action. In law, there is a fundamental principle known as the ̳’adversarial principle‘. A case can be thrown out of court if the defense is not informed of every known element of the accusation. Even if twenty people have witnessed the abominable criminal commit his offense, if the defense has not had access to blood-sample analyses, the case will be thrown out. In the case of global warming, a number of bodies are telling us they have all the evidence, but refuse to tell us what it is. The data have been processed, but how? Time series have been altered, but why? Some phenomena have been left out of the equation, but on what grounds? We do not know, and we are simply required to keep quiet and do what we are told. No second opinion is permitted. It is on the debris of the fundamental principles of the law and of democracy that this White Paper has been written. www.scmsa.eu › archives › SCM_RC_2015_08_24_ENThe numbers of dissenting scientists cited above are just a fraction of those who are skeptical of CAGW. For instance, a total of 31,487 American scientists (as of 2019), including 9,029 with PhDs and numerous climate scientists, signed the petition run by the Global Warming Petition Project, to publicly demonstrate that the scientific community in the US rejects claims that the science around man-made global warming is either “settled”, or that a “consensus” exists.” Global Warming Petition ProjectAlthough not all of these scientists are PhD climate scientists, “All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.”If you think you qualify, please contact them and request being added to the list.As expected, alarmists (including those authoring the section about the Petition in Wikipedia) have tried to discredit the petition with false allegations, such as claiming that numerous fictitious names are included. Alarmists also state that it is irrelevant since most of the signatories are not “climate scientists”. But all who submit their names to be included are vetted and the vast majority have extensive backgrounds in science, including over 9,000 PhDs. Climate science is an amalgamation of dozens of different sciences, including geology, paleogeology, paleoclimatology, inorganc and organic chemistry, physics, astrophysics, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, meteorology, atmospheric science, biological sciences, etc., along with statistics and advanced mathematics. Each contributes vital information to the study of climate change, including information which may contradict the theory of CAGWHere is one of hundreds of scientists who were originally supporters of the CAGW theory who changed their position after thorough study. Dr. David Evans, mathematician, engineer and computer modeler, who worked for the Australian government determining how much CO2 emission it should reduce, now believes there is no need to do so because alarmist computer models greatly exaggerated the amount of warming due to CO2. In this video he also discusses that fact that the oceans are NOT warming as shown by the very precise Argo buoy system.Two other outstanding examples of eminent dissenting scientists are Nobel laureates Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaever. While they are not “climatologists”, both are renowned physicists quite knowledgeable about climate science, highly skeptical of CAGW and quite adroit at presenting the reasons why.Freeman Dyson is an English-born American theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Now retired, he spent most of his professional career as a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, alongside such notables as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and Robert Oppenheimer. Although he is 91, he continues his studies as professor emeritus, and, as you will see in the video below, is as sharp as a tack.He agrees that humans affect climate but disagrees entirely with the dire predictions first made popular by Al Gore, and uses his enormous wealth of knowledge of physics, mathematics, natural sciences, quantum mechanics and the scientific method to discredit much of the global warming hysteria. He believes CAGW alarmism is more of a religion than a science."There certainly is an enormous religion in which there are lots of true believers who think that climate change is evil…"Ivar Giaever is a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 for his work on quantum tunneling in superconductors. Much like Freeman Dyson, he deplores the strong-arm tactics and intolerance of global warming alarmists. He also likens their vehement faith-based belief in anthropogenic global warming without valid scientific proof to a new religion.For more info about the constantly increasing number of scientists who are skeptical of the theory of CAGW see:Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics 2007www.scmsa.eu › archives › SCM_RC_2015_08_24_ENCountering The Fallacy Of Global WarmingMore Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Global ResearchList of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - WikipediaGlobal warming: second thoughts of an environmentalistSee the names of many more skeptical and dissenting scientists at: John Walker's answer to Do we have conclusive evidence that humans are the root cause of climate change?And see even more at: James Matkin's answer to Are there any prominent and well-respected scientists who do not believe in climate change?And the number of scientific articles skeptical of CAGW continues to expand:http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html 1350 papers in 2014Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate AlarmSo far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarmAlarmists like Thunberg frequently tell us to “trust the experts”. That’s excellent advice! There are 1000s to choose from as illustrated above!