General Risk Assessment Form: 3 Variable - Safety: Fill & Download for Free

YES. What follows are leading climate scientists who are skeptical of so called climate change and why the real deniers are those alarmists who deny the long view of living in the middle of an ice age and the reality of natural variability from solar cycles. Many forces including the earth’s orbital tilt not human emissions of trace amounts of CO2, the air we all exhale with every breath to stay alive, have a major effect on the climate.A major point documented by the Working Group 1 of the IPCC against alarmist theories who deny natural variability in the recent warming and blame humans for the change is the inability to separate the natural from the human impacts.Think about this fact. In 1995 2000+ climate scientists from around the world working on the UN IPCC project concluded as follows:In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”[NATURAL VARIABILITY OVERPOWERS ANY HUMAN IMPACT]Instead of accepting the uncertainty of our complex climate and the difficulty of finding evidence that parses or separates human effects from the dominant natural effects the draft summary was ignored along with the scientists plea for more research with a detailed program outlined. No, the UN General Assembly leaders took over the science Report without credibility and published this dishonest conclusion HIDING THE WORKING GROUP DISSENT.“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”This sordid story of mendacity is told objectively and documented by Bernie Lewin in this book -The author allows these select passages from his book for discussion. They show how the IPCC was threatened with extinction for failing to find human climate change and then the political arm of the UN interfered and fudged the reports using the Michael Mann fudged hockey stick graphs that erased conventional history of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. -Following the welcoming addresses by the Italian President and Environment Minister, there first came Patrick Obasi, Secretary General of the WMO. At the conclusion of a speech mostly making recommendations for the future direction of the IPCC, he noted that the most important result in the current assessment is the evidence for a ‘discernible human influence on global climate’.682 Next came the new head of UNEP, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, who opened with the now familiar narrative of triumph: A decade ago, the scientific community alerted the world to the likelihood that we humans are causing the global climate to change. Five years ago, you said you were very confident that this is indeed the case, but that it would be ten years before we would experience any consequences. Now, just five years later, you are reporting that effects of global warming are upon us. As you put it in your report, ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate’.683 Later in her speech, this key component of the report’s message is summarised, without qualification, as ‘human activities are affecting the global climate’ and so… For the first time, we have evidence that a signal of global warming is beginning to emerge from the ‘noise’ of natural variability. In other words, you [the IPCC] have given the world a reality check. You have pinched us and we have realised we are not dreaming. Climate change is with us. The question is: what do we do with this knowledge?684Lewin, Bernie. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 286-287). Global Warming Policy Foundation. Kindle Edition.A fudged hockey stick by Mann saved the IPCC from being damned out of existenceUnder Houghton and Watson the IPCC third assessment would champion the work of another young scientist who in 1998 produced a temperature trend graph that seemed to have solved Barnett’s problem of a natural variability ‘yardstick’. Using proxy data stretching back to the end of the Medieval Warm Period and instrumental data for the last 100 years, Michael Mann’s results showed such a rapid general warming trend over the last 100 years that it towered over previous fluctuations, thus leaving no room for doubt that something extraordinary is now underway.735Mann soon extended his study back across an entire millennium and this so-called ‘Hockey Stick’ graph is what featured in the IPCC third assessment report. When the report was released in 2001, the graph was the most spectacular vehicle for its promotion; it was also later widely used by governments promoting emissions-reduction policies.These campaigns were not unduly affected by the concerns that were soon raised about the methodology of the graph’s construction, nor by the ensuing Hockey Stick controversy, which would grow to be much larger and endure much longer than the Chapter 8 controversy.736 Instead, the visual impact of the Hockey Stick continued to overwhelm any doubt that there was already a discernible human influence on the global climate.If we consider the other lead authors of Chapter 8, we find that they would suffer little from the controversy, but they won none of the accolades afforded Santer, which is hardly surprising given that they were not always entirely in accord with the IPCC line. Tom Wigley’s expressed scepticism of the science behind climate action extended beyond the determination of natural variability. We will remember that just after the lead author meeting in Asheville he had published a commentary on the Met Office’s neat tracking of the recent global temperature trend, questioning the simulation of the sulphate effect and the apparent success of the modelling prediction. But even before Asheville he also questioned the scientific-economic rationale behind the rush towards emissions reduction. Collaborating with energy economists on a study partly funded by the energy industry, he concluded that it is not advisable to start curbing emissions for another 30 years.* Still, he remained fiercely loyal to Santer during the Chapter 8 controversy and to all the scientists working under the funding generated by the scare. His continuing `loyal opposition’ is particularly evident in emails leaked in 2009, which show that during the Hockey Stick controversy he was at the same time working hard behind the scenes to fend off skeptics while privately agreeing with much of the criticism of Mann’s work.* 738Lewin, Bernie. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 308-309). Global Warming Policy Foundation. Kindle Edition.Sanders is a left wing politician and this group sadly have a reputation of not telling the truth about the science.– Christine Stewart,former Canadian Minister of the Environment“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity tobring about justice and equality in the world.”– Christine Stewart,>**CAMILLE PAGLIA** (Camille Paglia | Salon.com)>OCTOBER 10, 2007 11:19AM (UTC)>**I too grew up in upstate New York. I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the ****Al Gore** (http://dir.salon.com/topics/al_gore/)**/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target. Anyone can read up on Holocene geology and see that climate changes are caused by polar wandering and magnetic reversals. It is entertaining, yet sad to read bloviage from ****Leonardo DiCaprio** (http://dir.salon.com/topics/leonardo_dicaprio/)**, who is so self-centered that he thinks the earth's history and climate is a function of his short personal stay on this planet. Still he, Al Gore, Prince Charles and so on, ad nauseam, continue with their jet-set lifestyles. What hypocrisy!**>Thank you for your input on the mass hysteria over global warming. The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years.>Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.>The paranoid withdrawal fantasy (The paranoid withdrawal fantasy)>**Camille Paglia** is a second-wave feminist and an American (United States - RationalWiki) academic specializing in literature (Literature - RationalWiki) and culture, particularly topics around gender (Gender - RationalWiki), sex (Sex - RationalWiki), and sexuality (Sexuality - RationalWiki). She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by *Prospect* and *Foreign Policy* magazines.>**Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdTlXuTwvEQ&t=65s>Published on 3 May 2018>Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis is correct in his assessment of the current state of climate science, describing it as a "Joke".>As he correctly points out, there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change.>There is also no published empirical scientific evidence that any CO2, whether natural or man-made, causes warming in the troposphere.>Mullis earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta in 1966, he then received a PhD in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley in 1973.>His Nobel Prize was awarded in 1993.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxEWho is the most famous person who denies natural variation and mother nature as governing climate change?Home (Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe) | Newsfront (Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream)**Monday December 03, 2018****Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change**>Freeman Dyson (Nadine Rupp/Getty Images)By Greg Richter | Wednesday, 14 October 2015 09:32 PM>Noted theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson says he votes for Democrats, but is disappointed with the position President Barack Obama has taken on climate change.>Dyson worked on climate change before his retirement as professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1994, and said in an interview with the **U.K. Register** (Top boffin Freeman Dyson on climate change, interstellar travel, fusion, and more) that scientists are ignoring their own data that show climate change isn't happening as quickly as their models are predicting.>"It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]," Dyson said. "I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.">Climate change, he said, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?">In the past 10 years the discrepancies between what is observed and what is predicted have become much stronger," Dyson said. "It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.">Carbon dioxide isn't as bad for the environment as claimed, he said, and actually does more good than harm.>Among Dyson's suggestions for combating climate change are building up topsoil and inducing snowfall to prevent the oceans from rising.>Dyson is best known for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering.Read Newsmax: Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change | Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe (Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change)>**The Top Five Skeptical Climate-Change Scientists****[2]** (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)>**1. Lennart O. Bengtsson**>Bengtsson was born in Trollhättan, Sweden, in 1935. He holds a PhD (1964) in meteorology from the University of Stockholm. His long and productive career included positions as Head of Research and later Director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading in the UK (1976 — 1990), and as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg (1991 — 2000). Bengtsson is currently Senior Research Fellow with the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, as well as Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.Bengtsson’s scientific work has been wide-ranging, including everything from climate modelling and numerical weather prediction to climate data and data assimilation studies. Most recently, he has been involved in studies and modeling of the water cycle and extreme events. From his twin home bases in the UK and Germany, he has cooperated closely over the years with scientists in the US, Sweden, Norway, and other European countries.Bengtsson is best known to the general public due to a dispute which arose in 2014 over a paper he and his colleagues had submitted to *Environmental Research Letters*, but which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons. The paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. Bengtsson and his co-authors maintained that the uncertainties are greater than the IPCC Assessment Reports claim. The affair was complicated by the fact that Bengtsson had recently agreed to serve on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization. When Bengtsson voiced his displeasure over the rejection of his paper, and mainstream scientists noticed his new affiliation with the GWPF, intense pressure was brought to bear, both in public and behind the scenes, to force Bengtsson to recant his criticism of the journal in question and to resign from the GWPF. He finally did both of these things, but not without noting bitterly in his letter of resignation:>I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting [sic] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.>I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.>[14] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Bengtsson is the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books (see below). In addition to numerous grants, commission and board memberships, honorary degrees, and other forms of professional recognition, he has received the Milutin Milanković Medal (1996) bestowed by the European Geophysical Society, the Descartes Prize (2005) bestowed by the European Union, the International Meteorological Organization Prize (2006), and the Rossby Prize (2007) bestowed by the Swedish Geophysical Society. Bengtsson is an Honorary Member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), and a Fellow of the Swedish Academy of Science, the Finnish Academy of Science, and the European Academy.**Professional Website** (Bengtsson Lennart)**Selected Books*** *Geosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate* (Cambridge University Press, 2001)* *The Earth’s Cryosphere and Sea Level Change* (Springer, 2012)* *Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows* (Springer, 2012)* *Towards Understanding the Climate of Venus: Applications of Terrestrial Models to Our Sister Planet* (Springer, 2013)>**2. John R. Christy**>Christy was born in Fresno, California, in 1951. He holds a PhD (1987) in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Christy is best known for work he did with Roy W. Spencer beginning in 1979 on establishing reliable global temperature data sets derived from microwave radiation probes collected by satellites. Theirs was the first successful attempt to use such satellite data collection for the purpose of establishing long-term temperature records. Although the data they collected were initially controversial, and some corrections to the interpretation of the raw data had to be made, the work — which is coming up on its fortieth anniversary — remains uniquely valuable for its longevity, and is still ongoing. Christy has long been heavily involved in the climate change/global warming discussion, having been a Contributor or Lead Author to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports relating to satellite temperature records. He was a signatory of the 2003 American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) statement on climate change, although he has stated that he was “very upset” by the AGU’s more extreme 2007 statement.[15] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Christy began voicing doubts about the growing climate-change consensus in the 2000s. In an interview with the BBC from 2007, he accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct.”[16] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics); In 2009, he made the following statement in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee (altogether, he has testified before Congress some 20 times):>From my analysis, the actions being considered to “stop global warming” will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming. And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.>[17] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Christy has not been shy about publicizing his views, making many of the same points in an op-ed piece he published with a colleague in 2014 in the *Wall Street Journal*.[18] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)In an interview with the *New York Times* published that same year, he explains the price he has had to pay professionally for his skeptical stance toward the climate-change consensus.[19] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)However, Christy stands his ground, refusing to give in to *ad hominem* attacks or the exercise of naked political power, insisting the issues must be discussed on the scientific merits alone.Christy is the author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters (for a selection of a few of his best-known articles, see below). In 1991, Christy was awarded the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement bestowed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for his groundbreaking work with Spencer. A Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), since 2000 Christy has been Alabama’s official State Climatologist.**Academic Website** (The Atmospheric Science Department)**Selected Publications*** ”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures," *Journal of Climate*, 1994, 7: 106 — 120.* ”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data," *Atmospheric Environment*, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961.* ”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers'?," *Nature*, 1997, **3**89: 342 — 343.* “Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” *Science*, 2000, **2**87: 1242 — 1245.* ”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series," *Climate Dynamics*, 2000, 16: 587 — 601.* ”Reliability of satellite data sets," *Science*, 2003, **3**01: 1046 — 1047.* ”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC," in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., *Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming*. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.* ”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions," *International Journal of Climatology*, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701.* ”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth," *Energy & Environment*, 2009, 20: 178 — 189.* ”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?," *Remote Sensing*, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169.* ”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?," *Nature*, 2010, **4**63: 730 — 732.* ”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods," *Geoscience Data Journal*, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.>**3. Judith A. Curry**>Curry was born in 1953. She holds a PhD (1982) in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. She has taught at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). In 2017, under a torrent of criticism from her colleagues and negative stories in the media, she was forced to take early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a position she had held for 15 years (during 11 of those years, she had been Chair of the School). Curry is currently Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech, as well as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, or CFAN (see below), an organization she founded in 2006.Curry is an atmospheric scientist and climatologist with broad research interests, including atmospheric modeling, the polar regions, atmosphere-ocean interactions, remote sensing, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research, and hurricanes, especially their relationship to tornadoes. Before retiring, she was actively researching the evidence for a link between global warming and hurricane frequency and severity.Curry was drummed out of academia for expressing in public her reservations about some of the more extreme claims being made by mainstream climate scientists. For example, in 2011, she published (with a collaborator) an article stressing the uncertainties involved in climate science and urging caution on her colleagues.[20] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)After having posted comments along these lines on other people’s blogs for several years, in 2010, she created her own climate-related blog, Climate Etc. (see below), to foster a more open and skeptical discussion of the whole gamut of issues involving climate change/global warming. She also gave testimony some half dozen times between 2006 and 2015 to Senate and House subcommittees, expressing in several of them her concerns about the politicization of the usual scientific process in the area of climate change. Writing on her blog in 2015 about her most-recent Congressional testimony, Curry summarized her position as follows:>The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.>The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.>We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.>[21] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Finding herself denounced as a “climate change denier” and under intense pressure to recant her views, in 2017 Curry instead took early retirement from her job at Georgia Tech and left academia, citing the “craziness” of the present politicization of climate science. She continues to be active in the field of climatology through her two blogs and her many public lectures.Curry is the author or co-author of more than 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the co-author or editor of three books (see below). She has received many research grants, been invited to give numerous public lectures, and participated in many workshops, discussion panels, and committees, both in the US and abroad. In 2007, Curry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).**Academic Website** (Judith Curry's Home Page)**Professional Website** (JUDITH CURRY | strip-header-layout)**Personal Website** (Climate Etc.)**Selected Books*** *Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans* (Academic Press, 1988)* *Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences* (Academic Press, 2003)* *Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds* (Cambridge University Press, 2014)>**4. Richard S. Lindzen**>Lindzen was born in Webster, Massachusetts, in 1940. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.Already in his PhD dissertation, Lindzen made his first significant contribution to science, laying the groundwork for our understanding of the physics of the ozone layer of the atmosphere.[22] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)After that, he solved a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure).[23] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Next, he discovered the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a cyclical reversal in the prevailing winds in the stratosphere above the tropical zone.[24] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Then, Lindzen and a colleague proposed an explanation for the “superrotation” of the highest layer of Venus’s atmosphere (some 50 times faster than the planet itself), a model that is still being debated.[25] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)The idea for which Lindzen is best known, though, is undoubtedly the “adaptive infrared iris” conjecture.[26] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)According to this model, the observed inverse correlation between surface temperature and cirrus cloud formation may operate as a negative feedback on infrared radiation (heat) build-up near the earth’s surface. According to this proposal, decreasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures rise leads to increased heat radiation into space, while increasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures decline leads to increased heat retention — much as the iris of the human eye adapts to ambient light by widening and narrowing. If correct, this phenomenon would be reason for optimism that global warming might be to some extent self-limiting. Lindzen’s hypothesis has been highly controversial, but it is still being discussed as a serious proposal, even by his many critics.Lindzen was a Contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment, and to Chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1). Nevertheless, in the 1990s, Lindzen began to express his concern about the reliability of the computer models upon which official IPCC and other extreme climate projections are based. He has been especially critical of the notion that the “science is settled.” In a 2009 *Wall Street Journal* op-ed, he maintained that the science is far from settled and that “[c]onfident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”[27] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)For his trouble, Lindzen has suffered the usual brutal, *ad hominem* attacks from the climate-change establishment.Lindzen is author or co-author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as author, co-author, or editor of several books, pamphlets, and technical reports (see below). He is a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS).**Academic Website** (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm)**Selected Books*** *Atmospheric Tides* (D. Reidel, 1970)* *Semidiurnal Hough Mode Extensions in the Thermosphere and Their Application* (Naval Research Lab, 1977)* *The Atmosphere — a Challenge: The Science of Jule Gregory Charney*(American Meteorological Society, 1990)* *Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics* (Cambridge University Press, 1990)>**5. Nir J. Shaviv**>Shaviv was born in Ithaca, New York, in 1972, but was raised in Israel. He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study inShaviv first made a name for himself (see his 1998 and 2001 papers, below) with his research on the relationship between inhomogeneities in stellar atmospheres and the Eddington limit (the equilibrium point at which the centrifugal force of stellar radiation production equals the centripetal force of gravitation). This theoretical work led to a concrete prediction that was later confirmed telescopically (see the 2013 *Nature*paper listed below).Of more direct relevance to the climate-change debate was a series of papers Shaviv wrote, beginning in 2002 (see below), detailing a bold theory linking earth’s ice ages with successive passages of the planet through the various spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, and with cosmic radiation more generally. He has also expressed his conviction that variations in solar radiation have played an equal, if not greater, role in the observed rise in mean global temperature over the course of the twentieth century than has human activity (see his 2012 paper, below). He maintains, not only that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have played a smaller role in global warming than is usually believed, but also that the earth’s climate system is not nearly so sensitive as is usually assumed.In recent years, Shaviv has become an active critic of the results and predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other organizations supporting the consensus view. In particular, he rejects the often-heard claim that “97% of climate scientists” agree that anthropogenic climate change is certain and highly dangerous. Shaviv emphasizes (see the video clip, below) that “science is not a democracy” and all that matters is the evidence for these claims — which he finds deficient.Shaviv is the author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters, of which some of the most important are listed below.**Academic Website** (Racah Institute of Physics)**Selected Publications*** ”Dynamics of fronts in thermally bi-stable fluids," *Astrophysical Journal*, 1992, **3**92: 106 — 117.* ”Origin of the high energy extragalactic diffuse gamma ray background," *Physical Review Letters*, 1995, 75: 3052 — 3055.* ”The Eddington luminosity limit for multiphased media," *Astrophysical Journal Letters*, 1998, **4**94: L193 — L197.* ”The theory of steady-state super-Eddington winds and its application to novae," *Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society*, 2001, **3**26: 126 — 146.* ”The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth," *New Astronomy*, 2002, 8: 39 — 77.* ”Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?," *GSA Today*, July 2003, 13(7): 4 — 10.* ”Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection," in Richard C. Ragaini, ed.,* International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 30th Session: Erice, Italy, 18 — 26 August 200*3. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004.* ”On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget," *Journal of Geophysical Research*, 2005, **1**10: A08105.* ”On the link between cosmic rays and terrestrial climate”, *International Journal of Modern Physics A*, 2005, 20: 6662 — 6665.* ”Interstellar-terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate," *Space Science Reviews*, 2006, **1**27: 327 — 465.* ”The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”, *Icarus*, 2011, **2**16: 403 — 414.* ”Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century," *Advances in Space Research*, 2012, 50: 762 — 776.* ”The sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to changes in the concentration of gases in planetary atmospheres," *Acta Polytechnica*, 2013, 53(Supplement): 832 — 838.* ”An outburst from a massive star 40 days before a supernova explosion," *Nature*, 2013, **4**94: 65 — 67.

There is no danger and no threat. In fact about 500 scientists and other knowledgable people just petitioned the UN: “There is no climate emergency.” Link here: “There is no climate emergency.”That was not the first such letter to the UN. Here is another one.Open letter by 100 scientists to UN Secretary General.Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General,United Nations New York, N.Y.Dec. 13, 2007Dear Mr. Secretary-General,Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction.It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.*In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08- 14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.Yours faithfully,The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia2. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S.3. William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-20004. Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark5. Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada6. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist,7. Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany8. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor, Energy & Environment journal9. Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.10. Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Look, Feel, & Smell your best. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S.11. Dan Carruthers, http://M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada12. Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia13. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada14. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.15. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand16. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S.17. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J., U.S.18. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S.19. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia20. Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands21. Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S.22. Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada23. David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak’, Australia24. William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.25. Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia26. R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa27. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.28. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany29. Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay30. Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden31. Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, New Zealand32. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S.33. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S.34. Louis Hissink, M.Sc., M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia35. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona, U.S.36. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA37. Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia38. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia39. Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden40. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia41. Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S.42. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand43. Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor “Climate Research” (03-05); Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 200744. William Kininmonth http://M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology45. Jan J.H. Kop, http://M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands46. Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands47. Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands48. Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands49. The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.50. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada51. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S.52. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant – power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand53. William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S.54. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.55. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors56. Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.57. Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia58. Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany59. John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand60. Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.61. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada62. John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia63. Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director – Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand64. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Canada65. Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University, Canada66. Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway67. Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia68. Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden69. Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic70. John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia71. Mr. David Nowell, http://M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada72. James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S.73. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia74. Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia75. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Canada76. Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S.77. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia78. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada79. Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences80. Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force81. R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.82. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands83. Rob Scagel, http://M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada84. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway85. Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S.86. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service87. L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada88. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S.89. Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden90. Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute91. Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands92. Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.93. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand94. Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia95. Edward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.96. Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany97. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland98. David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S.99. Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia100. Antonio Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy.Dec. 13, 2007# # #Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is ‘Futile’World's Top Scientists 'Manmade Warming' Is A Dangerous Lie

Yes. This question is very relevant to whether there is a climate crisis or not. The reason is the so called crisis is based on the view that warming today is unprecedented. If it is not because in the recent past the climate has been warmer then no climate crisis.The affirmative answer is supported by the specific terms of a very recent petition signed by 90 leading Italian scientists announcing to governments and the public that there is no climate crisis. The petition said -This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The following historical graph shows the history as explained in the petition.The full petition follows -“90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 2019NOTE: The English version of the petition that follows below is an unpolished translation of the original Italian version. The English version still needs to be polished up a bit, but it fully and accurately conveys the overall thrust of the original Italian version.“In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for 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 anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…PROMOTING COMMITTEE:Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples.SIGNATORIESAntonino Zichichi, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Bologna, Founder and President of the Ettore Center for Scientific Culture Majorana di Erice.Renato Angelo Ricci, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Padua, former President of the Italian Society of Physics and Society European Physics; Galileo Movement 2001.Aurelio Misiti, Professor of Health-Environmental Engineering, University of Sapienza, Rome.Antonio Brambati, Professor of Sedimentology, University of Trieste, Project Manager Paleoclima-mare of PNRA, already President of the National Oceanography Commission.Cesare Barbieri, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, University of Padua.6. Sergio Bartalucci, Physicist, President of the Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.7. Antonio Bianchini, Professor of Astronomy, University of Padua.8. Paolo Bonifazi, former Director of the Institute of Interplanetary Space Physics, National Astrophysical Institute.9. Francesca Bozzano, Professor of Applied Geology, Sapienza University of Rome, Director of the CERI Research Center.10. Marcello Buccolini, Professor of Geomorphology, University University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.11. Paolo Budetta, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Naples.12. Monia Calista, Researcher in Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.13. Giovanni Carboni, Professor of Physics, Tor Vergata University, Rome; Galileo Movement 2001.14. Franco Casali, Professor of Physics, University of Bologna and Bologna Academy of Sciences.15. Giuliano Ceradelli, Engineer and climatologist, ALDAI.16. Domenico Corradini, Professor of Historical Geology, University of Modena.17. Fulvio Crisciani, Professor of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, University of Trieste and Marine Sciences Institute, Cnr, Trieste.18. Carlo Esposito, Professor of Remote Sensing, La Sapienza University, Rome.19. Mario Floris, Professor of Remote Sensing, University of Padua.20. Gianni Fochi, Chemist, Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa; scientific journalist.21. Mario Gaeta, Professor of Volcanology, La Sapienza University, Rome.22. Giuseppe Gambolati, Fellow of the American Geophysica Union, Professor of Numerical Methods, University of Padua.23. Rinaldo Genevois, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Padua.24. Carlo Lombardi, Professor of Nuclear Plants, Milan Polytechnic.25. Luigi Marino, Geologist, Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.26. Salvatore Martino, Professor of Seismic Microzonation, La Sapienza University, Rome.27. Paolo Mazzanti, Professor of Satellite Interferometry, La Sapienza University, Rome.28. Adriano Mazzarella, Professor of Meteorology and Climatology, University of Naples.29. Carlo Merli, Professor of Environmental Technologies, La Sapienza University, Rome.30. Alberto Mirandola, Professor of Applied Energetics and President of the Research Doctorate in Energy, University of Padua.31. Renzo Mosetti, Professor of Oceanography, University of Trieste, former Director of the Department of Oceanography, Istituto OGS, Trieste.32.Daniela Novembre, Researcher in Mining Geological Resources and Mineralogical Applications, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti Pescara.33. Sergio Ortolani, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Padua.34. Antonio Pasculli, Researcher of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.35. Ernesto Pedrocchi, Professor Emeritus of Energetics, Polytechnic of Milan.36. Tommaso Piacentini, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.37. Guido Possa, nuclear engineer, formerly Deputy Minister Miur.38. Mario Luigi Rainone, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Chieti-Pescara.39. Francesca Quercia, Geologist, Research Director, Ispra.40. Giancarlo Ruocco, Professor of Structure of Matter, La Sapienza University, Rome.41. Sergio Rusi, Professor of Hydrogeology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.42. Massimo Salleolini, Professor of Applied Hydrogeology and Environmental Hydrology, University of Siena.43. Emanuele Scalcione, Head of Regional Agrometeorological Service Alsia, Basilicata.44. Nicola Sciarra, Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.45. Leonello Serva, Geologist, Director of Geological Services of Italy; Galileo Movement 2001.46. Luigi Stedile, Geologist, Geological Risk Review and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.47. Giorgio Trenta, Physicist and Physician, President Emeritus of the Italian Association of Medical Radiation Protection; Galileo Movement 2001.48. Gianluca Valenzise, Director of Research, National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Rome.49. Corrado Venturini, Professor of Structural Geology, University of Bologna.50. Franco Zavatti, Astronomy Researcher, University of Bologna.51. Achille Balduzzi, Geologist, Agip-Eni.52. Claudio Borri, Professor of Construction Sciences, University of Florence, Coordinator of the International Doctorate in Engineering Civil.53. Pino Cippitelli, Agip-Eni Geologist.54. Franco Di Cesare, Executive, Agip-Eni.55. Serena Doria, Researcher of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.56. Enzo Siviero, Professor of Ponti, University of Venice, Rector of the e-Campus University.57. Pietro Agostini, Engineer, Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.58. Donato Barone, Engineer.59. Roberto Bonucchi, Teacher.60. Gianfranco Brignoli, Geologist.61. Alessandro Chiaudani, Ph.D. agronomist, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.62. Antonio Clemente, Researcher in Urban Planning, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.63. Luigi Fressoia, urban architect, Perugia.64. Sabino Gallo, nuclear engineer.65. Daniela Giannessi, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.66. Roberto Grassi, Engineer, Director of G&G, Rome.67. Alberto Lagi, Engineer, President of Restoration of Complex Damaged Plants.68. Luciano Lepori, Ipcf-Cnr Researcher, Pisa.69. Roberto Madrigali, Metereologo.70. Ludovica Manusardi, Nuclear physicist and scientific journalist, Ugis.71. Maria Massullo, Technologist, Enea-Casaccia, Rome.72. Enrico Matteoli, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.73. Gabriella Mincione, Professor of Sciences and Techniques of Laboratory Medicine, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.74. Massimo Pallotta, First Technologist, National Institute for Nuclear Physics.75. Enzo Pennetta, Professor of Natural Sciences and scientific divulger.76. Nunzia Radatti, Chemist, Sogin.77. Vincenzo Romanello, Nuclear Engineer, Research Center, Rez, Czech Republic.78. Alberto Rota, Engineer, Researcher at Cise and Enel.79. Massimo Sepielli, Director of Research, Enea, Rome.80. Ugo Spezia, Engineer, Industrial Safety Manager, Sogin; Galileo Movement 2001.81. Emilio Stefani, Professor of Plant Pathology, University of Modena.82. Umberto Tirelli, Visiting Senior Scientist, Istituto Tumori d’Aviano; Galileo Movement 2001.83. Roberto Vacca, Engineer and scientific writer.”FOLLOW UP OPINION - What now for global climate catastrophe?“90 Italian scientists reject global warming in petition to Italian leadersBy YEN MAKABENTAJuly 13, 2019YEN MAKABENTA“First wordONLY two months away from the convening of a climate action summit in New York, the United Nations has been rocked by news of a petition signed by 90 of Italy’s leading scientists that was sent to the highest Italian leaders.It carried the title “Petition on Anthropogenic Global Warming,” and it was addressed to the president of the Republic, the president of the Senate, the president of the Chamber of Deputies, and the president of the Council.The scientists told the leaders that carbon dioxide’s impact on climate was “unjustifiably exaggerated,” and catastrophic predictions were “not realistic.”The story calls to mind that of another Italian, the great Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who is acknowledged as the father of the scientific method. He was forced to recant his views during the Inquisition, and then was proved overwhelmingly right…The detailed letter to lawmakers challenges the claim that man is causing catastrophic global warming, and that carbon dioxide emissions are the culprit.The scientists argue that a nation’s policies with regard to global warming should not be based on hysterics but should be “consistent with scientific knowledge.”They state flatly that “the anthropogenic origin of global warming is an unproven hypothesis, deduced only from some climate simulation models.” In other words, the entire catastrophic global warming scare rests on very imprecise and almost invariably wrong simulation models, which cannot account for natural variability.“Natural variability,” in fact, “explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.” It is irresponsible and unrealistic to blame warming on human beings, and further, it’s nonsense to believe all the doom and gloom warnings. The climate simulation models “overestimate the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability.”The scientists completely blow up the myth that science is in any way based on a show of hands.They are living proof that “the alleged consensus (on global warming) does not exist.” Their petition itself demonstrates clearly the absence of a scientific consensus on the matter.The list of signers includes professors of physics, atmospheric physics, physical chemistry, natural sciences, environmental engineering, astronomy, applied geology, volcanology, meteorology and climatology, oceanography, satellite interferometry, hydrogeology, and probability and mathematical statistics. In other words, they are outstanding and highly credentialed scientists. They know what they are talking about.Will UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres answer them? What happens now to his forecast of global climate catastrophe?The ship of climate change is sinking.”[email protected] belongs to : www.manilatimes.net”When faced with the obvious fact that the warming today is not unusual then some alarmist counter by saying well the warming today is happening too fast. But what about the pause in warming? How can warming be too fast if it has stopped or paused.Further the alarmists did put winter weather in issue and predicted moderate weather without hardly any snow. This alarmist view of the future makes sense or how will global warming hang around if there are freezing winters that create major snow albedos and cause polar ice to expand?Recent very snowy and record winters are contradicting alarmism especially in the US, Australia, Chile, Russia and even Morocco.For example, —-Extreme Weather GSM“THE CONTINENTAL U.S. JUST SET IT’S COLDEST-EVER OCTOBER TEMPERATURE, BREAKING THE PREVIOUS RECORD FROM 1917OCTOBER 29, 2019 CAP ALLONThe western U.S. was blasted by a yet ANOTHER brutal Arctic air mass yesterday, Oct 28, with this one delivering the COLDEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.Peter Sinks, Utah –east of Logan– broke the Lower-48’s cold temperature record for the month of October on Monday morning with a staggering reading of minus 35 degrees.The area is know for it’s cold temperatures thanks to its high elevation (8,164 ft) as well as its unique topography, said Chicago meteorologist Tom Skilling.“It is a basin a half mile (804.67 meters) in diameter with no outlet, like a large bowl. Cold air collects in the basin on clear, calm nights,” Skilling said. “Very low temperatures can occur there, especially during outbreaks of arctic air in the winter.”The weather station located at the bottom of the sink took the -35F (-37.2C) reading at approximately 6:15AM on Monday morning, Oct 28 — beating-out the previous record low of -33F (-36.1C) set way back in 1917 (just after weak solar cycle 14, which was similar to the cycle we’ve just experienced, 24).Forgive me but I’d like to type it again, the Lower-48 just broke it’s coldest-ever temperature record for the month of October. And in addition, and perhaps even more astonishingly, the record may not even last that long — another all-time low mark is expected to be reached overnight Wednesday.Brutal Arctic air will continue to be funneled southwards from Canada by a dominant meridional (wavy) jet stream flow, which itself is associated with historically low solar activity.Prepare for the COLD — grow your own.Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach — be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: http://patreon.com/join/electroverseAny way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.Grand Solar Minimum + Pole ShiftThe Continental U.S. just set it's Coldest-Ever October Temperature, Breaking the Previous Record from 1917 - ElectroverseAlso record low temperatures hit the world from about 1940 -75 causing fear of another ice age or glaciation as Arctic ice expanded. Media recored the fears. This cooling coincided with the sharpest rise in Co2 as industrialization accelerated yet no warming from this marvelous gas. See also the reference to this period by the Italian petition.There is no climate crisis and certainly no evidence of human or Co2 climate effects. The scientists working for the UN IPCC knew this, but their doubts were over ridden by the UN political leaders as far back as 1995. The story is documented by Bernie Lewin.The UN are guilty of a swindle about human made climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The sordid story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.11.1 IntroductionPresent shortcomings include Significant uncertainty, by a range of three, regarding* the sensitivity of the global average temperature and mean sea-level to the increase in greenhouse gases,* Even larger uncertainties regarding regional climatic impacts, such that current climate change predictions have little meaning for any particular location,* Uncertainty in the timing ot the expected climate change,* Uncertainty in the natural variationsTo overcome these shortcomings, substantial improvements are required in scientific understanding which will depend on the creative ettorts of individual scientists and groups. Nevertheless the scale of the task demands international coordination and strong national participation.11.2 Problem Areas and Scientific ResponsesTo achieve effective prediction ot the behaviour ot the climate system we must recognize that this system is influenced by a complex array of interacting physical chemical and biological processes The scientific strategy to address these processes must include both observation and modelling. We must be able to understand the mechanisms responsible for past and present variations and to incorporate these mechanisms into suitable models ot the natural system. The models can then be run forward in time to simulate the evolution of the climate system. Such a programme includes three essential step* Analysis of observational data, often obtained from incomplete and indirect measurements, to produce coherent information and understanding,* Application of observational information and under standing to construct and validate time-dependent mathematical models of natural processes,* Running such models forward to produce predictions that can (and must) be tested against observations to determine their "skill" or reliability over relatively short time-periods.https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/...Scientists around the world are in revolt about what they say is a fake climate crisis based on bad science. Here are two recent petitions from Italy and Europe generally with specifics of the errors in government thinking.The best evidence is that anthropogenic global warming is modest and benign, and rising CO2 levels are beneficial, rather than harmful, for both mankind and most natural ecosystems.“That’s why over 30,000 American scientists (including me DAVE BURTON) in 1997 have signed the “Global Warming Petition” attesting to the fact that:“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”Dave Burton, IPCC AR5 WGI expert reviewer31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDsFor information about this project, click on the appropriate box below.Global Warming Petition ProjectHeidelberg Appeal’s Anniversary – 4,000+ scientists, 70 Nobel LaureatesFebruary 2, 2017 american science, hidden gems, L1shortJune 2, 2017 (four months from today) will be the 25 year anniversary of the Heidelberg Appeal. This historical document signed by more than 4,000 distinguished scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, was released in the beginning of the infamous “Earth Summit” (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) to oppose environmental obscurantism, including climate alarmism. Among other things, the Heidelberg Appeal said:We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed …We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant date.The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry …These wise words by the most distinguished scientists in the world were dismissed by climate alarmism mouthpieces using their standard smear template**********************************************************ReferencesThe European Parliament building in Strasbourg. Image: AOPSome 300 professional scientists in Europe have signed a petition urging the European Parliament to abandon the unfounded alarmist position about an imminent "Climate Crisis" and adhere to the scientific facts as revealed by observations: european-petition.pdfSEPTEMBER 22, 2019EmielCharles Michel, President of the European Council Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission ‘To be appointed’, Head of the European Parliament -------------There is no climate emergencyWe, the undersigned 300(?) independent Climate Scientists and Professionals from 15(?) countries, wish to convey five urgent messages to you:1. Climate change is a fact. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with naturally-driven cold and warm cycles.2. After leaving the Little Ice Age (around 1870 AD), it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a warming-up period. This is fully in line with the natural behavior of the climate system. However, measurements show that the temperature-increase is significantly less than mainstream models predict.3. Anthropogenic Global Warming is only a hypothesis. There exists no proof that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the principal cause of global warming. On the contrary, latest insights confirm that more CO2 has only a modest influence on climate but it is hugely beneficial for agriculture, forestry, and for the photosynthesis that is the basis of life on Earth.4. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence that increasing CO2 levels have an enhancing effect on natural disasters. Quite the reverse, there are many indications that most CO2-reduction measures have a devastating effect on wildlife, land use and economic development.5. Energy policy must be based on scientific and economic realities. We argue strongly against a harmful and unrealistic “2050-carbon-neutral policy”. There is no climate emergency and therefore no cause for panic and alarm. If superior approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and transition. Our aim should always be reliable and affordable energy at all times.With respect to a well-thought-out future, we advise European leaders that science should aim at a significantly better understanding of the climate system and that politics should focus on minimizing damage by giving priority to effective adaptation strategies to extreme weather events.We also recommend that European leaders make a clear difference in their policy between the Earth’s environment and the Earth’s climate. Taking good care of our environment is a matter of good stewardship. Climate change, however, is primarily caused by a complex combination of natural phenomena we cannot control.1 Promotors of the Declaration Professor Guus Berkhout (The Netherlands) Mr Viv Forbes (Australia/New Zealand) Professor Jeffrey Foss (Canada) Professor Richard Lindzen (USA) Jim O’Brien (Republic of Ireland) Professor Alberto Prestininzi (Italy) Professor Fritz Vahrenholt (Germany) ............ (Belgium) ............. (France) ............. (Norway)The undersigned:Scientists and Professionals from Belgium1. Emiel van Broekhoven, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Antwerp2. Henry A. Masson, Emeritus Professor Dynamic System Analysis and Data Mining,University of Antwerp 3. Ferdinand Meeus, Research Scientist, IPCC expert Reviewer AR6 4.Scientists and Professionals from Germany 1. Dietrich Bannert, Professor of Geology, University of Hannover 2. Hans Döhler, Professor of pharma sciences, University of Hannover 3. Werner Kirstein, Emeritus Professor of Climatology, University of Leipzig,Germany 4. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Professor of Operations Research (i.R.) HTW of Saarland,Saarbrücken, Germany 5. Fritz Vahrenholt, Professor (i.R.) am Institut für Technische und MakromolekulareChemie der Universität Hamburg, GermanyScientists and Professionals from Ireland 1. Jim O’Brien, Founder of the Irish Climate Science Forum2 Scientists and Professionals from Italy