Montag, 2. Mai 2016

Where promoters of human caused global warming and skeptics agree

Pro and anti AGW scientists agree upon a lot oft topics

This is part of a script of a video from Professor Richard Lindzen. The complete script you can see here:
Lindzen divides the participants into three groups: 1) knowledgeable scientists who largely agree with the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its five assessment reports (ARs); 2) knowledgeable scientists (such as those in the Non-governmental Panel for Climate Change (NIPCC)) who largely disagree with the findings of the IPCC that burning of fossil fuels may cause dangerous global warming; and 3) politicians, environmentalists, and the media. [It should be noted that a number of scientists in group 2 participated in earlier IPCC reports, including Mr. Lindzen, and departed from it. Some stated that the IPCC has become too politicized.]
Lindzen notes that the two groups of knowledgeable scientists who disagree on the effects of burning of fossil fuels largely agree on a surprising number of points.
· The climate is always changing.
· CO2 is a greenhouse gas, without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.
· Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.
· Over the past two centuries, the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or one degree Celsius.
· Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made.
Some may find the last point surprising. But, the IPCC fourth assessment report (AR-4, 2007) stated that: “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Here we see a major problem between what the groups 1 & 2 scientists have articulated and what members of group 3, the politicians, environmentalists, and the media, have claimed. Unfortunately, the clamor created by group 3 has virtually drowned out the clear agreements between groups 1 & 2, and the sharp distinctions between them. According to Lindzen, group 3 have their own reasons –money, power, and ideology – to promote a catastrophic scenario. The impact of group 3 is making pure scientific research into the actual influence of carbon dioxide on the climate very difficult.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen