The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued further dire warnings about the impact of man-made global warming.
The IPCC maintains that “Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels… Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate."
The purpose of the study is to “strengthen” the global response.
What should be made of the IPCC report? According to a Heartland review, the organization’s predictions are based more on preconceived notions than scientific research. H. Sterling Burentt writes:
“From its very formation, the IPCC was a political, not a scientific organization, directed by politicians to research the ‘human causes’ of climate change—as if nature—the Sun, clouds, and oceanic cycles, for example—plays no role in climate. ‘Government,’ not ‘science,’ is in the IPCC’s name, and its most recent ‘Summary for Policymakers’ was shaped by bureaucrats’ desires for ever-greater government intervention in the economy and people’s lives, delivering more money and power to government bureaucrats and anti-capitalist nongovernmental organizations… Numerous peer-reviewed studies, however, demonstrate climate models grossly overstate the amount of warming the Earth has experienced as carbon dioxide levels have increased. In addition, climate models entirely missed a recent 18 year hiatus in rising temperatures…The failure of the IPCC’s temperature projections to match recorded temperatures provides ample reason for not trusting any of the organization’s other projections.”
The response to the IPCC warnings has been underwhelming. There are several reasons for that. First, very substantial questions exist as to the lack of scientific analysis of key factors. The IPCC continues to overlook essential points, including: To what extent do current temperature variations differ from those experienced in the past, particularly in pre-industrial times, and, if there is any significant change, to what extent is it due to human activity?
A report by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, and Dr. Craig D. Idso questions the validity of key pro-global warming data, including that provided by NOAA, NASA and the Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data, as well as The Validity of the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. The findings of those agencies essentially rely on the same flawed data.
The study concludes that “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.”
Dr. Philip Lloyd, a physicist researching climate change, has found that the variation in temperature over the past century is within the planet’s natural variability over the past 8,000 years. Lloyd formerly was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His conclusions are the result of ice-core based data.
The revelations that key studies from both government agencies and academic institution, which have been central to man-made global warming reports, were falsified and/or misstated common sense questions, has shaken confidence in the accuracy of those advocating the theory. Questions such as why Earth’s temperature was warmer in the 10th Century AD, as well as in the era of the Roman Empire, have been ignored.
The thousands of scientists who have expressed significant doubt about global warming were completely ignored by those claiming the idea was “settled science.”
Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New YORK Analysis of Policy and Government.