July 13, 2019
ONLY 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.
Petition on global warming
I reproduce below key excerpts from the scientists’ petition:
“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 0.9C 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 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 an 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…
“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 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 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 has released the message of an almost unanimous consensus among scientists.
“The 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.
“In conclusion, given the crucial importance that fossil fuels have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that our leaders should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with illusory pretense of controlling the climate.”
The driving force behind the petition was a “promoting committee” of eight prominent Italian scientists and experts, with 90 more Italian scientists signing the document.
What now for global climate catastrophe?
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.
Credit belongs to : www.manilatimes.net