UN has NO PROOF of Carbon Dioxide Warming

Written by Climate Conversation Group on June 17, 2019. Posted in Current News

Because it needs to be said... - Forums Topic - Dragon's Mark

The United Nations have revealed—and senior scientists confirm—that they can’t prove human emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Global warming fear is powered by the belief that we cause it, but the UN now tacitly admit they can’t prove it, after a group of prominent New Zealand sceptics asked the IPCC Secretariat for evidence of dangerous man-made warming and got nothing.

The Secretariat said the evidence could be found in Chapter 8 of the Fifth Assessment Report, but didn’t elaborate. The sceptics invited some senior scientists to review the chapter and they found no proof.

Richard Treadgold, convenor of the Climate Conversation Group, said today, “It is deeply troubling that the UN claim to have proof of warming when they don’t—it defines deceitful. After decades of sermons against fossil fuels, they cannot legitimize global industrial disruption.

“They distort the science. Twelve trillion tonnes of airborne water vapour dominates greenhouse warming, yet water also dominates cooling by melting and evaporating, and the vapour condenses into cooling clouds and rain. Our thermostat is not CO₂, it’s water.”

The UN say warming air absorbs more water vapour, which warms it even more. But to enter the air water must evaporate, taking large amounts of energy and providing natural cooling that reverses the initial warming.

Mr Treadgold explained that the UN have no proof that our emissions cause harm, so governments don’t have to control the temperature of the planet and nations can safely flourish with mother nature’s gift of hydrocarbons.

“Appalling forecasts proliferate in the name of the UN, yet predictions of ruinous sea level rise, enormous reparations for climate injustice and the escalating belief in a climate emergency are unfounded—we urge the UN to speak against these things,” he said.

web www.climateconversation.org.nz

email [email protected]

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (3)

George of the Jungle

June 17, 2019 at 8:27 pm | #

“Appalling forecasts proliferate in the name of the UN, yet predictions of ruinous sea level rise, enormous reparations for climate injustice and the escalating belief in a climate emergency are unfounded—we urge the UN to speak against these things,” he said.

Yes, that will happen . . . when pigs fly to the moon.

Reply
tom0mason

June 18, 2019 at 12:20 am | #

Just two of many scientific papers show that Climate Conversation Group is correct in their assessment.
From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118301766

Physica C. Essex, A.A. Tsonis, Model falsifiability and climate slow modes,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.02.090

Highlights

• Climate models do not and cannot employ known physics fully. Thus, they are falsified, a priori.
• Incomplete physics and the finite representation of computers can induce false instabilities.
• Eliminating instability can lead to computational overstabilization or false stability.
• Models on ultra-long timescales are dubiously stable. This is referred to as the “climate state.” Is it real?
• Decadal variability is understandable in terms of a specific class of nonlinear dynamical systems.

Abstract

The most advanced climate models are actually modified meteorological models attempting to capture climate in meteorological terms. This seems a straightforward matter of raw computing power applied to large enough sources of current data. Some believe that models have succeeded in capturing climate in this manner. But have they? This paper outlines difficulties with this picture that derive from the finite representation of our computers, and the fundamental unavailability of future data instead. It suggests that alternative windows onto the multi-decadal timescales are necessary in order to overcome the issues raised for practical problems of prediction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And from Li et al., 2019 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718331978 )

Global warming “stalled” or “paused” for the period 1998–2012, as claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC, 2013). However, the early drafts of IPCC AR5 have no detailed explanation for this “hiatus” since 111 of 114 climate models in the CMIP5 earth system model did not verify this phenomenon.
…
In 2017, after a wave of scientific publications and public debate, the climate models as reported in IPCC remain debates, including definitions of “hiatus” and datasets (Medhaug et al., 2017)
….
The slowdown in global warming since 1998, often termed the global warming hiatus. Reconciling the “hiatus” is a main focus in the 2013 climate change conference. Accurately characterizing the spatiotemporal trends in surface air temperature (SAT) is helps to better understand the “hiatus” during the period. This article presents a satellite-based regional warming simulation to diagnose the “hiatus” for 2001–2015 in China.
Results show that the rapid warming is mainly in western and southern China, such as Yunnan (mean ± standard deviation: 0.39 ± 0.26 °C (10 yr)−1 ), Tibet (0.22 ± 0.25 °C (10 yr)−1), Taiwan (0.21 ± 0.25 °C (10 yr)−1), and Sichuan (0.19± 0.25 °C (10 yr)−1). On the contrary, there is a cooling trend by 0.29 ± 0.26 °C (10 yr)−1 in northern China during the recent 15 yr, where a warming rate about 0.38 ± 0.11 °C (10 yr)−1 happened for 1960–2000. Overall, satellite simulation shows that the warming rate is reduced to −0.02 °C (10 yr)−1. The changes in underlying surface, Earth’s orbit, solar radiation and atmospheric counter radiation (USEOSRACR) cause China’s temperature rise about 0.02 °C (10 yr)−1. A combination of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other natural forcing (ONAT, predominately volcanic activity, and atmosphere and ocean circulation) explain another part of temperature trend by approximately −0.04 °C (10 yr)−1.
We conclude that there is a regional warming hiatus, a pause or a slowdown in China, and imply that GHGs-induced warming is suppressed by ONAT in the early 21st century.

So the climate models are not a way to verify the actuality. Let look at measurements …
From Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0958305X18756670 )

They examined measured Global and Regional temperatures records (Northern Hemisphere, Scandinavia, Central Siberia, Central Balkan, United States, Central China, Pakistan/NW India Area, Sahel Area, Southern Africa, SE Australia, Central South America, etc.,). Overall the majority they show a level temperature record with some showing some small modern warming. Certainly nothing very extreme.

In locations best sheltered and protected against ocean air influence, the vast majority of thermometers worldwide trends show temperatures in recent decades rather similar to the 1920–1950 period. This indicates that the present-day atmosphere and heat balance over the Earth cannot warm areas – typically valleys – worldwide in good shelter from ocean trends notably more than the atmosphere could in the 1920–1950 period.
…
[T]he lack of warming in the OAS temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

###########
I’m indebted to https;//notrickszone·com for these quotes, they have at their site references to hundreds(!) more such scientific papers and studies.

Reply
Robert

June 19, 2019 at 9:36 pm | #

I cannot find the original study – link?

Reply