The Greatly Exaggerated Threat of Man-made Warming
Climate activists would have us believe that man-made warming is a fact and it’s serious. After reading the various documentation of meetings leading up to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and then from the IPCC itself, I conclude that it’s all been vastly exaggerated.
There is no certainty that there’s any man-made warming (or man-made climate change) worth worrying about.
Don’t get me wrong, the possibility that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might be
causing warming was worth a proper investigation back in the 1980s. But look closely at the
reports of those meetings and the claims that were made at the time.
Some were speculation, others exaggeration and some simply false. The output of climate models was used to generate alarm but at that time the models were very primitive.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) either didn’t assess the science or didn’t care. Its actions mainly rested on its “precautionary principle”, which says to act against a threat
even when it’s not fully understood. And the climate issue was a long way from being understood.
It’s been the UNEP and other UN agencies, supported by various activist/scientists who see benefits that might be had in doing so, who have used political chicanery, assumptions, speculation and false science to convert the possibility of a human influence on climate into a widely-accepted “fact”, all despite having no credible evidence.
The UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) were instrumental in creating the
IPCC, and they instructed it to investigate climate change, especially the influence of increasing
greenhouse gases. In other words, the IPCC’s role was to find evidence to support the claims
already being made by those two organisations.
It has failed in this task because the so-called evidence that the IPCC presents changes with every
new climate report.
The IPCC started out by saying “We don’t know what else could be causing warming”, which is a
poor line of argument, but its second report admitted that there was much it didn’t know. That
second report relied for its claims on a scientific paper that had recently been written by IPCC
authors and hadn’t even been peer-reviewed by the journal it was submitted to. The paper was
briefly mentioned in the next IPCC report, in a chapter written by some of the paper’s authors,
before it disappeared.
The third IPCC report featured the “hockey stick” temperature graph. A few years later that graph
was shown to be a sham because similar graphs could be produced using random data, so that
“evidence” wasn’t mentioned in subsequent reports.
The fourth report asserted that global average temperatures were in agreement with climate
models, trying to imply that the models accurately described what was happening. That was
undone by the fifth report which showed that almost all models were flawed because their
retrospective predictions of warming for the previous 15 years showed greater warming than
temperature observations indicated.
In each of its reports the IPCC has largely ignored established atmospheric physics that shows
that any increase in greenhouse gases will have negligible impact on temperatures because
almost all of their impact occurred when far less of these gases were in the atmosphere.
The IPCC
says little about how greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere nor does it say much about any
warming caused by greenhouse gases being taken away by other methods by which the Earth’s
surface cools.
Despite the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases over the previous 15 years, the IPCC’s 2013
report was uncertain that any warming had occurred during that period. According to the
previous claims of the IPCC, UNEP and WMO this couldn’t possibly happen, so the fact that it did
occur seriously undermined the notion of man-made warming.
UNEP and IPCC alarmism also gave rise to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), established in 1992. Despite the absence of evidence, the UNFCCC
immediately began claiming that greenhouse gases posed a serious threat to future climate.
The UNFCCC has continued its bullying and bluster to create firstly the Kyoto Protocol and then the Paris Climate Agreement. The latter has many flaws, particularly no evidence of any danger and
no clear “pre-industrial” temperature or any indication of how it could be determined.
Governments have foolishly endorsed the baseless claims of the IPCC and signed off on each
Summary for Policymakers. This has led to governments supporting the equally baseless claims
from the UNFCCC and the Paris Climate Agreement.
In many cases the consequent climate and energy policies have imposed financial burdens on society for no certain and demonstrable gain.
The world has two choices. One is to continue to support the United Nations agencies with their
exaggeration, false urgency, false science, doubtful assumptions and failed climate models – in
other words to endorse fabricated claims for which there is no credible evidence.
The other choice is to reject the notions of the United Nations agencies and move on, to recognise
that climate is constantly and naturally changing, and that we need to adapt to it.
Download the full document at
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/blog/has-united-nations-misled-the-world-about-climate
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.
Andy Rowlands
| #
This is pretty much spot on. ‘Scientists’ producing work that supports the greenhouse gas theory, because their funding and their jobs depend on them producing results that say that.
Reply
gratzite
| #
Thanks to all who work for this truth, to keep ”the coalfires burning” until they let us have Free Energy.
Reply
geran
| #
This is a fairly concise, yet accurate, account of the ongoing hoax. The author doesn’t try to befriend the pseudoscience, he correctly addresses its failure.
Hopefully certain clowns will learn how it’s done.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
. . . a scientific paper that had recently been written by IPCC authors and hadn’t even been peer-reviewed by the journal it was submitted to. The paper was briefly mentioned in the next IPCC report, in a chapter written by some of the paper’s authors, before it disappeared.
Wow!
You read the meeting notes. So simple.
This is an excellent idea for an article
And even better execution.
It would be amazing if somebody could locate that mysterious paper.
Reply
Chris
| #
They had also robbed the meaning behind peer review and turned it into the buddy system.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Yes Chris, it’s become pal-review now.
Reply
Jerry
| #
The meteorological agencies worldwide are also complicit in the fraud and need to be held to account.
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/no-data-required/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1VJtER2IUE (36:00)
Prof. Tim Ball provides a comprehensive overview of the eugenic origins of CO2 alarmism
Reply
James McGinn
| #
True. But meteorology’s fraudulent tactic have been with us for 180 years:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
Anonymous-Academic
| #
It is very clear from all the climatology energy diagrams showing back radiation that climatologists (and thus all the computer models) assume that the surface is warmer than the direct solar radiation could make it because of the back radiation supposedly causing about twice as much heat into the surface (324W/m^2) as the solar radiation (168W/m^2) supplies.
You all need to face the FACT that climatologists QUANTIFY the surface temperature by adding together the fluxes from the Sun and the atmosphere, then deducting the cooling flux by evaporation and conduction-cum-convection out of the surface, and then using the net total of about 390W/m^2 in Stefan Boltzmann calculations that then give 288K for a uniform flux day and night all over the globe (LOL). The fact that it is variable would give a mean temperature at least 10 degrees cooler – like about 5C.
This is totally wrong. Nothing in established physics says you can add fluxes like that and get correct results in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Nothing in established physics says the solar radiation can make the surface hotter than the black body temperature for the mean flux. There is no experiment that confirms radiation can be added this way – nothing anywhere! A simple experiment comparing the warming effect of a single artificial source of radiation and the warming by multiple such sources PROVES that this addition of radiative fluxes does NOT give correct results in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, yet the WHOLE radiative forcing climate change conjecture is BASED on that FALSE assumption.
And THAT is the reason Roy Spencer’s graphs show no warming since the peak in the 60-year cycle back in 1998 and will not show future warming until after 2028. There may be more then, but the long term cycle of about 1,000 years should turn to cooling perhaps before any more than another half degree of warming after 2028. Cosmic rays vary for several reasons and they are now shown to affect the amount of cloud cover, and thus cause natural climate cycles.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
It is clear from what the UN-IPCC says that none of this greening of the planet reported here https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth, (and all the insects and animals that now depend on it) takes any energy for according to the IPCC the energy budget is in balance always and all parameters for life have fixed values.
The takeaway message from the UN-IPCC is that aggregated increases in life requires no energy to exist because only the processes they list are required and will balance.
Reply