Excellent texte de Timothy Ball

(Texte original, j’ai pas eu le temps d’en faire la traduction, désolé)

Four little-known facts about the climate predictions (projections) made by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) completely mislead public understanding of the climate debate. Unfortunately, the misdirection was relatively easy because only 20 percent of the public have even basic science literacy.

1. Political powers limited IPCC research from the start with the definition of climate change given to them by Article I of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It states:

Climate change means a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable periods of time.

This definition excludes most natural causes, which makes it impossible to determine the human portion.

The IPCC knew this was a problem and ignored it until it became politically threatening. In 2007, they added the following new, vastly different, definition:

Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

The new definition couldn’t change anything because the Reports were cumulative, that is once they established a pattern they could not change without starting over completely. As a result, the wider definition was placed as a Footnote in the Summary For Policymakers (SPM) for the 2007 Report.

2. The public believes that a CO2 increase results in a temperature increase. It doesn’t, yet it is the fundamental premise to the claims of human induced global warming. In every record of any duration from any period the temperature increases before the CO2. In contradiction to this evidence the IPCC computer models are programmed so that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase.

3. The projections made by the IPCC and presented as policy recommendations in the Summary For Policymakers (SPM) combine the climate model predictions and economic forecasts. The combination creates three Scenarios. Each assumes that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase.

However, the amount of CO2 increase is determined by economic development, which yields low, medium, and high projections. The IPCC are wrong for their temperature and CO2 forecasts. Even the lowest projections of both are wrong:

4. The public thinks the IPCC make forecasts. They do not. Initially, they called them predictions. These predictions were so incorrect in the 1990 Report that they changed to calling them projections. This changing terminology is what they did every time the evidence contradicted their claims.

For example, global warming became climate change after CO2 continued to increase but temperatures stopped rising. They did not say they were switching because the predictions were wrong. Instead, they claimed it was because the future depended on what happened if the world continued with “business as usual”. In other words, here is what will happen if you don’t change your ways. This position is the central theme of the Pope’s Encyclical; mend your Earth destroying ways or face the consequences.

The entire IPCC exercise was orchestrated to achieve the specific result of showing that human production of CO2 was causing global warming. The actions taken predetermined the results and in four significant ways created the differences between what the public understands and actual practice.

Thank goodness they could not control nature, which acts independently of their political machinations. This does not mean they have not tried to control nature with chemtrails, iron fertilization of vast tracks of ocean to increase CO2 absorption and many other hair-brained geoengineering schemes. Maybe the Pope should pray to save us from political agendas with no scientific basis.


One Response to Excellent texte de Timothy Ball

  1. Francois dit :

    Un peu d’objectivité svp
    Timothy Francis « Tim » Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a Canadian geographer and historical climatologist, best known for his public opposition to the scientific consensus in the global warming controversy. A retired professor, he taught in the department of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until 1996.[4] Ball has worked with the Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, and is a research fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.[5][6][7]

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :