Nie człowiek lecz natura rządzi klimatem.pdf

Nature, Not Human Activity,

Rules the Climate

Published by THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE

19 South LaSalle Street #903

Chicago, Illinois 60603 U.S.A.

phone 312/377-4000

fax 312/377-5000

www.heartland.org

this book or portions thereof in any form.

Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.

Nothing in this report should be construed as reflecting the views of

the Science and Environmental Policy Project or The Heartland Institute,

or as an attempt to influence pending legislation.

Additional copies of this book are available from

the Science and Environmental Policy Project and The Heartland Institute

at the following prices:

11-50 copies

$7.95 per copy

51-100 copies

$5.95 per copy

101 or more

$4.95 per copy

Please use the following reference to this report:

S. Fred Singer, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the

Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change , Chicago, IL: The Heartland

Institute, 2008.

Printed in the United States of America

978-1-934791-01-1

1-934791-01-6

First printing: March 2008

1-10 copies

$6.95 per copy

Nature, Not Human Activity,

Rules the Climate

Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Edited by S. Fred Singer

Contributors

Warren Anderson

United States

Fred Goldberg

Sweden

Olavi Karner

Estonia

Tom Segalstad

Norway

Dennis Avery

United States

Vincent Gray

New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar

Canada

S. Fred Singer

United States

Franco Battaglia

Italy

Kenneth Haapala

United States

William Kininmonth

Australia

Dick Thoenes

Netherlands

Robert Carter

Australia

Klaus Heiss

Austria

Hans Labohm

Netherlands

Anton Uriarte

Spain

Richard Courtney

United Kingdom

Craig Idso

United States

Christopher Monckton

United Kingdom

Gerd Weber

Germany

Joseph d’Aleo

United States

Zbigniew Jaworowski

Poland

Lubos Motl

Czech Republic

Published for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Foreword

In his speech at the United Nations’ climate

conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav

Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it

would most help the debate on climate change if the

current monopoly and one-sidedness of the

scientific debate over climate change by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the

UN organize a parallel panel and publish two

competing reports.

The present report of the Nongovernmental

International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

does exactly that. It is an independent examination

of the evidence available in the published,

peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias

and selectivity. It includes many research papers

ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific

results that became available after the IPCC

deadline of May 2006.

The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports

to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming

and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned

in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC

Summary completely ignored satellite data, since

they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report

was notorious for the significant alterations made to

the text after it was approved by the scientists – in

order to convey the impression of a human

influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the

twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based

on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The

latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely

devaluates the climate contributions from changes

in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any

human influence.

The foundation for NIPCC was laid five years

ago when a small group of scientists from the

United States and Europe met in Milan during one

of the frequent UN climate conferences. But it got

going only after a workshop held in Vienna in April

2007, with many more scientists, including some

from the Southern Hemisphere.

The NIPCC project was conceived and directed

by Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of

environmental sciences at the University of

Virginia. He should be credited with assembling a

superb group of scientists who helped put this

volume together.

Singer is one of the most distinguished

scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established

and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather

Satellite Service, now part of the National

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of

Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical

leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five

years as vice chairman of the National Advisory

Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA)

and became more directly involved in global

environmental issues.

Since retiring from the University of Virginia

and from his last federal position as chief scientist

of the Department of Transportation, Singer

founded and directed the nonprofit Science and

Environmental Policy Project, an organization I am

pleased to serve as chair. SEPP’s major concern has

been the use of sound science rather than

exaggerated fears in formulating environmental

policies.

Our concern about the environment, going back

some 40 years, has taught us important lessons. It is

one thing to impose drastic measures and harsh

economic penalties when an environmental problem

is clear-cut and severe. It is foolish to do so when

the problem is largely hypothetical and not

substantiated by observations. As NIPCC shows by

offering an independent, non-governmental ‘second

opinion’ on the ‘global warming’ issue, we do not

currently have any convincing evidence or

observations of significant climate change from

other than natural causes.

Frederick Seitz

President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

Past President, National Academy of Sciences

Past President, American Physical Society

Chairman, Science and Environmental Policy

Project

February 2008

iii

Preface

Before facing major surgery, wouldn’t you want a

second opinion?

When a nation faces an important decision that

risks its economic future, or perhaps the fate of the

ecology, it should do the same. It is a time-honored

tradition in science to set up a ‘Team B,’ which

examines the same original evidence but may reach

a different conclusion. The Nongovernmental

International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

was set up to examine the same climate data used by

the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

On the most important issue, the IPCC’s claim

that “most of the observed increase in global

average temperatures since the mid-20th century is

very likely due to the observed increase in

anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,”

(emphasis in the original), NIPCC reaches the

opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes

are very likely to be the dominant cause. Note: We

do not say anthropogenic greenhouse (GH) gases

cannot produce some warming. Our conclusion is

that the evidence shows they are not playing a

significant role.

Below, we first sketch out the history of the two

organizations and then list the conclusions and

responses that form the body of the NIPCC report.

for Policymakers (SPM) have been subject to

approval by member governments of the UN. The

scientists involved with the IPCC are almost all

supported by government contracts, which pay not

only for their research but for their IPCC activities.

Most travel to and hotel accommodations at exotic

locations for the drafting authors is paid with

government funds.

The history of the IPCC has been described in

several publications. What is not emphasized,

however, is the fact that it was an activist enterprise

from the very beginning. Its agenda was to justify

control of the emission of greenhouse gases,

especially carbon dioxide. Consequently, its

scientific reports have focused solely on evidence

that might point toward human-induced climate

change. The role of the IPCC “is to assess on a

comprehensive, objective, open and transparent

basis the latest scientific, technical and

socio-economic literature produced worldwide

relevant to the understanding of the risk of

human-induced climate change, its observed and

projected impacts and options for adaptation and

mitigation” (emphasis added) [IPCC 2008].

The IPCC’s three chief ideologues have been

(the late) Professor Bert Bolin, a meteorologist at

Stockholm University; Dr. Robert Watson, an

atmospheric chemist at NASA, later at the World

Bank, and now chief scientist at the UK Department

of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and Dr.

John Houghton, an atmospheric radiation physicist

at Oxford University, later head of the UK Met

Office as Sir John Houghton.

Watson had chaired a self-appointed group to

find evidence for a human effect on stratospheric

ozone and was instrumental in pushing for the 1987

Montreal Protocol to control the emission of

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Using the blueprint of

the Montreal Protocol, environmental lawyer David

Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council

then laid out a plan to achieve the same kind of

control mechanism for greenhouse gases, a plan that

eventually was adopted as the Kyoto Protocol.

From the very beginning, the IPCC was a

political rather than scientific entity, with its leading

scientists reflecting the positions of their

governments or seeking to induce their governments

to adopt the IPCC position. In particular, a small

group of activists wrote the all-important Summary

A Brief History of the IPCC

The rise in environmental consciousness since the

1970s has focused on a succession of ‘calamities’:

cancer epidemics from chemicals, extinction of

birds and other species by pesticides, the depletion

of the ozone layer by supersonic transports and later

by freons, the death of forests (‘Waldsterben’)

because of acid rain, and finally, global warming,

the “mother of all environmental scares” (according

to the late Aaron Wildavsky).

The IPCC can trace its roots to World Earth

Day in 1970, the Stockholm Conference in 1971-72,

and the Villach Conferences in 1980 and 1985. In

July 1986, the United Nations Environment

Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological

Organization (WMO) established the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

as an organ of the United Nations.

The IPCC’s key personnel and lead authors

were appointed by governments, and its Summaries

for Policymakers (SPM) for each of the four IPCC

reports [McKitrick et al. 2007].

While we are often told about the thousands of

scientists on whose work the Assessment reports are

based, the vast majority of these scientists have no

direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the

IPCC. Those are produced by an inner core of

scientists, and the SPMs are revised and agreed to,

line-by-line, by representatives of member

governments. This obviously is not how real

scientific research is reviewed and published.

These SPMs turn out, in all cases, to be highly

selective summaries of the voluminous science

reports – typically 800 or more pages, with no

indexes (except, finally, the Fourth Assessment

Report released in 2007), and essentially unreadable

except by dedicated scientists.

The IPCC’s First Assessment Report [IPCC-

FAR 1990] concluded that the observed temperature

changes were “broadly consistent” with greenhouse

models. Without much analysis, it gave the “climate

sensitivity” of a 1.5 to 4.5º C temperature rise for a

doubling of greenhouse gases. The IPCC-FAR led

to the adoption of the Global Climate Treaty at the

1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The FAR drew a critical response [SEPP 1992].

FAR and the IPCC’s style of work also were

criticized in two editorials in Nature [Anonymous

1994, Maddox 1991].

The IPCC’s Second Assessment Report [IPCC-

SAR 1995] was completed in 1995 and published in

1996. Its SPM contained the memorable conclusion,

“the balance of evidence suggests a discernible

human influence on global climate.” The SAR was

again heavily criticized, this time for having

undergone significant changes in the body of the

report to make it ‘conform’ to the SPM – after it

was finally approved by the scientists involved in

writing the report. Not only was the report altered,

but a key graph was also doctored to suggest a

human influence. The evidence presented to support

the SPM conclusion turned out to be completely

spurious.

There is voluminous material available about

these text changes, including a Wall Street Journal

editorial article by Dr. Frederick Seitz [Seitz 1996].

This led to heated discussions between supporters of

the IPCC and those who were aware of the altered

text and graph, including an exchange of letters in

the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

[Singer et al. 1997].

SAR also provoked the 1996 publication of the

Leipzig Declaration by SEPP, which was signed by

some 100 climate scientists. A booklet titled “The

Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty”

followed in September 1997 and was translated into

several languages. [SEPP 1997. All these are

available online at www.sepp.org.]

In spite of its obvious shortcomings, the IPCC

report provided the underpinning for the Kyoto

Protocol, which was adopted in December 1997.

The background is described in detail in the booklet

“Climate Policy – From Rio to Kyoto,” published

by the Hoover Institution [Singer 2000]. The Kyoto

Protocol also provoked the adoption of a short

statement expressing doubt about its scientific

foundation by the Oregon Institute for Science and

Medicine, which attracted more than 19,000

signatures from scientists, mainly in the U.S. [The

statement is still attracting signatures, and can be

viewed at www.oism.org.]

The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC

[IPCC-TAR 2001] was noteworthy for its use of

spurious scientific papers to back up its SPM claim

of “new and stronger evidence” of anthropogenic

global warming. One of these was the so called

‘hockey-stick’ paper, an analysis of proxy data,

which claimed the twentieth century was the

warmest in the past 1,000 years. The paper was later

found to contain basic errors in its statistical

analysis. The IPCC also supported a paper that

claimed pre-1940 warming was of human origin and

caused by greenhouse gases. This work, too,

contained fundamental errors in its statistical

analysis. The SEPP response to TAR was a 2002

booklet, “The Kyoto Protocol is Not Backed by

Science” [SEPP 2002].

The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC

[IPCC-AR4 2007] was published in 2007; the SPM

of Working Group I was released in February; and

the full report from this Working Group was

released in May – after it had been changed, once

again, to ‘conform’ to the Summary. It is significant

that AR4 no longer makes use of the hockey-stick

paper or the paper claiming pre-1940 human-caused

warming.

AR4 concluded that “most of the observed

increase in global average temperatures since the

mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed

increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas

concentrations” (emphasis in the original).

However, as the present report will show, it ignored

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: