Geologist: “IPCC Confuses Prognoses With Facts” 15-Year Climate Development “No Longer Agrees With IPCC Models”

At the online Baseler Zeitung Swiss geologist Markus Häring writes that the claim “a drastic reduction in CO2 can prevent a warming of the climate has no scientific basis.”

Hat-tip DkS

Häring writes that he has a background in natural sciences and took it upon himself to examine the science that allegedly underpins the anthropogenic global warming theory. He finds that “CO2 has been unjustifiably vilinized“.

Upon analyzing the data, Häring concludes:

The statement made by the UN IPCC that an unstopped further development of man-made activities will lead with great certainty to a dangerous climate warming is a prognosis and not a substantiated fact. […] Whoever claims the opposite with sentences like ‘The science is settled’, puts his credibility as a scientist in doubt.”

Häring points out that too many of the conclusions made by climate science rely on prognoses for the future and not on actual observations. He writes:

Prognoses cannot be checked. Just how reliable prognoses are is demonstrated by the financial world, even though it works with more measureable facts and systems that can be better understood. Even more problematic is when prognoses are based on models that no longer agree with observations. The climate development of the last 15 years no longer agrees with the IPCC models. Here there is a need to explain why.”

Häring also describes how the bad climate science has led to foolish and destructive policy measures, such as biofuels, palm oil plantations and carbon sequestration. He writes, “The question of whether CO2 in the ground causes more damage than CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be asked.”

On blaming weather extremes on CO2-induced climate change, Häring says it’s cynical to even speculate on this. “Extreme events such as droughts and floods involving the deaths of thousands will continue with or without climate warming”.

He then explains that building infrastructure and taking measures to counter such events today makes much more sense than cutting back on CO2 in the hope that this will act as a solution 100 years down the road. In a nutshell he says that countries need development today, and not witchcraft to cure the possible ills of the year 2100.

It is not surprising that poor countries are hit harder by natural catastrophes than rich countries because they can’t afford any protective measures.”

 

6 responses to “Geologist: “IPCC Confuses Prognoses With Facts” 15-Year Climate Development “No Longer Agrees With IPCC Models””

  1. Martin

    We need is consequenses for thoses who cause harm. WHO fake flu scare, no consequenses; lies about incubator babys, no consequenses; lies about WMD, no consequenses; lie about cholesterol, you bet it will have no consequenses and its still probably part of unersity curiculum. ETC.

    When was the last time a big burecracy have realy been accontable for real harm done? I don’t count the flow of chaning the political party when people are feed up.

  2. John F. Hultquist

    Did Markus Häring recently retire?

  3. Berthold Klein

    What Dr. Markus Häring is telling us is that there is no credible experiment that proves that the greenhouse gas effect exists. He is also telling us that there is no credible experiment that proves that reducing CO2 will lower the atmospheric temperature.
    If anyone took the time to read the writing of John Tyndall about his work from the 1850-1860’s they would know that Tyndall stated the all the trace gases including CO2 can not cause the atmosphere to warm. The trace gases are in to small a quantity to cause an effect. Tyndall said that water vapor is the principle Greenhouse gas. Water/liquid/solid/vapor is the second most important factor in controlling weather. The most important is the sun. There is no GHGE.
    There has been a lot of physics learned in the 160 years since the good work done by Tyndall. But the GHGE has not been proved. The work of Tyndall only proved that certain gases absorb IR , what happens when this energy is absorbed was not understood until the 20th century after quantum physics was developed.
    When I learned about quantum physics 50+ years ago I was taught that a gas does not heat the molecules around those that absorb the IR, (conservation of energy). This has been proven by experiment and applied equipment like low temperature IR heaters. This one supposed feature of the GHGE -the heating of the gas does not exist thus the GHGE does not exist.This one failure of the Hypotheses of the GHGE is enough to totally nullify the whole hypotheses.
    Man-made global warming does not exist.
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist consensus, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    ILE
    INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
    http://ssrn.
    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
    Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
    Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author) http://www.principia-scientific.org

    Web- site references:
    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
    wwwclimatedepot.com
    icecap.us
    http://www.stratus-sphere.com
    SPPI
    many others are available.
    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.”
    Benjamin Franklin

  4. Geologist: “IPCC Confuses Prognoses With Facts” 15-Year Climate Development “No Longer Agrees With IPCC Models” | Cranky Old Crow

    […] Geologist: “IPCC Confuses Prognoses With Facts” 15-Year Climate Development “No Longer Agrees …. […]

  5. John

    This isn’t about AGW and never has been. It’s about making us get off fossil fuels. That’s why facts and science that go against that end are so quickly and loudly attacked. Real scientists invite skepticism and disagreement. The fact that AGW believers roundly attack any naysayers is all the proof you need that this is not about science. It’s about control, power, money, and fringe environmentalism.

  6. Mervyn

    How can anyone rely on those climate models used for the 2007 IPCC climate assessment report when too many problems and shortcomings have now been exposed with their predictions, projections, scenarios or whatever? They were all wrong.

    It’s been a case of garbage in garbage out. If the models cannot satisfactorily predict or project, their outcomes are worthless.

    So why are so many people still so gullible as to believe this scientific fraud about dangerous man-made global warming? I think it is through ignorance. They think all the IPCC’s predictions and scenarios are based on actual and factual scientific data. They are not.

    As for the IPCC, it is a political activist body rather than a scientific body. The IPCC cannot be trusted to deliver an assessment of the climate science in an impartial, objective, non-biased, fair and transparent manner.