First I asked geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning by e-mail for his impression of the IPCC’s summary. Lüning has published over 20 peer-reviewed papers in the field of geology and is the co-author of the IPCC critical book “The Neglected Sun“.
Photo Lüning: www.kaltesonne.de/
He summarizes: “Once you boil down the science, there no case left for alarm.” He continues:
When I read the reports in the mainstream media, I was shocked that some of the key findings were not properly reported: unexpected warming stop during the last 15 years not explainable by current models, the Medieval Warm Period in at least parts of the world was as warm as today. This should have been reported. Instead they wrote that the sea level threat increased, which is not really true. There has been no acceleration of sea level in the past few decades and a large European Research Consortium has recently ruled out the most scary sea level prognoses (European Research Consortium dismisses extreme sea level rise prognoses). The East Antarctic Ice Cap and Arctic sea ice trend actually is growing, drought and storm occurrences are well within the limits of natural variability. Current Greenland temperatures are on the level of the 1930s. Forget the models, the real data show that there is no cause for any alarm.”
Lüning also left a reader comment at NoTricksZone. One part of his comment is worth mentioning again (my emphasis):
We argue mostly with historical and geological data which clearly show that natural climate factors always played a key role in pre-industrial times, hence also today. Interestingly, we have not found any hard evidence for CO2 having been a climate driver in the past. Therefore we say that half the warming of the last 150 years could be man-made at most. This is a maximum value. It could also be that CO2 has not been involved at all or only marginally in the warming we have seen.”
Also veteran meteorologist Dr. Karsten Brandt at donnerwetter.de had some criticism for the IPCC.
Dr. Karsten Brandt. Photo: www.donnerwetter.de/.
Some excerpts of what he wrote:
The warming stop of the last 15 years gets explained by the oceans absorbing heat more strongly. This stop in warming is hardly treated critically in the report, and thus the prognoses for the next years are everything but certain. …
Concerning the impacts of climate change, the uncertainties are very high. For example the prognoses for Europe can all be questionable because the margin of error is so large. ….
The global community must act, but how? This is precisely the crux of the problem. From climate science we tend to see ideological suggestions where economic growth is viewed negatively. But here strong growth could help the planet to develop technologies and ideas against climate change. The idea coming from many economic philosophers that man has to be steered away from outer targets of prosperity and towards an inner target of self-fulfillment may be well intentioned, but it is hardly accepted by a broader audience, and not all by poor countries.
The best solution is probably a gradual, soft transition to an energy base that focusses on CO2 avoidance globally over the next 50 to 100 years.”
To be fair. Dr. Brandt thinks that rising CO2 emissions do pose risks that cannot be ignored, and that it is a good idea to get away from fossil fuels.