The main posting below is an extraordinary letter from 60 German Scientists dissenting over global warming claims, who call climate fears 'pseudo 'religion' and urge the German chancellor to 'reconsider' her views.
I thought I should send this out before receiving details of the scientists themselves but any scientists - or, indeed any readers at all! - amongst those who see this and who want the list when I get it, please let me know!
The second piece is a note about John Howard, the last Australian prime minister , who is campaigning strongly on the stifling of discussion on this 'pseudo 'religion'. (It’s a brief note since it only formed part of a fascinating speech on the media in general. The whole is worth reading!]
The truth about this great scam is gradually filtering out and as the dreadful costs of the utterly futile remedies sinks in here Britons will get even more sceptical!
Christina
CLIMATE DEPOT .com 4.8.09
AND
European Institute for Climate and Energy 26.7.09
'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 60 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims!
Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views
'Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role'
More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”
This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth's failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion. (See "Related Links" at bottom of this article for more inconvenient scientific developments.)
The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.
The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”
“More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.
“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote.
“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.
“The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added.
“Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.
Full Text of Translated Letter By 61 German Scientists: (emphasis added)
Open Letter – Climate Change
Bundeskanzleramt
Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1
10557 Berlin
#
Vizerprasident
> Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
> 14476 Grob Glienicke
> Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a
E-mail: limburg@grafik-system.de
Grob Glienicke 26.07.09
To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.
Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.
A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.
Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.
More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.
The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.
In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion.Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community.
Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.
The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.
Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.
Respectfully yours,
Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE
Diplom-Geologe
Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)
#
Dr. Holger Thuß
EIKE President
European Institute for Climate and Energy
Signed by
Marc Morano
Executive Editor/Chief Correspondent
Climate Depot
1875 Eye Street, NW
Fifth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-536-5052
www.ClimateDepot.com
CONSERVATIVE HOME 7.8.09
CONSERVATIVE INTERNATIONAL.com
John Howard criticises the media for failing to challenge received wisdom on climate change
The former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, gave a lecture to the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advanced Journalism this week about politics and the media.
He covered a variety of themes, some of which will be of interest to a British audience:
• How the Daily Telegraph's coverage of MPs' expenses suggests that newspapers have not been entirely supplanted by the electronic media;
• Why he believes most journalists are of a centre-left disposition;
• The importance of talk radio for opposition parties;
• His belief that Australia voted against becoming a republic in 1999 because most of the media were pushing for it.
He also went on to attack the media - in particular the Australian state broadcaster, ABC - for failing to challenge received wisdom on climate change:
"I do think that there is a complete unwillingness to accept that there is really any room for any suggestion that there could be some doubt or some scepticism about climate change. I still remember that extraordinary moment on the Lateline program in the middle of 2007 when that British program, I forget the exact title of it – the Great Climate Change Swindle (sic)* was shown. And the presenter of the program actually said that the views expressed in the program were not the views of the ABC, which I thought was quite an extraordinary thing to do, because, I mean, of course, they’re not, nobody suggests that, but there are plenty of other programs of equal prejudice on other issues that do not carry with them the dignity of that kind of disclaimer."
-------------------------------------------------
To download a transcript of the entire lecture as a PDF go to:-
Posts
