Did somebody at Asian Age find themselves short of a story to file? And therefore dig out something more than a year and a half old? Or is there some other reason for this story appearing now? This story below was datelined January 27, 2011.
Top scientists challenge claims of IPCC
Jan 27, 2011 | Age Correspondent| New Delhi.
A non-governmental international panel on climate change (NIPCC) comprising over 40,000 international scientists have challenged the findings of all the Four Assessment Reports (ARA 4) written by scientists attached to the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Lead by Dr Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and Dr Craig Idso, founder for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in the US, these scientists debunk all ARA4 claiming they have been written by a small group of "activist" scientists who are willing to bend backwards for professional and financial rewards.
Challenging all the major claims made in these reports, these scientists question the claim that rising global temperatures from mid-twentieth century have been due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. On the contrary, the NIPCC team attribute rising temperature to increased solar activity and speak about a solar-climate link and how small changes in solar activity manifest into larger climate effects...
Questioning the very foundations of the IPCC claims, they further assert, "the global warming hype has led to demands for unrealistic efficiency standards for cars, the creation of uneconomic wind and solar energy stations, the establishment of large production facilities for uneconomic biofuels, and the demand the electric companies purchase expensive power from so-called "renewable energy sources."
Accusing the IPCC scientists of violating the rules of scientific forecasting, they debunk the fears that global warming results in more droughts, floods, hurricanes, storm surges and heat waves. They maintain the contrary that "weather would be less extreme in a warmer world." Further contradicting that carbon dioxide induced global warming is harmful to human health, they refer to scientific literature which insists that global warming would actually reduce the number of lives lost to extreme conditions.
Nowhere does the story mention the date of the report from which it is sourced. And now it turns out that its taken from a 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The entire information in the Age is from the 'Front Matter' section of this June 2009 report.
"On the most important issue, the IPCC’s claim that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth 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 gases (GHG) cannot produce some warming or has not in the past. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial
role. Almost as importantly, on the question of what effects the present and future warming might have on human health and the natural environment, the IPCC says global warming will "increase the number of people suffering from death, disease and injury from heatwaves, floods, storms, fires and droughts." TheNIPCC again reaches the opposite conclusion: A warmer world will be a safer and healthier world for humans and wildlife alike. Once again, we do not say global warming won’t occur or have any effects (positive or negative) on human health and wildlife.
Rather, our conclusion is that the evidence shows the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife…"
_150_200.jpg)