NIPCC Report on Climate Change – NaturalNews.com

• The 2009 climatic emails revealed the IPCC scientists who are manipulating the data, suppressing the opposition and exaggerating the demands of global warming. Evidence showed a collusion to overcome the requests of the Freedom of Information Law, delete uncomfortable data and skeptical scientists in the blacklist – which proves that the “scientific consensus” was manufactured politically.
• Carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth, and the highest levels may enhance agricultural revenues and medicinal plant production. The Earth’s climate has always turned normally due to solar activity, ocean cycles and geological factors – current warming is unprecedented.
• IPCC models are exaggerated in estimating the warming effect of carbon dioxide (most likely only 0.3 ° C – 1.1 ° C per double) and failing to calculate natural events such as solar cycles. The claim of “97 percent of consensus” – studies show a much lower agreement, as many scientists reject IPCC’s conclusions due to systematic bias.
• IPCC acts as a political body, giving priority to anxiety on the objective science to justify central control. Scientists face professional pressure and grant incentives, which leads to the confirmation and research that is moved by the agenda.
• Instead of ineffective carbon taxes and green energy delegations, societies should focus on adaptation – preparing for natural climate transformations. NIPCC calls for independent and transparent sciences free from the conflict of companies and the government.

In the continuous debate on global warming, a new report is witnessing the challenge of the in effect and leads to a reassessment of science behind climate change. “Climate Change has been reviewed,” an analysis of 400 pages by NIPCC’s ICRC, provides a convincing argument for widely accepted views of the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This report, written by Dr. Craig Dr. Edoso and Robert M. Carter and C. Farid Singer, and discussed in their book “Why do scientists not agree on global warming: NIPCC report on scientific consensus“It raises important questions about the IPCC results and calls for a more balanced and transparent approach to climate science.

The NIPCC report begins with a review of the 2009 Climategate scandal. The brighton.ai engine also explained EnokThe 2009 climate scandal was the explosive leakage of email messages and internal documents from the CRU in East Anglia UniversityDisclosure of how to deal with the major United Nations climate scientists-the main players of the IPCC.

The revelation has proven that the so -called “scientific consensus” on the man -made climate change was manufactured politically, as the researchers deleted the annoying data, and the awareness of the skeptical scientists in the black list of magazines that were reviewed by the counterparts and discussed how to overcome the freedom of information requests to hide their methods. This scandal shattered the public’s confidence in climate science, which confirms what critics have long been suspected of: Climate alert is driven by ideologyFinancing and power.

Besides scandals, the NIPCC report turns into the complications and doubts that are often ignored in the prevailing climate novels. And it argues that the warmer world can benefit humans and wildlife, citing the decrease in deaths in the winter and the positive effects on plant growth and medicinal plant production. Authors also claim that society’s ability to adapt to climate change is significantly reduced.

One of the most controversial claims in the report is the challenge that “97 percent of 97 percent consensus” faces climate change. NIPCC argues that this statistic is misleading and lacks strong scientific support. For example, the 2004 NAOMI Oreskes sheet, which was repeatedly martyred as a sign of consensus, was not found only 75 percent with the IPCC position. Subsequent studies, like one by Klaus-Martin Schulte, found that less than half of the papers reviewed support the consensus. NIPCC also criticizes the methodology of these studies, claiming that it depends on defective investigative studies and naked surrounding exercises that do not accurately reflect the views of the scientific community.

The report provides a detailed survey of Physical Sciences for Grand SecurityShedding light on several main points:

• Carbon dioxide in the atmosphereCarbon dioxide is a moderate greenhouse gas with the effect of decreasing warming while increasing its concentration. It is likely that its concentration will be doubled in a temperature of 0.3 ° C to 1.1 ° C
• Natural contrastThe Earth’s temperature was naturally fluctuated throughout history, and the direction of current warming was unprecedented.
• Solar effectSolar activity plays an important role in climate change, with differences in solar radiation that may have a greater effect than previously recognized.
• Climate modelsThe models used by IPCC are flawed, adult by estimating climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide and making modeling badly feedback.
• The effects of politicsNIPCC argues that the net effect of increased levels of carbon dioxide and high levels of carbon dioxide are useful, and challenges the economic impact assessments in IPCC.

The report also explores the reason why scientists are incompatible with global warming, citing several factors:

• Multiple specialtyClimate science is a complex field that requires visions of multiple disciplines, and a few scientists are mastering more than two areas or two regions.
• Scientific uncertaintyThe basic uncertainty arises from insufficient observation evidence, disputes over the interpretation of data, and the settings of model parameters.
• The science that is moved by the agenda: IPCC, as a political body, is ready to find a human impact on the global climate, which undermines its credibility.
• Human biasClimate scientists, like all human beings, can be biased by career, searching for grants, political opinions, and affirmation.

The authors of the NIPCC report defending a more open and honest discussion about climate change, and urges policy makers to seek advice from independent NGOs and scientists free of financial and political conflicts in interests. They argue that the current narration, which often suffocates opposition views, does not lead to scientific progress.

In the end, the NipCC report indicates this The best way to change climate It is adaptation. Instead of investing in costly and ineffective mitigation strategies, the authors argue that we must focus on preparing and adapting to extremist events and climatic changes, regardless of their origin.

In conclusion, “Why do scientists not agree on global warming: NIPCC report on the scientific consensus” is a new perspective on the discussion of climate change, which challenges the prevailing narration and calls us to rethink our approach to this complex issue. Whether you agree or do not agree, one thing is clear: the discussion has not yet ended. With our continued dealing with the challenges offered by climate change, it is important to maintain an open dialogue and consider all scientific views.

Watch this video about the book Why do scientists not agree on global warming: NIPCC report on scientific consensus, by Craig Edsu and Robert M. Carter and S. Fred Singer.