The Imminent Changing Climate

After the generalized conclusion of the UN-IPCC anthropogenic global warming, cracks in the pipelines have appeared. The presence of the prominent group of scientists who registered their disapproval that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for the perceived global warming are gradually eroding the foundations of IPCC legerdemain. It’s like a face coloring being washed-away after the pouring of ice-cold tears of nature.

 

The American Physical Society (APS), an association of almost 50,000 physicists, that previously supported IPCC in its conclusion and termed its findings that the man-made global warming is “incontrovertible”, is now inviting and sponsoring public debate in its Physics and Society Forum. Interested individuals may contact APS forum editor, Jeffrey Marque, and to submit comments or articles “that are scientific in nature.” Politicians and economists that comprised the majority of IPCC may not participate as they may pollute the scientific sanctity of the resultant facts that may be derived from the submission of proofs, experimentations, or convincing scientific evidence by the contending parties. As the APS opens its door and with the prodding of its majority members who were not given fair chance to air their views during the IPCC deliberations, it is anticipated that the wide ranging discussions on the behavior of nature will be brought to open and such will be the only way peer-reviews and consensus will be determined in a credible manner. It is worthwhile to mention Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that:

 

“Climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate. The IPCC’s presentation of its principal conclusions as though they were near-certain is accordingly unjustifiable. We cannot even measure mean global surface temperature anomalies to within a factor of 2; and the IPCC’s reliance upon mean global temperatures, even if they could be correctly evaluated, itself introduces substantial errors in its evaluation of climate sensitivity.

 

The IPCC overstates temperature feedbacks to such an extent that the sum of the high-end values that it has now, for the first time, quantified would cross the instability threshold in the Bode feedback equation and induce a runaway greenhouse effect that has not occurred even in geological times despite CO2 concentrations almost 20 times today’s, and temperatures up to 7 ºC higher than today’s.”

 

have contributed largely in the APS decision to encourage debate. His submission of the above-quoted article opens the discussion and made it known that the global warming debate is not yet over. Scientists will be in for the real debate without fear of removal of multi-billion yearly grants.

 

With this new development, I am confirming the UN official statement in the G8 member nations meeting in Japan that the IPCC’s climate change pact is on a troubled path. The AWG tower which is built on Greenpeace fakery is gradually crumbling and maybe gobbled by Algore’s six meter sea level rise fear monger.