Climate Change: IPCC Systemic Bias Exposed in New Study

The evidence presented in a new peer-reviewed study shows unequivocally that the “code red” for humanity pronounced by UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres after reading the latest report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is ludicrous grandstanding and panic mongering. The new paper, published in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA), finds evidence of systemic bias in UN data selection to support the climate-change narrative. The RAA journal is published by IOP Publishing, on behalf of the National Astronomical Observatory of China and the Chinese Astronomical Society.

The conclusions drawn by the 23 experts from 14 countries involved in the study are that the IPCC considered only data that fit a certain narrative, and that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century are mostly due to natural cycles (http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4906). Statements by some of the co-authors of the study:

The lead author of the study, Ronan Connolly of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), stated that “The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus…. However, science doesn’t work by consensus…. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.”

Willie Soon, who works at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), has also been researching Sun/climate relationship since 1991 at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.): “We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. … My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports.”

Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM): “This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of Sun-climate connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”

Richard C. Wilson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM experiments: “Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis.’ The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO₂ anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980s’ vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication.”

Nicola Scafetta, professor of climatology at the Naples Federico II University and speaker at a recent Schiller Institute webinar: the IPCC report “is partisan and over-pessimistic, based on a selection of the most alarmistic studies. It ignores the entire rest of scientific literature that gives a less alarming interpretation of climate changes and emphasizes natural effects over anthropic ones”.