Eerder rapporteerde Climategate.nl over het klimaatbeleid van het Vaticaan en de rol die de Duitse klimaat’paus’, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, directer van het PIK (‘Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung‘ en oerbron van het klimaatalarmisme in Duitsland) heeft gespeeld bij de totstandkoming van de Pauselijke encycliek Laudato si.

Zie hier.

Aan de passages over klimaat in deze encycliek is een wetenschappelijk debat tussen protagonisten en antagonisten van de menselijke broeikashypothese (AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming) vooraf gegaan, waarbij de antagonisten (klimaatsceptici), waaronder vooraanstaande Italiaanse wetenschappers, aan het kortste eind hebben getrokken. Thans manifesteren zij zich opnieuw met een petitie aan de regering, gericht op een herziening van het klimaatbeleid.

Aan de Engelse (vermoedelijk Google-) vertaling van deze petitie ontleen ik het volgende.

In Italy, over 90 scientists have recently signed a petition, entitled: ‘Climate, a counter-current petition’.

To the President of the Republic
To the President of the Senate
To the President of the Chamber of Deputies
To the President of the Council

Petition on global anthropogenic warming 

The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.

In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.

But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.

In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.

This is the thesis of anthropic global warming promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.

In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressed, even by a throbbing propaganda, to adopt increasingly demanding programs whose implementation, which involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states, it would depend on climate control and, therefore, the “salvation” of the planet.

However, the anthropic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models.

On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.

This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.

The anthropic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.

The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.

Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period , and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.

These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.

It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, ie at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.

Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.

These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.

The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.

The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle. ….

….  many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.

Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.

All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations. ….

In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they do not adhere to policies of uncritical reduction of the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF GOVERNING THE CLIMATE.

***

PROMOTING COMMITTEE:

Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.

Etc.

SIGNATORIES

Antonino Zichichi, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Bologna, Founder and President of the Ettore Center for Scientific Culture Majorana di Erice.

Etc.

Lees verder hier (Italiaans) en hier (Engels). PDF Engelse versie hier: PETITION ON GLOBAL WARMING 3-1.

Gezien de situatie waarin de Italiaanse economie verkeert, zullen de Italiaanse klimaatsceptici vermoedelijk een williger oor vinden bij de huidige Italiaanse regering dan bij het Vaticaan. Indien dit inderdaad het geval zal blijken te zijn, zal ook binnen de EU de oppositie tegen de aanscherping van het klimaatbeleid aan kracht winnen.

En zo zijgt het kaartenhuis langzaam verder ineen.

 

Naschrift

Voor een recente Nederlandse petitie tegen het klimaatbeleid zie hier.

Gerelateerd: