Italian Scientists Reject Global Warming Hysteria while Canadian Sustainable Finance Panel Jumps on Sinking Ship of Climate Action says Friends of Science

From "Friends of Science Society" in Alberta.

"One hundred Italian scientists have sent a petition to their government to reject Anthropogenic Global Warming as unfounded in science, meanwhile the Canadian Sustainable Finance Panel has jumped on this sinking ship of climate change, says Friends of Science. A new report, “The Ontario Government Climate Legacy” should offer fair warning to Canadians on the financial catastrophe that awaits with “Climate Action.”"

"As reported by Italia Oggi of July 03, 2019, one hundred Italian scientists have signed a petition that the human-caused (anthropic/anthropogenic) “global warming theory is just an ideological lie that shows the subjugation of science to politics,” while in Canada the Globe and Mail op-ed of July 02, 2019, entitled “The climate plan we’ve been waiting for” lauds the Sustainable Finance Panel report that jumps on the sinking ship of climate action, says Friends of Science Society.

Italia Oggi reported about the scientists, "After a careful historical analysis of the climate changes recorded over the centuries, they say it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for the warming observed for the last century until today. Therefore, the predicted alarm is not credible, since it is founded on models whose results are in contradiction with the experimental data.”

The Italian petition and signatories have been posted on the Friends of Science blog.

These statements bring into question recent Canadian court rulings on the contested carbon tax. A Globe and Mail op-ed by law professor Janis Sarra, published July 02, 2019, makes claims about extreme weather and climate catastrophe. Such claims are refuted by the Italian scientists’ statement, thus no deep emissions cuts are necessary at all.

At the 2018 Porto Basic Climate Conference, Professor Nicola Scafetta of the University of Naples Federico II, presented a study illustrating the influence of periodicity in planetary movements/orbital conjunctions and climate variability on earth. Scafetta's work shows that the sun has a major effect on climate and the climate sensitivity upper limit is 1.5 deg. Celsius. VIDEO: youtu.be/F20tsr2n1YM

A new report by Robert Lyman, entitled “The Ontario Government Climate Legacy,” published June 28, 2019, gives fair warning of the crushing financial consequences of ‘green schemes’ such as those advocated for by the Canadian Expert Panel on Sustainable Growth.

As Robert Lyman notes, “Ontario’s disastrous electricity policy has been publicized and commented on extensively by many sources, so this is not news. What is news is to lay the blame squarely at the door of its climate policy motivation, and, perhaps, to remind people of how high the bill has been – $9 billion for poor contracting practices, $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032 (at least 20 per cent of which relates to renewables), $3.6 billion to build the “smart grid and smart meters”, up to $55 billion in deferred costs that will hit future ratepayers, and 75,000 lost industrial jobs. That is quite the tally for zero global environmental benefit.”

Friends of Science Society issued a report critical of the Expert Panel and of David Suzuki Foundation’s “Net Zero” plans, entitled “Shocking Reality,” issued June 19, 2019. The simplistic, Utopian view that electrification and decarbonization are the way forward are shown to be a path to economic and energy catastrophe.

As outlined in Adam Harmes book “Unseen Power: How Mutual Funds Threaten the Political and Economic Wealth of Nations” of 2001, it appears that ‘expert’ panels on sustainability are more engaged with mutual fund investors and green crony subsidy plans than they are with climate science experts.

Friends of Science Society’s report of May 1, 2019, rebuts the Canadian federal government’s climate report (CCCR2019) with “Climate Change Your Mind.”"

Here is an excerpt from the Italian petition:

"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  [two one-hundredths of a degree]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.

For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO 2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.

The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.

It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1 ° C to a maximum of 5 ° C.

This uncertainty is enormous.

In any case, 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.

Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause
of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.

However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory.

In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.

There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropic global warming.

These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature does not the activity of Man governs the climate ”.

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."