V

Scientists support Conflict

- From our German correspondent

The assertion that climate variations on earth are created by humans was rejected as pure fraud in a recent English TV documentary. Many known scientists were interviewed and asked to comment on the reports from the UN. Severeal of the scientists were members of the UN's climate group – the IPCC. They said that it was the impression among many qualified scientists that coming up with scientific objections against the contents and conclusions in the UN reports would not be possible. Proof of errors in line of argument, missing scientific documentation, direct misconclusions and little sufficient models as basis for the estimations, were simply ignored. Data that didn't fit the «system» were silently disregarded. The conclusions and hysteria were decreed. Many of the scientists regret that the reports were described as the results of qualified scienttists's analysis and opinions. The alleged coming climate crisis wasn't science – it had taken the form of religion. The salvation from the climate crisis was dependant on enormous ventures on renewable resources and the reduction of CO2 discharge. The flow of money into scientific projects, climate conferences and miljøvernorganisasjoner was also pointed out. It was said that this flow of money will only increase along with the hysteria. The mass media also enjoyed increasing revenue. No alternative opinions or viewpoints has reached through to the public.

The assertion that the contents of CO2 in the atmosphere was substantially caused by human activities and that this gas had anything at all to do with the temperature on earth, was characterised as unscientific rubbish. Such assertions eventually missed scientific foundation. Amongst other things, it was pointed to the fact that steam and clouds had a much larger effect on the climate on earth. These circumstances were not used as basis for the models. Human's contribution to the CO2 contents on earth was minimal and without any significance. Extensive and unambigous research showed that CO2 contents in the atmosphere followed the temperature on earth, but with a delay of around 700 years. With the knowledge posessed today, it was impossible to predict how the temperature and climate would be on earth in 15 to 20 years. This was in part in connection with the problems of prediciting the solar activities. It was very difficult to have any opinion about which consequence the enormous increase in the Sun's magnetic field would have on the climate on Earth.

The scientists's judgement over the models used in the UN's calculations were overwhelming. Calculations of temperature variations on Earth was unsatisfactory, primitive and unusable – worse science than pure guessing.

The leader of The Arctic International Scientific Center – professor Syum- Ichi Akasofu recently commented the UN report's assertions around the melting of the Arctic ice, which, according to him, was without substance in reality. Such large variations of the ice was completely normal. Sattelite surveillance made it possible to follow the development from day to day, but the results didn't provide any basis for the assertions made in the report.

There was total agreement in the documentary that solar activity had always decided the climate on Earth. The evidence was very scientific and very extensive and clear-cut.

The German TV station RTL showed the documentary on the 11th of june 2007, but in a version with almost only German speaking scientists. The scientists agreed that it would be correct to use such words as fraud about the report from the UN. The Germans also claimed that these reports had little to do with scientific research. There was agreement about the models used were unusable. The highly qualified scientists with relevant background believed that it was important to stop this fraud. They were aware that it was extremely unpopular to speak out against the UN's reports. It could have consequences for the individual's merits in the system and for getting support for research.

The conclusions in the TV documentary got impressive global support. Some of the more known with relevant background:

• Astrofysicists at Harvard University, USA

• Professor Eigil F. Christensen, leader of the Danish Meteorological Institute, University in Copenahgen (this institute are counted amongst the world's leading within solar research)

• Professor Tim Bell, University in Winnipeg, Canada

• Professor Phillip Skott, University of London (leading scientist on the connection between the solar activities and Earth's climate)

• Professor Patrich Michaells, University in Virginia

• Professor Augusto Mangani, University in Heidelberg

• Professor Niv Shaviv, University of Jerusalem

• Professor Gerhard Gerlich, Teknische Universitet, Braunschweig

• Dr. Roy Spencer, leader of NASA's climate research

• Dr. Piers Corbyn, climate researcher and expert on the concequences of the solar activities

Members of the UN's IPPC, who came with harsh criticism of the working methods and the conclusions of the IPPC

• Professor Richard Lindgren

• Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber

• Professor John Christy

• Dr. Hans Labohm

• Professor Richard Linzen

• Professor Wolfgang Thune

Patrich Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, strongly regretted that such unscientific reports could be published by the UN. He also regretted that the enviromental movement had gotten the impression of beeing a new religion.

To deny the contents of the UN's reports was now almost as bad as the act of denying the Holocaust.