Professor Nir Shaviv, PhD
@nshaviv
is the chairman of the
Racah Institute of Physics
at the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem.
His words below,
were from:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-climate-change-pseudoscience-became-publicly-accepted_3093372.html
" ... my research
as an astrophysicist
led me to the conclusion
that climate change
is more complicated
than we are led to believe.
" ... the story we hear in the media,
(is) that most 20th-century warming
is anthropogenic (man made),
that the climate is very sensitive
to changes in CO2, and that
future warming will, therefore,
be large and will happen very soon,
simply isn’t supported by a
ny direct evidence, only a
shaky line of circular reasoning."
"We “know” that humans
must have caused some warming,
we see warming, we don’t know
of anything else that could have
caused the warming, so it adds up."
"However, there is no calculation
based on first principles that leads
to a large warming by CO2—none."
" ... the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) reports
state that doubling CO2
will increase the temperatures
by anywhere from +1.5 degrees
to +4.5 degrees C, a huge range
of uncertainty that dates back
to the Charney committee
from 1979."
"In fact, there is no evidence
on any time scale showing that
CO2 variations or other changes
to the energy budget cause
large temperature variations."
"Since solar activity significantly
increased over the 20th century,
a significant fraction of the warming
should be then attributed to the sun,
and because the overall change
in the radiative forcing due to CO2
and solar activity is much larger,
climate sensitivity should be
on the low side ( about +1 to +1.5
degrees C per CO2 doubling )."
" ... the climate community
developed a blind spot
to any evidence that
should raise a red flag ..."
"A few hours after the article
was posted online (Forbes),
it was removed by the editors
“for failing to meet our
editorial standards.” "
"The fact that it’s become
politically incorrect to have
any scientific discussion
has led the public to accept
the pseudo-argumentation
supporting the catastrophic
(climate change) scenarios."
"Evidence for warming
doesn’t tell us what caused
the warming, and any time
someone has to appeal
to the so-called
97 percent consensus,
he or she is doing so
because his or her
scientific arguments
aren’t strong enough.
Science isn’t a democracy. "