LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS: 90 ITALIAN CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SIGN NEW PETITION
We must ‘’listen to the scientists’’ the climate alarmists preach.
Well in Italy, over 90 Scientists have recently signed a petition, titled; ‘’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 ANTHROPIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global 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 [Anthropogenic 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 do not 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 [two tenths 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.
- Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.
- Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.
- Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.
- Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.
- Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.
- Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.
- Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
- Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples.
- Antonino Zichichi, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Bologna, Founder and President of the Ettore Center for Scientific Culture Majorana di Erice.
- Renato Angelo Ricci, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Padua, former President of the Italian Society of Physics and Society European Physics; Galileo Movement 2001.
- Aurelio Misiti, Professor of Health-Environmental Engineering, University of Sapienza, Rome.
- Antonio Brambati, Professor of Sedimentology, University of Trieste, Project Manager Paleoclima-mare of PNRA, already President of the National Oceanography Commission.
- Cesare Barbieri, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, University of Padua.
6. Sergio Bartalucci, Physicist, President of the Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.
7. Antonio Bianchini, Professor of Astronomy, University of Padua.
8. Paolo Bonifazi, former Director of the Institute of Interplanetary Space Physics, National Astrophysical Institute.
9. Francesca Bozzano, Professor of Applied Geology, Sapienza University of Rome, Director of the CERI Research Center.
10. Marcello Buccolini, Professor of Geomorphology, University University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
11. Paolo Budetta, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Naples.
12. Monia Calista, Researcher in Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
13. Giovanni Carboni, Professor of Physics, Tor Vergata University, Rome; Galileo Movement 2001.
14. Franco Casali, Professor of Physics, University of Bologna and Bologna Academy of Sciences.
15. Giuliano Ceradelli, Engineer and climatologist, ALDAI.
16. Domenico Corradini, Professor of Historical Geology, University of Modena.
17. Fulvio Crisciani, Professor of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, University of Trieste and Marine Sciences Institute, Cnr, Trieste.
18. Carlo Esposito, Professor of Remote Sensing, La Sapienza University, Rome.
19. Mario Floris, Professor of Remote Sensing, University of Padua.
20. Gianni Fochi, Chemist, Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa; scientific journalist.
21. Mario Gaeta, Professor of Volcanology, La Sapienza University, Rome.
22. Giuseppe Gambolati, Fellow of the American Geophysica Union, Professor of Numerical Methods, University of Padua.
23. Rinaldo Genevois, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Padua.
24. Carlo Lombardi, Professor of Nuclear Plants, Milan Polytechnic.
25. Luigi Marino, Geologist, Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.
26. Salvatore Martino, Professor of Seismic Microzonation, La Sapienza University, Rome.
27. Paolo Mazzanti, Professor of Satellite Interferometry, La Sapienza University, Rome.
28. Adriano Mazzarella, Professor of Meteorology and Climatology, University of Naples.
29. Carlo Merli, Professor of Environmental Technologies, La Sapienza University, Rome.
30. Alberto Mirandola, Professor of Applied Energetics and President of the Research Doctorate in Energy, University of Padua.
31. Renzo Mosetti, Professor of Oceanography, University of Trieste, former Director of the Department of Oceanography, Istituto OGS, Trieste.
- 32.Daniela Novembre, Researcher in Mining Geological Resources and Mineralogical Applications, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti Pescara.
33. Sergio Ortolani, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Padua.
34. Antonio Pasculli, Researcher of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
35. Ernesto Pedrocchi, Professor Emeritus of Energetics, Polytechnic of Milan.
36. Tommaso Piacentini, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
37. Guido Possa, nuclear engineer, formerly Deputy Minister Miur.
38. Mario Luigi Rainone, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Chieti-Pescara.
39. Francesca Quercia, Geologist, Research Director, Ispra.
40. Giancarlo Ruocco, Professor of Structure of Matter, La Sapienza University, Rome.
41. Sergio Rusi, Professor of Hydrogeology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
42. Massimo Salleolini, Professor of Applied Hydrogeology and Environmental Hydrology, University of Siena.
43. Emanuele Scalcione, Head of Regional Agrometeorological Service Alsia, Basilicata.
44. Nicola Sciarra, Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
45. Leonello Serva, Geologist, Director of Geological Services of Italy; Galileo Movement 2001.
46. Luigi Stedile, Geologist, Geological Risk Review and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.
47. Giorgio Trenta, Physicist and Physician, President Emeritus of the Italian Association of Medical Radiation Protection; Galileo Movement 2001.
48. Gianluca Valenzise, Director of Research, National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Rome.
49. Corrado Venturini, Professor of Structural Geology, University of Bologna.
50. Franco Zavatti, Astronomy Researcher, University of Bologna.
51. Achille Balduzzi, Geologist, Agip-Eni.
52. Claudio Borri, Professor of Construction Sciences, University of Florence, Coordinator of the International Doctorate in Engineering Civil.
53. Pino Cippitelli, Agip-Eni Geologist.
54. Franco Di Cesare, Executive, Agip-Eni.
55. Serena Doria, Researcher of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
56. Enzo Siviero, Professor of Ponti, University of Venice, Rector of the e-Campus University.
57. Pietro Agostini, Engineer, Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.
58. Donato Barone, Engineer.
59. Roberto Bonucchi, Teacher.
60. Gianfranco Brignoli, Geologist.
61. Alessandro Chiaudani, Ph.D. agronomist, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
62. Antonio Clemente, Researcher in Urban Planning, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
63. Luigi Fressoia, urban architect, Perugia.
64. Sabino Gallo, nuclear engineer.
65. Daniela Giannessi, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.
66. Roberto Grassi, Engineer, Director of G&G, Rome.
67. Alberto Lagi, Engineer, President of Restoration of Complex Damaged Plants.
68. Luciano Lepori, Ipcf-Cnr Researcher, Pisa.
69. Roberto Madrigali, Metereologo.
70. Ludovica Manusardi, Nuclear physicist and scientific journalist, Ugis.
71. Maria Massullo, Technologist, Enea-Casaccia, Rome.
72. Enrico Matteoli, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.
73. Gabriella Mincione, Professor of Sciences and Techniques of Laboratory Medicine, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
74. Massimo Pallotta, First Technologist, National Institute for Nuclear Physics.
75. Enzo Pennetta, Professor of Natural Sciences and scientific divulger.
76. Nunzia Radatti, Chemist, Sogin.
77. Vincenzo Romanello, Nuclear Engineer, Research Center, Rez, Czech Republic.
78. Alberto Rota, Engineer, Researcher at Cise and Enel.
79. Massimo Sepielli, Director of Research, Enea, Rome.
80. Ugo Spezia, Engineer, Industrial Safety Manager, Sogin; Galileo Movement 2001.
81. Emilio Stefani, Professor of Plant Pathology, University of Modena.
82. Umberto Tirelli, Visiting Senior Scientist, Istituto Tumori d’Aviano; Galileo Movement 2001.
83. Roberto Vacca, Engineer and scientific writer.
These seem to be well qualified scientists. I wonder how many scientists in Canada or the US share these views.
I have seen a figure of about 30,000 scientists in the USA, supporting rejection of the significant parts of the IPCC activity. Let us not forget that a president of the IPCC, of long duration, and overseer of many false statements, was primarily a railway engineer.
Many very well qualified scientists resigned from the US Institute of Physics over the insistence of that body to support AGW
People might be interested in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change reports. http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
We also have lots of material on our main website: http://www.friendsofscience.org and http://www.climatechange101.ca (plain language and English+French)
You were probably thinking of the Oregon petition. http://www.petitionproject.org/ Some reject this as not everyone is in the climate science field and not all are PhDs (plus other objections). Funny that 30,000 signatures are no good, but 77 out of 70, from a pool of >3,000 respondents in Doron & Zimmerman (2009) are considered to be a 97% consensus!! Here is our deconstruction of the ‘consensus’ reports. https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf and in this report “Infiltration” you can see how many people wrote in to Zimmerman to say the sun is the driver of climate change! https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Infiltration2015.pdf Zimmerman said herself that she was actually more neutral on the whole climate issue, having done the survey, and she felt there were good arguments on all sides. Go figure.
This is a significant petition. It will be hard to ignore. CO2 is indispensable to life on earth. It is not a pollutant and has substantial benefits for all earth systems. These systems should be studied before we attempt to control CO2 emissions or over-sequester it.
The IPCC tends to ignore anything that it doesn’t like. I hope that this petition will stimulate similar petitions from scientists in the US and UK.
“(b)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 .”
Yup, like I have said before the real science say the above!
I feel some relief from all this hysteria things are finally coming around but it makes one Wonder how easily people can be fooled including scientists which can send the humanity on Wild Goose chases resulting in huge economic damage and loss of life.
Correction: 0.2C is two tenths of a degree, not two hundredths. I don’t know why this explanation was needed anyway. It is not in the Italian version.
Thank you. It’s been corrected.
Good eye – thank you!!
Some people are not in the sciences and may not understand how small a degree difference some of the claims are about. People are terrified by claims of ‘hottest year ever’ but as the late Prof. Dr. Istvan Marko remarked on non-scientific statements like these by WMO on 2016:
“The World Meteorological Organization – another emanation of the United Nations and which is also, like the IPCC, an intergovernmental forum – declares 2016 to be the year the warmest in history. Knowing that 2016 is supposedly hotter by 0.02°C than 2015 and that the margin of error on this value is 0.1°C, we see all the absurdity of this statement. For those who don’t immediately understand it, this means that the variation in temperature could be + 0.12°C (warming) or -0.08°C (cooling). In short, we can’t say anything and the WMO has simply lost its mind.”
(This is also where the original error of ‘two-one-hundredths’ came from that you pointed out to us – in this case correct. Thanks again!
This article should be forwarded to all our politicians, but especially the PC’s, so they can come up with a rational climate policy that’s not a “me-too” of the IPCC.
There is lots of data exposing the fraud of the EPA/IPCC vilifying of CO2 as a climate changer, and the PC’s must have a at least neutral, if not supportive of the tone of the Italian statement.
@Andrew Roman, look at the petition from Richard Lindzen to President Trump. It is signed by more than 300 people, many of them are scientists in relevant fields. – And in addition, I am missing a few very popular names of sceptic scientists. Furthermore, there is a four digit number of peer-reviewed articles claiming other things than humans for the current climate change.
Please add me to the list of climate-alarm sceptics.
Dr Michael F Ridd
London SW18 1PR
“Nature does not the activity of Man governs the climate ”. The translation needs some work.
Sent from overseas and a Google translate. …so, yes. A few things need some tinkering. Italia Oggi also covered the story. https://www.italiaoggi.it/news/one-hundred-italian-scientists-have-been-ignored-2370802
Thank you for this explanation. It should be duplicated and distributed to all the governments which are going mad about undocumented reports! Yours Moira Poulsen
Where is the peer reviewed papers from this scientists that supports their claims? Their opinions, signatures and petition mean nothing if not backed up by, at least, a peer reviewed study.
Without it, this petition is nothing more than an appeal to authority, and as an argument is invalid.
Consensus in science is meaningless.
You have to try harder.
Luis Javier Kanchi – your remark is lazy, just designed to throw doubt where you could well have done some research. After reading your comment I just picked ONE of the signatories at random and did a simple search. Up came this paper …
and if I am not completely mistaken, there could be many others that published papers and yes, probably peer reviewed papers, on the question of anthropogenic global warming.
So in effect it’s YOU who have to try harder, not the signatories of this communication.
Luis Javier Kanchi, You’re quite right – “consensus in science is meaningless”, which itself is an answer to the absurd so-called “97% consensus” that makes such petitions as these necessary.
You’re also right that this petition is an appeal to authority, but it’s an appeal to the authority that gives undue credibility to the outrageous claim that 97% scientists endorse the AGW narrative.
It’s only the IPCC’s narrative that makes petitions such as this present one necessary. Scientists shouldn’t have to sign petitions to try to bring science itself back on course, but that’s the problem we’re dealing with. Science has been hijacked and we want it back.
Hello, we prefer not to post statements that are defamatory of scientists. You are entitled to your opinions, of course, we don’t want to be in the middle of a cat fight or legal claim. Thank you.
On behalf of Climate Congress 2020 (Climate Change Conferences) Organizing Committee, we are pleased to invite academics, counsellors, educators, environmentalist, policy makers, research scientists, self-help group facilitators, teachers, business delegates and Young researchers across the world to attend 7th International World Congress on Climate change which is to be held on April 27-28, 2020 at Rome, Italy.