Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Climate Change Reconsidered II fulfills an important role in countering the IPCC part by part, highlighting crucial things they ignore such as the Little Ice Age and the recovery (warming) which began in 1800 1850. Superimposed on that recovery, there is a prominent multi-decadal oscillation. These can explain much of climate change from 1800, including the fact that the warming has halted from 2000, phenomena the IPCC reports do not properly cover. In contrast to the IPCC, which often ignores evidence of past changes, the authors of the NIPCC report recognize that climatology requires studying past changes to infer future changes. --Syun-Ichi Akasofu, International Arctic Research CenterThe CCR-II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global warming and its impacts on sea-level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc. There is a need to look into these phenomena at local and regional scales before sensationalization of global warming-related studies. --S. Jeevananda Reddy, Former Chief Technical Advisor, United Nations World Meteorological OrganizationI support [the work of the NIPCC] because I am convinced that the whole field of climate and climate change urgently needs an open debate between several schools of thought, in science as well as other disciplines, many of which jumped on the IPCC bandwagon far too readily. Climate, and even more so impacts and responses, are far too complex and important to be left to an official body like the IPCC. --Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment