PRESS RELEASE
Norwegian Prof. Ole Humlum and Danish Henrik Svensmark Take on Paris CO2 Agenda, Alleged Causes of Climate Changes
COPENHAGEN, Dec. 1, 2015 (EIRNS)—On the eve of the Paris COP21 population reduction summit, the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published an interview Nov. 29 with Ole Humlum, professor of glaciology and geomorphology at the University of Oslo at Svalbard, and Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, written by Lars From. Humlum stated that natural climate changes are determining the climate, and CO2 plays a subordinate role. This year, there is a natural temperature increase because of El Niño, but in two years, the temperature will return to where it has been during the last 1,520 years, probably followed by a period of 2,030 years during which the temperature will fall—the opposite of the IPCC theories. The CO2 scientists neglect the role of water vapor he said. He attacked the symbiotic relationship between politicians who grant money to CO2 scientists, who then write what they want to hear.
It is natural that the ice in the Arctic is melting, and the ice in Antarctica is growing, because we left the little ice age 150 years ago, when the Norwegian glaciers began to melt. Yet, it was only in 1950-60 that CO2 rose significantly. Temperature on the Earth fluctuates with periods of about 1,100 years. There is also strong influence from the Sun, the Moon, and clouds, which the IPCC plays down. The Moon affects the tides, which bring warmer water up north to Norway and Greenland.
Henrik Svensmark from Denmark’s Technical University's (DTU) Institute for Space Research and Technology, thinks that the role of the Sun is vastly underrated in the official prognoses. Speaking of the temperature, he said,
"So far we have seen the temperature rise about 0.8 degrees—except for this year, when it is warmer because of El Niño—0.4 degrees of which is caused by the Sun's changing activity. ..—Everything surrounding the climate discussion is extremely polarized, and the whole climate debate today is more political than scientific. There is much talk of consensus, but how can you have consensus when there are still so many things we do not properly understand, for example, about the natural variability of the climate? ... They imagine that there will be more clouds, and more water vapor, when it gets warmer, but the effect of CO2 is based on uncertainties, and the effect of clouds is very uncertain as well.
"Our predictions about the future climate show that temperature in 2100 will be increased by approximately 1 degree, compared to the pre-industrial time—that is, roughly the same temperature as today. ... If you listen to the IPCC, the temperature should be increased by far more today, if CO2 were having the effect they say. Therefore, I see no reason not to stick to my views."
