IPCC and UNFCCC
The
I
ntergovernmental
P
anel
on
C
limate
C
hange
(IPCC)
[1]
is
an
intergovernmental
body
of
the
United
Nations,
dedicated
to
provide
the
world
with
an
objective,
scientific
view
of
climate
change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.
It
was
established
in
1988
by
the
W
orld
M
eteorological
O
rganization
(WMO)
and
the
U
nited
N
ations
E
nvironment
P
rogramme
(UNEP),
and
later
endorsed
by
the
United
Nations
General
Assembly.
Membership
is
open
to
all
members
of
the
WMO
and
UN.
The
IPCC
produces
re
-
ports
that
contribute
to
the
work
of
the
U
nited
N
ations
F
ramework
C
onvention
on
C
limate
C
hange (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change.
The
objective
of
the
UNFCCC
is
to
"
stabilize
greenhouse
gas
concentrations
in
the
atmosphere
at
a
level
that
would
prevent
dangerous
anthropogenic
(human-induced)
interference
with
the
climate
system
".
But
this
objective
emanates
from
the
assumption
that
almost
only
G
reen-
H
ouse
G
ases
(GHG)
are
responsible
for
an
observed
temperature
increase
since
the
end
of
the
‘Little
Ice
Age’
at
1850,
and
that
for
an
inclining
concentration
of
these
gases
mostly
fossil
fuel
emissions
are
liable.
Therefore,
the
UNFCCC
and
as
its
acting
body
the
IPCC
is
primarily
focusing
on
human
emis
-
sions
and
tries
to
explain
all
global
warming
exclusively
by
human
activities,
while
any
natural
variations are almost completely excluded.
As
a
consequence,
also
most
of
the
state-sponsored
climate
research
was
concentrating
only
on the human influence and largely neglecting natural variations.
The
IPCC
does
not
accomplish
original
research,
nor
does
it
monitor
climate
or
related
pheno
-
mena
itself.
Rather,
thousands
of
‘experts’
from
political
and
environmental
organizations
con
-
tribute
on
a
voluntary
basis
to
writing
and
reviewing
reports,
which
are
mostly
captured
by
the
go
vernments with
out any larger modifications.
From
selectively
screening
the
climate
literature
the
IPCC
and
related
institutions
conclude
that
climate
science
is
settled
and
that
97%
of
climate
scientists
or
even
more
would
make
humans
responsible for a climate change.
The So-Called AGW-Consensus
The
state
ment
of
settled
science
and
a
scientific
consensus
on
A
nthropogenic
G
lobal
W
arm
ing
(AGW)
goes
back
to
evaluations
like
that
of
Cook
et
al.
[2],
who
examined
11,944
climate
abstracts
from
1991–2011
in
the
peer-reviewed
literature
matching
the
topics
‘global
climate
change’
or
‘global
warming’.
They
found
that
66.4%
of
abstracts
expressed
no
position
on
AGW,
32.6%
endorsed
AGW,
0.7%
rejected
AGW
and
0
.3%
were
uncertain
about
the
cause
of
global
warming (see left graphic).
In
their
further
analysis
then
the
authors
only
consider
those
abstracts,
which
explicitly
or
im
-
plicitly
ex
press
ed
a
position
on
AGW
(
32.6%
en
dorsed
+
0.7%
rejected
+
0.3%
uncertain
-->
total
33.6%
),
and
from
this
they
conclude
that
97.1%
(
32.6/33.6
%)
endorsed
the
con
sensus
position that hu
mans are causing global warming (right graphic).
Independent
of
the
fact
that
in
science
a
hypothesis
is
not
confirmed
or
rejected
by
voting
or
by
a
consen
sus,
in
such
calculation
the
lar
gest
group
of
climate
scientists
(66.4%),
which
did
not explicitly ex
press a position on AGW, is completely embezzled.
It
is
adventurous
how
Cook
et
al.
-
and
with
them
the
IPCC
-
infer
from
such
manipulated
data
a
97%
AGW-consensus
of
climate
scien
tists.
The
authors
generalize
selectively
dedu
ced
data
from
abstracts
partially
written
more
than
20
years
ago,
and
mostly
published
to
present
a
scientific
result
and
not
to
express
a
position
on
AGW.
Indeed,
some
of
these
scien
tist
may
also have suppor
ted the AGW-hypothesis, but others not.
A
detailed
scrutiny
of
Cook‘s
data
even
shows
the
exact
opposite
of
a
consensus.
M.
Fiedler
[3]
looked
more
carefully
to
the
original
data
and
found
that
from
the
11,944
abstracts
just
64
explicitly
endorsed
and
quantified
AGW
as
the
dominant
reason
for
the
climate
change
(50+%).
This
is
not
more
than
0.54%
of
all
abstracts.
922
abstracts
(7.72%)
explicitly
endorsed,
but
did
not
quantify
or
mini
mize
it,
and
2,910
(24.36%)
only
implicitly
endorsed
AGW.
All
the
others
had
no
position
or
were
rejecting
AGW.
The
only
thing
we
can
definitely
learn
from
such
investigation
is
that
32%
of
all
abstracts
concede
(explicitly
or
implicitly)
some
smaller
fraction
of
anthropogenic
global
warming,
and
only
0.54%
hold
humans
mainly
or
alone
responsible
for
global
warming.
So,
it
is
a
willful
deception
of
the
public
and
the
politi
cians
to
deduce
from
such kind of investigations any scientific con
sensus.
An
even
worse
evaluation
is
presented
by
Powell
[4],
who
assumes
that
the
extent
of
a
con
sensus
can
be
determined
by
the
number
of
scientists,
who
contradict
the
AGW-hypo
-
thesis.
With
this
method
he
finds
5
surveys
in
54,195
articles
and
derives
from
this
an
average
con
sen
sus of 99.99%.
Applying
this
method,
right
away
we
will
find
a
100%
consensus
for
the
hypothesis
that
witches
are
responsible
for
global
warming,
and
bur
ning
of
witches
is
an
ap
propriate
means
to
protect
humans
against
disasters
and
climate
cata
strophes.
This
will
be
the
result
of
screening
the
peer-reviewed
litera
ture,
since
nowadays
no
serious
article
can
be
found,
where
burning
of
witches
as
adequate
mea
sure
against
potential
threads
is
gravely
discussed
or
men
tioned,
and
therefore
also
no
ex
pert
can
be
found
who
con
tra
dicts
such
scenario,
which
nowhere
is
considered and which goes back to the middle age.
This
kind
of
investigations
is
absolutely
nonsense,
and
it
is
highly
dis
qualifying
that
such
logics
has
meanwhile
been
taken
over
by
the
German
Govern
ment
to
proclaim
a
99%
AGW-con
-
sensus of climate scientists (Bundestags-Drucksache 19/12631 [5])!
IPCC‘s New Perception
All
this
is
no
longer
real
science
and
objective
consultancy
of
politicians.
Rather
the
IPCC
itself
converted
to
a
political
organization,
which
disseminates
climate
religion
and
has
turned
aside
from
serious
climate
science.
Their
thousand
pages
long
Assessment
Reports,
in
particular
the
chapter
S
ummary
for
P
olicy
M
akers
(SPM)
demonstrates,
how
the
IPCC
modified
its
original
mission
from
consul
ting
governments
to
an
active
political
organization.
The
re
ports
are
dri
-
ven
by
an
extreme
form
of
fear
based
activism
and
speculation
instead
of
presen
ting
settled
climate
facts.
They
are
no
longer
scientific
reports
but
converted
to
political
state
ments
with
the
essence
to
convince
politicians
and
media
that
any
observed
climate
change
is
only
man-
made and natural effects have no influence on the climate.
We
know,
declarations
of
a
forthcoming
climate
catastrophe
are
most
attentively
recognized
by
the
public
and
politicians.
To
some
extent
this
even
goes
along
with
end
time
hysterics,
as
this
could
be
observed
with
prognoses
for
a
population
explosion
and
the
feared
starvation
crisis
or
the
forest
destruction
in
the
80s.
But
serious
institutions
and
reliable
climate
scientists
do
not
further
invigorate
such
tendencies
or
dramatize
speculations
that
create
a
religious
war
in
our
society
and
a
polarization
between
industrialized
and
developing
countries
with
claims
for
guilt
and
expia
tion
(see
e.g.
requests
for
a
deed
of
partnership:
The
Great
Transformation
[6]).
Serious
science
concentrates
on
factual
research
which
can
confirm
or
dismiss
a
theo
-
retical prediction.
Therefore, it is high time for a fundamental amendment of the climate organizations.
This demand is strongly supported by many climate scientists and experts, see e.g.:
•
Letter to the US President and Petition to withdraw from United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by 310 international scientists, Lindzen et al.,
February 23, 2017 [7].
•
REAL climate science shows Trump was right to Exit Paris, Declaration of scientists as re-
sponse to a letter of MIT President Reif to the MIT community, in which Reif criticizes Presi-
dent Trump’s decision to exit the Paris climate agreement, Marko et al., 2017 [8].
•
There is No Climate Emergency, Pan-European Declaration of Independent Scientists, sign-
ed by more than 700 scientists of 24 countries, sent to the UN and UNFCCC,
G. Berkhout et al., September 2019 [9].
There
is
hardly
any
other
discipline
in
which
so
many
articles
appear,
both
by
climate
experts
and
scientists
from
other
disciplines,
which
critically
question
the
data
and
publications
pub
-
lished
by
official
institutions
or
the
governments
and
point
to
obvious
contradictions
and
misinterpretations.
They
deliver
an
important
contribution
to
the
active
climate
debate.
With
-
out
claiming
completeness,
here
we
list
some
of
these
alternative
associations
as
control
bodies of the IPCC and advocates of serious science.
Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change
Already
quite
early,
the
one-sided
considerations
of
a
purely
man-made
climate
change
were
recognized
by
some
scientists.
Therefore,
almost
at
the
same
time
as
the
IPCC,
the
Non-
Governmental
International
Panel
on
Climate
Change
(NIPCC)
was
founded
by
Prof.
Fred
Singer to form an alternative scientific voice to the IPCC.
For
more
than
70
years,
Prof.
Singer
had
outstanding
positions
in
the
sciences.
He
was
direc
-
tor
of
the
Center
for
Atmosphere-
and
Spacephysic
at
the
University
of
Maryland
(1953-62),
first
director
of
the
National
Weather
Satellite
Service
(1962-64),
founding
dean
of
the
School
of
Environmental
and
Planetary
Sciences
at
the
University
of
Miami
(1964-67),
served
in
various
departments
and
was
a
Professor
of
Environmental
Sciences
at
the
University
of
Virginia. His specialty was atmospheric and space physics.
Sadly,
Fred
Singer
passed
away
in
April
2020
at
the
age
of
95.
But
until
old
age,
he
still
used
all
his
strength
to
ensure
that
science
did
not
degenerate
to
a
water
carrier
of
politics
with
a
rapidly increasing dependency of environmental sciences from politics.
Therefore,
he
had
already
founded
the
Science
and
Environmental
Policy
Project
(SEPP)
in
1990,
which
-
like
the
NIPCC
-
in
many
scientific
reports
positioned
itself
clearly
against
an
increasing
ideologization
of
environmental
sciences
and
tried
to
counteract
the
emerging
scaremongering of man-made climate change.
With
the
death
of
Fred
Singer,
the
NIPCC
has
not
published
new
alternative
assessment
re
-
ports.
However,
other
associations
and
scientists,
who
have
critically
questioned
the
work
of
the IPCC parallel or in cooperation with the NIPCC and SEPP continue to do this very actively.
European Institute for Climate and Energy
In
Germany,
for
example,
the
European
Institute
for
Climate
and
Energy
(EIKE)
has
extensive
internet
activity,
where
critical
reports
from
all
over
the
world
on
climate
change
and
energy
supply appear daily, together with plenty of comments from a broad readership.
Daily Newsletter on Climate and Energy
The
climate
news
from
Prof.
Vahrenholt
and
Prof.
Lüning
in
form
of
a
daily
newsletter
on
climate
and
energy
topics
together
with
the
blog
"
Kalte
Sonne
"
and
the
“Climate
Show“
on
YouTube
inform
regular
ly
about
reports
on
new
scientific
results
from
the
climate
sciences.
The
reports
are
mainly
focussing
on
new
publications
about
the
influence
of
natural
control
factors
on
climate
events.
Reviews
and
critical
comments
on
other
articles
and
press
releases
also
appear
there.
The
aim
of
the
website
is
also
to
provide
a
thematically
sorted
overview
of
the continuously growing number of blog articles.
Climate Intellicence Foundation
The
Climate
Intelligence
Foundation
(CLINEL)
is
an
independent
foundation
that
operates
in
the
fields
of
climate
change
and
climate
policy.
CLINTEL
was
founded
in
2019
by
emeritus
professor
of
geophysics
Guus
Berkhout
and
science
journalist
Marcel
Crok.
In
2019
CLINTEL
published
a
World
Climate
Declaration
with
the
title:
There
is
no
Climate
Emergency
.
This
declaration
was
addressed
to
politicians
and
the
UN.
It
was
signed
by
more
than
1,500
scientists from all over the world.
In
May
2023
CLINTEL
published
the
book:
The
Frozen
Climate
Views
of
the
IPCC
-
An
Analysis
of
AR6
.
A
team
of
eight
scientists,
in
addition
to
several
anonymous
expert
reviewers,
from
the
Clintel
network,
have
analyzed
several
claims
from
the
Working
Group
1
(The
Physical
Science
Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports.
Climate Realists
In
Norway,
a
group
was
formed
years
ago,
which
is
mainly
active
in
Northern
Europe
and
calls
itself
Climate Realists
.
Since
2021
it
publishes
its
own
scientific
journal,
Science
of
Climate
Change
.
This
journal
has
a
high
scientific
level
with
reviewers
from
proponents
and
critics
of
human
climate
change
and
also
with
contributions
from
both
sides.
In
contrast
to
many
journals
controlled
by
the
IPCC,
in
Science
of
Climate
Change
as
Open
Access
Journal
also
climate-critical
articles
can
be
publish
-
ed.
As
a
long-standing
member,
the
Nobel
Prize
Laureate
Prof.
Ivar
Giaever
also
supports
the
activities of the Climate Realists.
CO
2
Coalition
Finally,
we
refer
to
the
CO
2
Coalition
,
which
was
initiated
by
Prof.
Will
Happer
from
Princeton
University
and
Prof.
Richard
Lindzen
from
MIT.
In
particular,
this
association
points
to
the
advantages
of
a
higher
CO
2
concentration
in
the
atmosphere.
Plants
absorb
CO
2
from
the
air
through
photosynthesis.
Without
this
process,
plants
would
not
be
able
to
grow,
and
without
this
process,
there
would
be
no
life
on
Earth.
The
growth
of
C3
plants
in
particular
is
signifi
-
cantly
promoted
by
a
higher
CO
2
content
in
the
atmosphere
and
thus
also
contributes
to
a
more secure nourishment of the world's population.
In
May
2023,
Prof.
John
Clauser,
Nobel
Prize
Laureate
in
Physics
2022
(awarded
for
his
quan
-
tum physics work) was elected as an additional director to the board of the CO
2
Coalition.
We close here with his words:
"
The
popular
narrative
about
climate
change
reflects
a
dangerous
corruption
of
science
that
threatens
the
world’s
economy
and
the
well-being
of
billions
of
people.
Misguided
climate
science
has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.
In
turn,
the
pseudoscience
has
become
a
scapegoat
for
a
wide
variety
of
other
unrelated
ills.
It
has
been
promoted
and
extended
by
similarly
misguided
business
marketing
agents,
politicians,
journalists,
government
agencies,
and
environmentalists.
In
my
opinion,
there
is
no
real
climate
crisis.
There
is,
however,
a
very
real
problem
with
providing
a
decent
standard
of
living
to
the
world’s
large
population,
and
an
associated
energy
crisis.
The
latter
is
being
unnecessarily
exacerbated
by
what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.
"
Only
a
small
collection
of
official
and
non-official
announcements
of
‘climate
experts‘
about
our
climate,
which
finally
led
to
the
founding
of
the
IPCC,
and
also
some
state
ments
of
repre
-
sentatives
or
members
of
this
association
may
reflect
the
seriousness
of
these
fore
casts,
but
also the style, how pure climate speculations are presented as facts:
•
As
early
as
1986,
climate
researchers
warned
of
droughts,
famines,
storms,
floods,
poles
will
soon
be
ice-free,
the
glaciers
of
the
Alps
and
the
Himalayas
will
have
disappeared
by
2040,
and
as
illustrated,
for
example,
on
the
front
page
of
the
journal
“Der
Spiegel”
in
1986,
Hamburg, New York or Hong Kong will no longer exist in 20 years, i.e. in 2006.
•
Also
James
Hansen,
previous
head
of
NASA‘s
Goddard
Institute,
saw
New
York
disappear
in
the floods. He announced at a hearing of the American Congress in 1988:
“
In
20
years
will
the
West
Side
Highway
(along
the
Hudson
River)
be
under
water,
and
the
win
-
dows along the road will be fixed with adhesive tape because of the strong winds.
"
When
I
passed
the
highway
in
2010,
the
water
level
was
almost
the
same
as
it
was
20
years
earlier,
maybe
a
few
cm
higher
in
agreement
with
the
official
tide
gauge
measurements,
showing a linear incline over the last 150 years of not more than 1.3 to 1.8 mm per year.
After
all,
an
actual
study
just
found
that
New
York
could
be
more
affected
by
flooding
than
other
coastal
cities,
because
of
a
sinking
subsurface
at
an
average
of
one
to
two
milli
-
meters
per
year.
While
the
skyscrapers
based
on
rock,
hardly
sink,
coastal
areas
with
softer
subsoil are much more affected (Parsons et al. [10]).
A
particular
example
of
surface
sinking
is
Indonesia's
capital,
Jakarta.
Large
parts
of
the
city
sink
by
about
6
cm
per
year,
30
times
the
rise
of
sealevel.s
This
is
mainly
attributed
to
the
extrac
tion of drinking water, which in turn contributes to the sinking of the country.
•
In
1989,
Noel
Brown,
at
that
time
the
UN's
chief
secretary
for
the
environment,
announced:
"
In
11
years,
entire
nations
could
disappear
from
the
face
of
the
Earth
as
a
result
of
rising
sea
levels, if global warming is not stopped by the year 2000
“.
Fortunately,
the
Maldives
and
Fiji
Islands
still
exist.
It
is
also
known
that
coral
reefs
grow
faster (8 – 30 mm/year) than sea levels are rising.
It
is
also
known
that
there
are
regions
where
the
sea
level
has
lowered
relative
to
the
coast
instead
of
rising.
Examples
are
Helsinki
or
the
Norwegian
coast,
where
after
the
melting
of
glaciers the land continues to rise for thousands of years.
•
In
2006,
Al
Gore,
former
U.S.
Vice
President,
stated
in
the
opening
credits
to
his
film
An
Inconvenient
Truth
,
for
which
he
was
awarded
by
the
Nobel
Peace
Prize:
"
If
drastic
measures
are
not
taken
to
reduce
greenhouse
gases
within
the
next
ten
years,
the
world
will
reach
a
point
of no return
.
The situation is a real planetary emergency
."
Incidentally,
this
film
tries
to
demonstrate
the
greenhouse
effect
in
a
model
experiment,
which,
however,
has
nothing
to
do
with
this
effect
and
can
be
seen
as
a
clumsy,
even
dan
-
gerous
deception.
The
goal
of
such
a
fake
demonstration
is
clear,
to
simulate
the
effect
of
CO
2
emissions
by
men
and
to
derive
the
imperilment
of
the
planet
by
these
emissions,
which in turn calls activists like Fridays for Future or the Last Generation onto the scene.
With
the
point
of
no
return
Mr.
Gore
certainly
meant
that
the
polar
bear
population
is
in
-
creasing
significantly
again,
since
fewer
are
released
for
shooting.
And
the
Arctic
ice
has
unfortunately
been
increasing
again
for
several
years,
so
that
the
Northern
Passage
will
no
longer be possible.
•
In
2007,
Rajendra
Pachauri,
President
of
the
IPCC
until
2015,
declared:
"
If
no
fundamental
measures
are
taken
within
the
next
five
years,
it
will
be
too
late".
And:
"What
we
do
over
the
next
three years will determine our future. That's the definite time.
"
•
King
Charles
III,
in
2009
still
Prince
Charles,
announced:
"
Without
financial
incentives
or
de
-
terrence
we
have
only
8
years
to
prevent
an
irretrievable
collapse
of
our
climate
and
ecosystem
and everything that comes with it
".
•
Of
course,
also
German
prophets
should
not
be
missing
in
such
doomsday
scenarios.
As
early
as
2000,
Mojib
Latif,
now
head
of
the
GEOMAR
Helmhotz
Institute
in
Kiel,
predicted
that
our
children
would
no
longer
know
what
snow
is:
"
Winters
with
severe
frost
and
a
lot
of
snow like twenty years ago will no longer exist in our latitudes
".
And
in
his
new
book
from
2020
he
says:
"
What
is
currently
happening
on
our
planet
is
unpre
-
cedented
worldwide.
Primarily
due
to
the
CO
2
emissions
produced
by
combustion
of
fossil
fuels,
the
temperature
on
Earth
is
rising
at
an
unprecedented
speed
with
already
visible
and
in
some
cases drastic consequences
."
What
Latif
cites,
are
not
observations,
but
the
results
of
computer
models
that
calcul
ate
significantly higher temperatures than they are measured.
•
And
Stefan
Rahmstorf
from
the
Potsdam
Institut
für
Klimafolgenforschung
was
already
in
2006
and
now
again
talking
about
new
domino
effects
that
can
be
triggered
by
climate
change,
such
as
the
overturning
of
the
Gulf
Stream
and
the
destabilization
of
the
West
Antarctic ice sheet.
As
paleoclimatologist
he
knows
that
temperatures
over
the
last
570
million
years
have
been
predominantly
much
warmer,
in
some
cases
more
than
10°C
compared
to
our
current temperatures. In these so-called
Warm Ages
the pole caps were ice-free.
We
are
actually
living
in
an
Ice
Age
,
the
Quaternary
,
and
within
this
Ice
Age
in
an
Interglacial
,
the
Holocene,
as
a
slightly
warmer
period.
But
it
is
not
known
that
the
Warm
Ages
or
the
Interglacials
would
have
led
to
tipping
points
or
the
destruction
of
fauna
and
flora,
on
the
contrary,
together
with
a
signifi
cantly
higher
CO
2
concentration
this
has
led
to
better
living
conditions for humans and plants.
•
Unfortunately,
with
the
Interim
Report
published
in
2018
and
the
Sixth
Assessment
Report
of
the
IPCC
in
2021,
nothing
has
changed
in
the
forecasts.
"Warming
of
1.5°C
or
more
increa
-
ses
the
risk
of
irreversible
changes
such
as
the
loss
of
some
ecosystems,
and
man-made
emissions of CO
2
must fall by 45% within the next 12 years and reach 'zero' in 32 years.
"
References
1.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
https://www.ipcc.ch/
2.
J. Cook et al.: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,
Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp), doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
3.
Markus Fiedler: Die 97% Einigkeit unter Wissenschaftlern, die es nie gegeben hat,
https://markus-fiedler.de/2020/01/02/die-97-einigkeit-unter-wissenschaftlern-die-es-nie-
gegeben-hat/
4.
J. L. Powell: The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters, Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, Vol. 36, issue 3, pp 157-163 (2016),
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467617707079
5.
Bundestags-Drucksache 19/12631 vom 23.08.2019: Antwort der Bundesregierung auf kleine
Anfrage der AfD - Drucksache 19/12228
6.
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU):
Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation - 2011
7.
R. Lindzen et al., Petition to withdraw from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, Letter to the US President Donald Trump, February 23, 2017.
8.
I. Marko, J. S. Armstrong, W. M. Briggs, K. Green, H. Harde, D. R. Legates, Ch. Monckton of
Brenchley, W. Soon, REAL climate science shows Trump was right to Exit Paris, June 21, 2017.
9.
G. Berkhout et al., There is no climate emergency, Pan-European Declaration of independent
scientists (Climate Intelligence Foundation - CLINTEL), September 2019.
Cover Note to UN and UNFCCC
10.
Tom Parsons, Pei-Chin Wu, Meng (Matt) Wei, Steven D'Hondt, 2023: The Weight of New York City:
Possible Contributions to Subsidence From Anthropogenic Sources, Earth‘s Future,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003465
Physics & Climate