Dr. Carlin: 'In the last few years the literature has blossomed with more and more serious damning studies from a climate alarmist viewpoint. Two weeks ago I outlined the nature of the costs being incurred to meet the desires of climate alarmists to reduce human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide.
It is becoming increasingly evident that increases in emissions of CO2 have had no significant effect on temperatures, and that assumptions made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in related issues fail tests based on the scientific method and sophisticated econometric tests.'
Dr. David Whitehouse: “I think you’ve got to be very careful when splicing together two sets of data from two sets of instruments and trying to compare them”, he told RFI, referring to the fact that the study in question pulled together measurements from before the Argo system was up and running.
“The past is full of people trying to do this and have had to be re-evaluated years later because we found out something else about the measurements made in the past and the measurements made today.”
Prof Ray Bates of the Meteorology and Climate Centre at University College Dublin: The UN IPCC's 'SR1.5 report does not merit being regarded by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document.' “There is much recent observational and scientific evidence that the IPCC report has failed to include and which supports a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme and unrealistic measures called for in the SR1.5 report."
Dr. Edward Walsh, the Founding President of the University of Limerick and former chairman of Ireland’s National Council for Science, Technology and Innovation said: "Policymakers should carefully reflect on the significant deficiencies (of the UN IPCC report) identified in the report before considering implementing its recommendations.”