Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/24/2010 7:27:28 AM PST by Kaslin
Private industry and governments around the world have spent trillions of dollars in the name of saving our planet from manmade global warming. Academic institutions, think tanks and schools have altered their curricula and agenda to accommodate what was seen as the global warming "consensus."
Mounting evidence suggests that claims of manmade global warming might turn out to be the greatest hoax in mankind's history. Immune and hostile to the evidence, President Barack Obama's administration and most of the U.S. Congress sides with Climate Czar Carol Browner, who says, "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."
The scientists whom Browner references are associated with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Let's look some of what they told us. The 2007 IPCC report, which won them a Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" as a result of manmade global warming. Recently, IPCC was forced to retract their glacier disappearance claim, which was made on the basis of a non-scientific magazine article. When critics initially questioned the prediction, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC's chairman, dismissed them as "voodoo scientists."
The IPCC also had to retract its claim that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by "tropical savannas" if temperatures continued to rise. The IPCC claim was based on a paper co-authored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), two environmental activist groups.
England's now-disgraced University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been a leader in climate research data. Their data, collected and analyzed by them, have been used for years to bolster IPCC efforts to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Climatologists, including CRU's disgraced former director Professor Phil Jones, have been accused of manipulating data and criminally withholding scientific information to prevent its disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Professor Jones, considered to be the high priest of the manmade global warming movement, has been in the spotlight since he was forced to step down as CRU's director after the leaking of e-mails that skeptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. In a recent interview with the BBC, he admitted that he did not believe that "the debate on climate change is over" and that he didn't "believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this."
Long denied by the warmers, Professor Jones admitted that the Medieval Warm Period (800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) might well had been as warm as the Current Warm Period (1975-present), or warmer, and that if it was, "then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented." That suggests global warming may not be a manmade phenomenon. In any case, Professor Jones said that for the past 15 years, there has been no "statistically significant" global warming.
During the BBC interview, Professor Jones dodged several questions: why he had asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report and ask others to do likewise; whether some of his handling of data had crossed the line of acceptable scientific practice; and what about his letter saying that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in tree-ring temperature data?
Given all the false claims and evidence pointing to scientific fraud, I don't think it wise to continue spending billions of dollars and enacting economically crippling regulations in the name of fighting global warming. At the minimum, we should stop the Environmental Protection Agency from going on with their plans to regulate carbon emissions. Companies should resign from the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobbying group of businesses and radical environmentalists. Dr. Tom Borelli, who is director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, says that BP, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Marsh, Inc. and Xerox have the common sense to so already.
“President Barack Obama’s administration and most of the U.S. Congress sides with Climate Czar Carol Browner, who says, “I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists.””
They can write this as one thing on their epitaph.
Discussions about global warming will continue as long as Al Gore and his companies can continue to make millions from the worlds tax payers. Especially those in the United States.
If the “Climate Czar” didn’t hange in there, she would be out of work.
Today’s weather forecast for this area (New Jersey) calls for another 6 to 10 inches of Global Warming to fall starting early tomorrow morning into Friday.
She will be unemployed soon.
Part of the 10-20%
You bet and many congress critters and other czars will be joining her. Looking forward to Nov 2, 2010 the day the Empire Strikes Back.
I just heard a guy say that some of the 2500 scientist names were just added. They actually had nothing to do with it. And I’m pretty sure when I went and looked at the names and what degrees these people had, none had a degree in meteorology. As far as climatologist go, it’s a job title not a degree.
Austin (Tx) got 2-3” of global warming yesterday. I’m glad all of the kumbaya “green” efforts have finally paid off!
I prefer to think of Nov, 2010, The Return of the Jedi Knights....
Who are lead by an Industrial Engineer fom Mumbai who used to build railroads in the South of India.
The libs will think of it as being trounced by Darth Vader and the Imperial Star Fleet. I like that scenario and I want them to be afraid.
I am one of the 31,000 scientists who signed the peition calling this a fraud and I am going to publish something which will drop the bomb on these frauds. Scientific facts do not lie.
There is another name for the 'real' Climate Czar. GOD!
Publish ASAP or we all perish!!!
I understand your point...*S* and it ties in with your handle...
I am only one of many who will be sticking it to them. These frauds are going to die by “the death of a 1000 cuts”.
He is correct.
see: http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/ipcc-2500-scientists-myth.html An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”
Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.