Posted on 12/14/2007 8:43:59 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.
But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation...
For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released...
A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter...
Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments...
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% 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Makes sense. I disagree with many of Carter’s conclusions, but I believe he is knowledgible, articulate, and a good counterbalance to some of those that ignorantly say “the debate is over.” I have only one real issue with him. Like his countryman Tim Flannery he seems to have “taken a side” and assumed the role of an advocate. It’s not what he says (which is often compelling) it’s what he doesn’t say. He calls himself a climate agnostic, and then talks about all the reasons that anthropogenic climate change may not be occurring, but simply dismisses the evidence that it could be occurring as theory rather than science. The problem with that approach is that, sometimes in life you need to act on theory, because if you wait for proof it is too late. If you accept that there is a GHG effect (which he does), and you accept we are increasing GHGs to a substantial degree (which he does), and you accept that temperatures have risen since 1850 (which he does)—is it enough to credibly demonstrate (as he does) that there could be nonanthropogenic causes? I mean if a man’s family was getting sick, and he thought there was a 40% chance that air quality in the home was the issue—would it make sense to wait until he could definitely show by scientific method that air quality was the issue before taking action?
Maybe I need to watch this again. My impression is that he said any "greenhouse effect" was caused by the presence of clouds that trapped heat in the lower atmosphere -- not the presence of carbon dioxide. The CO2/warming nexus is at the very heart of the GORE/UN global warming position. If it is tenuous or demonstrably false, then we should view any pronouncements coming from the same source to be suspect.
Yes, the hypothesis, while not based on any sound science that has yet been explicated, may yet be true. It also may be true that Bush and Cheney have a hurricane guiding machine which they used to steer Katrina into New Orleans. Silly? Of course. But how would you scientifically disprove such a proposition? We cannot base our economic future upon flimsy suppositions, especially ones which seem to have such a self-serving motivation to their proponents.
And let's suppose the family is getting sick and the father assumes a 40% chance that air quality may be a factor. He is not then going to burn down his house to get rid of the foul air. The proposed "cures" for the imagined global warming scenarios have just such a destructive effect upon our prosperity and our freedoms.
I’d be wary of dismissing all global warming claims as pseudo science since the climate could well be entering a warming period. But the argument that it’s caused by mankind should be challenged since it’s apparent that global warming is being hijacked for political purposes. If nothing else it’s useful for keeping the environmental Left busy, which gives them less time for wreaking havoc elsewhere.
In the mid 70s Lowell Ponte wrote “The Cooling” based on the then current idea that we were on the cusp of a new Ice Age. So I’d say the polar bears only need to hold out for 30 years until the pendulum swings back.
Everyone knows CFP is bought and paid for by Exxon! lol Ok, I`ll play the devils advocate on this one. Is it possible the other reviewers were satisfied/agreed with the content of chapter 9, and therefore saw no need to comment on anything in it? Just wondering. What I do find disturbing is that the IPCC still has`nt put out an actual list of the scientists who worked on the report, and who agreed with it`s conclusions and who did`nt, or who were`nt sure either way. The vote count. All they keep saying is that the vast majority agreed with the conclusion.
Because, you see, there IS no evidence that MAN_RELEASED greenhouse gases are causing any climate change:
Temps rose 1/2 of one degree between 1910 and 1935, CO2 change was negligible (we think, don’t know for sure.)
Temps have decreased between 1935 and 1972, GHG’s increased.
Temps rose between 1972 and 1998, CO2 levels rose, methane rose.
Temps were static between 1998 and 2007, CO2 levels continued rising, methane levels were static.
Temps were as much as 2 degrees hotter in the past, when CO2 was the same as 1910.
Temps were about 1.5 to 2 degrees lower in the past, when CO2 levels were same as 1910.
Just what relationship do you think we actually see between GHG and temps? One 27 year period in the past 2000 when both increased at the same time? And you want to send ten trillion dollars to the UN’s corrupt dictators based on a guess?
Man-released CO2 part of the total GHG effect is less than 0.28 of ONE percent. The remaining 99.72% is natural, mostly water vapor.
What is your source please?
Good graphic, but without showing the steady/declining temps since 1998, it has less value.
Surely you are NOT positing that poorer nations, those who have NOT been subject to wild, asinine, baseless, random, politcially expedient enviromental regulations of the last 40 years are actually producing LESS GHG per capita than the US and Canada are you?
I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on that, friend. Citations, please, from sources NOT reliant upon grants.
Also see: My tag line.
Welcome to Free Republic!
corrected
Problem is, there is NO change in GHG’s by “implementing Kyoto” protocols. And there is NO evidence of ANY kind that shows that temps are actually still increasing, nor that the rise from 1972-1998 was caused by man-released GHG's. Only a simplemindedly theory that STILL don't match recorded temps at any time in history. The climate models don't work when compared to real-world data. Now, nor in the past. But you believe them for the future?
Zero change in temps are expected from that treaty, as the IPCC/UN admits.
Billions of dollars in taxes to the UN, billions in extra research, and more billions in transfers of carbon sales to Russia (who signed the treaty to get money), African and SE Asian dictators, and European bureaucracies, and millions of lives destroyed by the energy restrictions IMPOSED by the Kyoto Treaty (lost fertilizer, hunger, no fuels in developing and impoverished areas, no electricity, no health care, no transportation, no cooking fuel, no pure water - just carbon sales and more expensive fuels!)
For the Bali Treaty, the cost rises to trillions.
FOR NO CHANGE IN TEMPS.
Your hypothetical homeowner is burning his house, his job, and his barn to try to get rid of a fly he THINKS might be in the attic of his neighbor’s house.
Look, I am a scientist. The argument is not one of whether climate is changing. The Earth is a dynamic system, and the climate is--and has been--changing.
The questions which are seminal are simple:
Are humans and their activity on the planet changing the climate to any great degree beyond the natural processes?
Is this a bad thing?
Could we alter the climate in a better way than we are?
To the first, frankly, I believe the answer to be no. Humans are not the driving force behind climate change. Climate has always changed, long before the appearance of humans, before the industrial age, before we started cutting back emissions, etc. Climate is also changing on other bodies in the solar system, and humans can't be blamed for that change, either.
Is this a bad thing? Humans have made some of their greatest advancements during relatively warm periods, so the only thing that makes it bad is the possibility of rising sea levels, which would expose some beachfront property (Property few built on who did not make their living near or on the water) to erosion.
No one guarantees that any patch of land will remain uneroded, especially on a seacoast, so considering this is the equivalent of building in the flood plain and demanding that floods cease.
It is ludicrous to expect the coasts to remain in stasis while the rest of the planet's surface changes.
As I type this, I am sitting in North Dakota, about 2000 ft. above sea level, and a mile and a half above the first of several layers of salt hundreds of feet thick left there by evaporating oceans--significant changes which occurred long before humans appear in the fossil record.
They would not be there if the climate had not changed.
Had our climate remained the same in only the last 12,000 years, where I sit would be covered with an ice sheet a kilometer or more thick.
Change happens, but not all change is bad--I would neither wish to inhabit a glacier nor a salt pan--and this area has been both, environmentally speaking.
The confusion comes in when ecology is confused with environment. One is a system, the other is a snapshot of the system. Preserving the system as a snapshot of itself is like expecting your two-year-old to stand perfectly still, just like the picture on your desk.
Can we alter the climate? Maybe, but why?
Assuming we could, how do we know we can do so without irreparable ill effect? The system has been cycling for millions of years, the cycles are reasonably similar, and our attempts to alter that equilibrium for the sake of preserving the status quo (should we even be able to do so) might have results far more disastrous than simply adapting to the existing climate cycles.
Those are my humble opinions.
There is a significant logical disconnect which makes all the ballyhooing of the climatic doom-and-gloomers highly suspect, and exposes the entire scam for the socialist global wealth redistribution scheme it is; to wit: Looting the nations most able to develop significant adaptations to continue civilization in the event of a really unfriendly climatic development will only hinder their efforts to do so.
Even if humans are causing the shift, giving that money or preferences or allownaces to generate the same alleged chemical culprits to those nations whose records on environmental issues are far less than stellar will only guarantee that things go downhill faster, not solve any problem, real or falsely percieved.
It is the proposed treatment which exposes the disease as a fraud.
But the Chinese will (next year) EXCEED the US in emitting CO2. WITH NO RESTRICTIONS NOR TAXES. NO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS AT ALL!
And you think THEY emit 1/10 of today’s emissions? ???? (Must be listening to the MSM.)
India is close to catching up with us.
Now, you “claim” that “we” (the US) should not have appliances, cars, heat, power, light, and fertilizers if the rest of the world cannot get them, but you “want” the Kyoto and Bali Accords to be enforced.... thus guaranteeing that the rest of the world CANNOT achieve energy and economic freedom? After all, if a “rich” European nation “buys” carbon credits from a poor third world country, that (starving, energy-poor) third world nation CANNOT use carbon (the ONLY available, affordable fuel) to feed and transport its own citizen.
Can we pretend that “planting trees” will increase a country’s economic life, its fertilizer and electricity industries when its women are burning sticks for firewood?
Just where do you think the trillions sent to the third world dictatorships goes? Palaces? Or roads, water pipes, and pumps (when there is no electricity to run the pumps and the sewage treatment plant - after all, you "sold" their carbon rights to fund Al Gore's house!)
However, that does not make the consensus correct.
The world is flat.
You cannot travel faster than sound.
The atom is the smallest particle of matter.
You cannot travel faster than light.
Consensus only stands until demonstrated to be wrong. Being widely accepted does not make an idea correct. In science, verified by repeatable experiment, a hypothesis advances to theory.
Where, exactly has that occurred here?
In a planetary history alleged to be over 4 billion years we are to take a mere couple of hundred years of poorly controlled data and accept that for once, in the entire history of the planet, human activity is driving a change in climate which has occurred without that activity to drive it in the past.
I am far from convinced sufficiently to don sackcloth and ashes individually, or as part of a culture and go wandering in self-flagellation while other cultures are given a free pass to do more of what we are supposed to have done that is supposedly wrecking the planet.
I am even less inclined to see those cultures and the administering minions benefit economically from the penalties I and others of my culture allegedly should pay for our claimed 'sins', while those others are issued indulgences of the highest order.
Great, informative post.
“Global warming” hoax BUMP!
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.