Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/01/2010 6:10:40 AM PST by IrishMike
It was presented as fact. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, led by India’s very own RK Pachauri, even announced a consensus on it. The world was heating up and humans were to blame. A pack of lies, it turns out.
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see? —Alice in Wonderland
The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its deceit, unmatched in scope—and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the Richter scale. Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever.
The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely sacrificed.
The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!
The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have the coveted Peace Prize.
But let’s begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits, nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course on climatology.
You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.
THE GATHERING STORM
There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected.
This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.
The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.
The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.
The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.
HOUSE OF CARDS AND COLOUR OF CASH
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.
On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) that Pachauri heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if this is not a neat one, what is?
The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be trusted to back this claim. They depended on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, instead, and now it has blown up in their faces.
There’s plenty more in this sordid tale. For one thing, there is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.’
An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus.
Speaking to Open, says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following its advice. Until it agrees to undergo a root and branch reform, it will continue to haemorrhage credibility and trust. The time has come for a complete overhaul of its structure and workings.”
Another fraud is in the very chart central to Pachauri’s speech at the Copenhagen summit. As Lord Monckton has pointed out, ‘The graph is bogus not only because it relies on made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, but also because it is overlain by four separate trendlines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however—neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it—is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.’
The climate change debacle was created to enrich the unemployable.
Climate change has been going on for 1.5million years. If we are in a phase of global warming....which may well be, that man can influence it to any meaningful degree is hogwash!
Good article, generally. But I disagree that the IPCC should be reconstituted. It should be abolished.
Also, the USA should withdraw entirely from all UNEP programs.
Hurricane Katrina was caused by George Bush and it was not the failure of the administration of New Orleans to heed 30 years of warnings by the Corps of Engineers that the levees could not stand a direct hit by a hurricane.
Meanwhile my parents are freezing their tushies off in Boston.
My cousin is encased in ice in Oklahoma.
My Sister refused a South Carolina timeshare week because the walkways were covered with ice from the sprinkler system.
My Girlfriend in the Rockies is Snowbound.
And all my lovely tropical plants in my garden have died from the cold.
Al Gore is in hiding, last I checked.
And it was not the diversion of funds previously appropriated to strenghten the levees, by the terminally corrupt local Democrat politicians.
Not even the beginning of a good start!
The minute liberals began calling it “climate change” instead of “global warming”, people knew the whole thing was BarbraStreisand.
Ditto on that.
Agree with IrishMike, MaxMax and TXnMa too.
Getting out of the UN altogether would be the best thing to do.
Right now the IPCC is being used to implement world government. IPCC first, then the UN. I hope to see this in my lifetime.
I never actually understood what the basic premise of AGWT was, or is. Other some vague notion that burning fossil fuels would make the earth warmer. Can someone point out one testable prediction of AGWT?
"having weather", too--
--click the picture, goto the last "page," and scroll back:
"Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]"
Click the picture:
And yes, it is a swindle- a fraud and a cheat and a scam-- a deliberately designed construct intended to con you out of things you hold dear-- money, and prosperity, and freedom... and a few other things, as well.
http://daletoons.blogspot.com/2009/12/leaving-with-ed.html
Bookmark
They have never proven that global warming exists, if they had they would not have had to fudge the numbers.
But on top of that, they haven’t proven that man has caused this so called global warming, and to make matters worse they haven’t proven that it would be harmful to the planet.
The only thing that has been proven is that a select group of scientists, funded by the most radical far left special interest groups were trying to use environmental issues to extort funds from tax payers in democratic countries and give those funds (after skimming off about 50%) to socialistic,communistic, and islamist governments and hopefully set up global socialism.
What do these radical leftists have in common with those countries that are undemocratic or islamic? They both hate freedom.
Yeah, Bush had Karl Rove's Hurricane Making Machine to do the dirty work.
So every day another embarrassing revelation exposes climate change experts as confused bumble-heads. The latest? Apparently the UN panel on climate change based recent conclusions regarding vanishing ice from mountain tops on anecdotes found in a "mountaineering" magazine.
Now, this would be hilarious, if it wasn't for the fact that quadrillions of dollars are at stake. (And just so you know: quadrillions can buy a lot of unicorn porn.) I'm not going to use this latest revelation to hammer these "experts," even though they'd do that to a "skeptic" like me, if they had the chance. I just want to nail two key points:
*this news shows exactly why climate change researchers must release data and reveal methods. If they have nothing to hide, then their work's credibility will only increase. The fact that they're trying to avoid that makes me think they're basing their data on articles from Cosmo. FYI: global warming can and does make it harder to find your g-spot, says Darla, age 23, data analyst.
*There are few real experts on climate change - only pawns used to justify policies that will inevitably sodomize our economy. By the way, I include myself as a non-expert. I was an English major, who spent the last twenty years drunk, shirtless and weeping. But this is a good thing: whether you think humans cause global warming or not, we're all in this boat of ignorance together, and therefore should be more tolerant of opposing views.
If so-called experts are culling mountain ice data from Penthouse Letters (apparently melting glaciers totally cause chicks to remove their tops faster, says Vic, 25, a pizza deliveryman), then we are all so-called experts.
That should make you happy.
And if it doesn't, then you're probably a planet-hating racist homophobe who eats polar bears for breakfast.
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.