Is this UN Politicizer the Source of the Great Global Warming Hoax?
It is not often that leftwing magazines have much to contribute to the serious business of the science of climatology, so I am only too pleased to commend Alexander Cockburn's (of Counterpunch) "The Greenhousers Strike Back and Out" - part 2 of an invaluable assessment of the current debate.
It is a piece which focueses on the scandal of the UN's IPCC lead author changing the findings of the report to one which points the finger at man as the chief cause (when the science plainly did not). This deception has in turn fostered all manner of wrong-headed, expensive an, ultimately, fairly meaningless national and international policies. Here is the opener - but it is well worth reading the whole (and passing it on to as many people as possible).
I began this series of critiques of the greenhouse fearmongers with an evocation of the papal indulgences of the Middle Ages as precursors of the "carbon credits"-ready relief for carbon sinners, burdened, because all humans exhale carbon, with original sin. In the Middle Ages they burned heretics, and after reading through the hefty pile of abusive comments and supposed refutations of my initial article on global warming I'm fairly sure that the critics would be only to happy to cash in whatever carbon credits they have and torch me without further ado.
The greenhouse fearmongers explode at the first critical word, and have contrived a series of primitive rhetorical pandybats which they flourish in retaliation. Those who disagree with their claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the small, measured increase in the average earth's surface temperature, are stigmatized as "denialists," a charge which scurrilously combines an acoustic intimation of nihilism with a suggested affinity to those who insist the Holocaust never took place.
The greenhousers endlessly propose that the consensus of "scientists" on anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. By scientists they actually mean computer modelers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their computer-modeling coterie include very few real climatologists or atmospheric physicists. Among qualified climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric physicists, there are plenty who do not accept the greenhousers' propositions. Many others have been intimidated into silence by the pressures of grants, tenure and kindred academic garottes.
Peer review, heavily overworked in the rebuttals I have been reading, is actually a topic on which the greenhousers would do well to keep their mouths shut, since, as the University of Virginia's Pat Michaels has shown, the most notorious sentence in the IPCC's 1996 report ("The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate") was inserted at the last minute by a small faction on the IPCC panel after the scientific peer-review process was complete. Here's how Dr Fred Goldberg describes the probable culprit, Professor Bert Bolin, a politically driven Swede who was the first chairman of the IPCC, from 1988 to 1998. Goldberg's very interesting paper is entitled, "Has Bert Bolin fooled us all concerned climate change caused by humans?":
"In 1995 IPCC presented its second report: The Science of Climate Change". In this report a large number of researchers work through hundreds of scientific reports and delivers a comprehensive report where they conclude that there is no evidence that human beings have had an influence on the climate. This conclusion is of course very important for politicians and policymakers around the world. But what happened? The editor of the IPCC report then deleted or changed the text in 15 different sections of chapter 8 (The key chapter concerning whether human influence exists or not) which had been agreed upon by the panel of contributors involved in compiling the document. In practice politicians and policymakers only read the so-called Executive Summary for Policy Makers. In this document consisting of a few pages it is clearly stated that humans have influenced the climate, contrary to the conclusions of the scientific report.
"Professor Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy, wrote in the Wall Street Journal already the 12th of June 1996 about a major deception on global warming: "I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." He gave many examples of changes and redefinitions and finished by demanding that the IPCC process should be abandoned.
Peter C Glover
1 Comment
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (1)
The Mike Mann (Hockey Sick) fiasco and scientific fraud is obvious proof that the theory of Man-made Global Warming is false.
If they had any real proof of the the MMGW theory, they would not have had to resort to such a distortion of science and the scientific method to make their claims.
If the MMGW advocates were concerned about scientific truth:
- Mike Mann and the "hockey stick team" would have made their raw data available to others for peer review, not used "selective and corrupt data" and not created a computer model that created a "hockey stick graph" when random data was fed into the computer model.
-The MMGW group would not try to censor disenting scientific opinion, they would encourage it.
-They would not resort to "public scare tactics" by manipulating the Media to propogate their beliefs.
-They would not make "false and misleading" statements to the Public and Public Officials.
-They would recognize that Science is based on verification of observed phenomena, not arbitrary manipulation of computer models.
Worst of all, the IPCC is complicit in this scam by encouraging and actively participating in this distortion of Science.
The last IPCC report was released after the conclusions (The Summary For Policy Makers) were released.
They "altered" the report to fit the pre-determined "conclusions"!
Sounds like good science to me!
Other Inconvenient Truths:
- The Oregon Petition..17,800 scientists signed a petition saying they Don't Believe in man-made global warming.
- The most recent IPCC report states that they 90% certain of their claims. The previous report stated that they were 95% certain.
- The IPCC claims they are right because they have a "consensus" of scientists who agree with them (ie. 2500 scientists).
Obvoiously, they don't have a concensus since the "real consensus" is that 87.7% scientists don't believe in MMGW!
Further, the small percentage of those scientists who do believe in MMGW (12.3%), are "less certain" than before!