Global Warming

[AFTiger 282]

IPCC reveals that it lied in its summary and the debate is not over. Meanwhile the Bali conference confirms Global Warming mongering is a money grab and ALGore is a bufoon.

link

IPCC must come clean on real numbers of scientist supporters

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

By Tom Harris: John McLean Friday, December 14, 2007

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.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

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.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’ or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

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. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

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. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided. In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space – an incredible assertion in such an important document. The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.

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% 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.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia. Tom Harris is the Ottawa-based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com).

[otterinbham 0]

Here's what I don't get about the global warming craze: How selective these guys are about their facts.

For example, how many of you have seen the satellite photo of the diminishing ice pack around the North Pole. Everybody on the Global Warming bandwagon immediately start standing on top of their chairs and demanding this be accepted as final proof.

Yet at the same time, they are curiously silent that the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is now at its highest level since the late 1800s. In the previous winter in the Southern Hemisphere, icebergs were sighted off the coasts of New Zealand and South Africa, something that has not happened since the early 19th Century. And given the record cold weather in Australian, New Zealand, Southern Africa, and South America the past several years, it's a clue that maybe the case for Global Warming isn't as clear cut as these people want us to believe. And, as we all have noted on this board before, planetary temperatures on Mars and Jupiter have increased in the past few years as well--without the benefit of smoking factories or gasoline engines.

Don't get me wrong. I think reduced dependency on fossil fuels is a good thing for the environment, for the economy, and our overall strategic position. But if evidence emerges that ultimately contradicts the nightmare scenarios cooked up by scaremongers, will the environmental movement completely lose its credibility as an objective scientific body?

[AFTiger 282]

But if evidence emerges that ultimately contradicts the nightmare scenarios cooked up by scaremongers, will the environmental movement completely lose its credibility as an objective scientific body?

How much credibility does the environmental movement have left? It has been said that the environmental movement is the new home for communism.

[otterinbham 0]

But if evidence emerges that ultimately contradicts the nightmare scenarios cooked up by scaremongers, will the environmental movement completely lose its credibility as an objective scientific body?

How much credibility does the environmental movement have left? It has been said that the environmental movement is the new home for communism.

Well, I completely disagree on that. I think that there is an absolute need for rational environmental advocacy, balancing the need for economic growth with environmental preservation. Having lived in Birmingham when particulate counts reached 650, I think we should expect vigorous environmental laws that err on the side of caution.

[AURaptor 1,125]

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

It's the weirdest thing, honest! A total coincindence, it MUST be, I'm sure. That the same goals of the old world Socialist / Communist turn out to be EXACTLY what the new enviromentalist, tree hugging, climate change movement is now advocating. Ain't that a kick in the pants ? Crazy karma, huh?

[otterinbham 0]

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

It's the weirdest thing, honest! A total coincindence, it MUST be, I'm sure. That the same goals of the old world Socialist / Communist turn out to be EXACTLY what the new enviromentalist, tree hugging, climate change movement is now advocating. Ain't that a kick in the pants ? Crazy karma, huh?

But you do agree that we need an active movement that safeguards wildlife, wilderness areas, cleanliness of air and water, and endangered species, right? One can stand for those things without subscribing to some loopy redistributionist theme.

[BamaGrad03 0]

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

It's the weirdest thing, honest! A total coincindence, it MUST be, I'm sure. That the same goals of the old world Socialist / Communist turn out to be EXACTLY what the new enviromentalist, tree hugging, climate change movement is now advocating. Ain't that a kick in the pants ? Crazy karma, huh?

But you do agree that we need an active movement that safeguards wildlife, wilderness areas, cleanliness of air and water, and endangered species, right? One can stand for those things without subscribing to some loopy redistributionist theme.

I agree we do. But it is sad that the need for those things can't stand on their own merit...and that those things have to be grouped in with political climate bullying tactics and socialist agendas.

It's like Larry Langford. They put the onus on you, that if you don't agree with their EXTREME position and agenda, then you hate the earth, you hate the climate, and you hate people.

It's sad really.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

It has been said that the environmental movement is the new home for communism.

[AFTiger 282]

But if evidence emerges that ultimately contradicts the nightmare scenarios cooked up by scaremongers, will the environmental movement completely lose its credibility as an objective scientific body?

How much credibility does the environmental movement have left? It has been said that the environmental movement is the new home for communism.

Well, I completely disagree on that. I think that there is an absolute need for rational environmental advocacy, balancing the need for economic growth with environmental preservation. Having lived in Birmingham when particulate counts reached 650, I think we should expect vigorous environmental laws that err on the side of caution.

It has been long been understood that it takes wealth to implement environmental cleanliness. That is the reason that the United States increase in "greenhouse gases" was far less than Kyoto signatories who were supposed to reduce emissions not reduce the rate of increase. Economic growth is key to cleaning up our environment.

[AURaptor 1,125]

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

It's the weirdest thing, honest! A total coincindence, it MUST be, I'm sure. That the same goals of the old world Socialist / Communist turn out to be EXACTLY what the new enviromentalist, tree hugging, climate change movement is now advocating. Ain't that a kick in the pants ? Crazy karma, huh?

But you do agree that we need an active movement that safeguards wildlife, wilderness areas, cleanliness of air and water, and endangered species, right? One can stand for those things without subscribing to some loopy redistributionist theme.

One CAN stand for those things, absolutely. I believe Teddy Roosevelt was for conservation of our natural resources. Even Bush43 has quietly 'annexed' land to set it aside as National wildlife areas. But what is shocking is these folks are coming right out and admitting the cure for all the global warming / climate control is EXACTLY what the foundation of communism is, that's the redistribution of wealth.

Funny, huh?

Only I'm not laughing, nor should any of us be. ( TexasTiger, that means you )

[AFTiger 282]

It has been said that the environmental movement is the new home for communism.

TT's head is not in the sand.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

It has been said that the environmental movement is the new home for communism.

TT's head is not in the sand.

AFTiger: "Them environmental types are a bunch of damn communists! Uncle Earle told me."

[AFTiger 282]

It has been said that the environmental movement is the new home for communism.

TT's head is not in the sand.

AFTiger: "Them environmental types are a bunch of damn communists! Uncle Earle told me."

Uncle Earle is a very wise man. You could learn much from him, grasshopper.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

It has been said that the environmental movement is the new home for communism.

TT's head is not in the sand.

AFTiger: "Them environmental types are a bunch of damn communists! Uncle Earle told me."

Uncle Earle is a very wise man. You could learn much from him, grasshopper.

Uncle Earle can spot a damn Commie from miles away...

[AFTiger 282]

From miles away

Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference

BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

'Diminish future prosperity'

However, ideas like a global tax and the overall UN climate agenda met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists wrote, “The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General. (See: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts – LINK)

‘Redistribution of wealth’

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. (LINK)

Calls for global regulations and taxes are not new at the UN. Former Vice President Al Gore, who arrived Thursday at the Bali conference, reiterated this week his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions.

In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.” (LINK)

'A bureaucrat's dream'

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. (LINK)

In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.

Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said in 1990, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

From miles away

Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference

BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

'Diminish future prosperity'

However, ideas like a global tax and the overall UN climate agenda met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists wrote, “The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General. (See: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts – LINK)

‘Redistribution of wealth’

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. (LINK)

Calls for global regulations and taxes are not new at the UN. Former Vice President Al Gore, who arrived Thursday at the Bali conference, reiterated this week his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions.

In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.” (LINK)

'A bureaucrat's dream'

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. (LINK)

In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.

Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said in 1990, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

The solution to Global Warming is to let a UN-style bureaucracy decide on how much to tax developed nations (i.e. the US) to combat the effects of Global Warming (as determined by them) in less developed countries (i.e. anywhere but the US.) Oh yeah, that's the ticket. Any US politician voting in favor of that money grab will not be a US politician for very much longer.