Global Warming was not identified as a problem until the mid 80‘s and we have not always had accurate measurement devices to define the problem. Naturally, over the past there have been periods of cold weather and periods of warm weather. Around 1000 AD
there was the Medieval Warm Period which was very beneficial for everyone but it was followed by a cooler period. One of our sources for this information is The Little Ice Age,: How Climate Made History 1300 – 1850 by Brian Fagan.
After that period the weather cooled until the late 1840‘s and after 1850 there has generally been a warming trend. There was cooling in the 1920‘s, heating in the 1930‘s and 1940‘s, cooling in the 1950‘s, 1960‘s and 1970‘s , warming in the 1980‘s and 1990‘s and cooling the last decade. There is nothing that has happened to justify the alarms of today.
Today, we have weather scientists and instruments and computers and all sorts of stuff that should enable us to record and analyze and predict the weather. ( except what will take place tomorrow ). Just 35 years ago – in the 70‘s- those weather experts presented the following:
Science magazine (Dec.10, 1976) warned of ―extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciations‖. Science Digest (February 1973) reported that ―the world‘s climatologists are agreed ― that we must ― prepare for the next ice age‖. The Christian Science Monitor (― Warning: Earth‘s Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect, ― Aug . 27 , 1974) reports that glaciers ― have begun to advance ,‖ ―…
growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter ― and ― …the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool‖. Newsweek agreed ( the Cooling World, ― April 28, 1975) that meteorologists ―are almost unanimous ― that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling and the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said ―…may return to another ice age‖. The Times (May 21, 1975) also said ―… a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable ― now that it is ―…well established‖ that the Northern Hemisphere‘s climate ― has been getting cooler since about 1950‖. From Fortune (February 1974).
―Climatologists now blame those recurring droughts and floods on a global cooling trend. It could bring massive tragedies for mankind‖.
In 1969 environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, ‖The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind‖. In 1968, professor Paul Ehrilch predicted, ―…in the 1970‘s …hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death‖ as he predicted there would be major food shortages due to the impending cold weather.
There are more comments about the dangers of the new ―ice age‖ but that should be enough to show that global cooling was considered to be a real problem in the 70‘s. They were wrong and very wrong. The news media that presented this terrible doom–day forecast about a coming ice age is the same group that presented global warming to us just 25 years later. How could they change so quickly and why should we believe them now?
Phil Jones, head of Great Britain‘s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and a well known promoter of global warming, stated, ―…the difference of warming rates for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant
… and that there has been no statistically – significant global warming since 1995; that in fact global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002. ‖.
Therefore, this chapter should be ended with the conclusion that global warming is non-existent and is not any more of a problem than the previously predicted ice age . However, let me assure the reader that the global warming industry will not accept this and that they will not go away. It is an industry and they have an agenda on which their employment depends and which they will not drop.
Later we will look at the deliberate lies and deceptions involved with Climategate but it is of interest to realize the viciousness and hate that some of these alarmists have for those who disagree with them. A June 2, 2009 article posted to Talking Points Memo asked,
―At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?‖. In June 2009, former Clinton administration official Joe Romm commented on his Climate Progress web site, ―An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds‖. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for governmental leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown ―into jail‖. In 2007, the Weather Channel‘s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
A July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation. NASA‘s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for ―high crimes against humanity‖. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring. ―This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors‖. In 2009 RFK Jr. also called coal companies ―criminal enterprises‘ and declared CEO‘s ―should be in jail for all of eternity‖. These people are radical and vicious (and insane?) and are intent on keeping global warming as an accepted doctrine.
So, let us embark on a look at GLOBAL WARMING.
―The Sky is Falling‖ said Chicken Little
The term ―global warming‖ does not sound very bad for warm is usually better than cold. Therefore, it is necessary for them to define it in such a manner that we will be concerned about it. So, we have alarmists who will describe all of the terrible things that happen because of global warming so that we will not want that to happen to us.
We‘ll start with the most famous of those who claim that global warming is a real problem and that ―it is settled science‖ and that ―the debate is over‖.– Nobel Laureate, Al Gore who won the prize for his movie , An Inconvenient Truth. However, a British judge, Justice Burton, ruled there were nine instances in the movie in which Gore went so far outside the scientific mainstream that he deemed his presentation ―alarmist‖ and ―apocalyptic‖. The British government, who is very supportive of global warming dangers, had ordered a copy sent to every public high school in the country and the judge ruled that any school which showed the movie would have to tell the students of nine gross errors. ( the judge missed the biggest error for Gore had included the now discredited ―hockey stick‖ graph as truth)
Sea levels were predicted to rise 20 feet, low lying pacific atolls were being inundated with the rising sea levels because of global warming and inhabitants were being forced to evacuate , the Ocean Conveyor will shut down, there is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide and temperature, the snows of Kilimanjaro are disappearing, Lake Chad has dried up because of global warming, Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming, polar bears are decreasing in number, and coral reefs are bleaching and fish species are decreasing at a rate 1000 times greater than normal. All of the claims are indeed ―alarmist ― and ―apocalyptic‖ as the judge said and also erroneous. These claims are so ridiculous that it makes you wonder at AL Gore‘s sanity. The book and movie were effective for they were not exposed in our country and are essentially accepted and are still used and cited by these nutty alarmists.
Al Gore continues his ridiculous statements for his latest is that the heavy snowfalls of 2010 and 2011 are caused by global warming.
Up is down and black is white with Al. I wonder if he has had a psychological exam recently?
And, there are more unbelievable predictions. Daniel Kammen, an energy professor at UC, Berkeley in a speech said, ‖Enjoy your camping now, people , because the Sierra forests will be burned up by 2050…Greenland‘s ice cap will melt… the oceans will rise 50
In July 2003, John Houghton, former co-chairman of the International Panel on Climate Control of the United Nations said that he
―had no hesitation ― in describing global warming ―as a weapon of mass destruction‖.
From the Economist, July 10, 2010 we read, ―Cleo Paskal, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, predicts that floods, storms, the failure of the Indian monsoon and agricultural collapse will bring ― enormous, and specific, geopolitical, economic, and security consequences for all of us…the world of tomorrow looks chaotic and violent‖.
Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, now president of the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum, issued a lengthy report warning that climate change disasters , such as droughts and floods, kill 315,000 each year and cost $125 billion, numbers that it says will rise to 500,000 and $340,000 by 2030. However, Roger Pielke ,Jr. an expert in disaster trends at the University of Colorado called the report,‖ a methodological embarrassment‖ and a ―poster child for how to lie with statistics‖. It is amazing that statements like these are actually accepted as likely to occur.
Because of the involvement of the United Nations and Kofi Annan in global warming it is appropriate to digress and review another activity of the United Nations which really demonstrates the corruption that exists in the UN. The Food for Oil Program that the United Nations and Kofi Annan had with Saddam Hussein really indicates the extent of how much we can trust Kofi Annan and the United Nations. The Oil for Food Program was established in 1995 for the purpose of enabling Saddam Hussein to sell oil and obtain funds to help provide for the people of Iraq. In addition to the usual profits from the sale of the oil Saddam also obtained around $10.2
billion more for his personal use. He did that by bribing various people and governments (France, Germany and Russia) through granting them options to purchase oil at special prices, usually without taking possession of the oil.
The most interesting part of the Food for Oil program was the investigation that took place. Mr. Annan was able to appoint the investigator, Mr. Paul Volcker. Mr. Volcker was known as a U.N. supporter and was on the Board of Directors of the United Nations Association of the USA and a major contributor to the U.N..
Mr. Annan also appointed the investigative panel. Mr. Annan then refused to grant them subpoena powers and required that all of those interviewed be approved by Mr. Annan. A threatening letter was sent to all the involved contractors informing them that they were not free to talk to the investigation without permission from the UN and UN employees were also instructed to obtain permission before talking to the investigators. The UN audit committee had audited the program on 58 different occasions and Mr.Annan refused to turn those audits over to the investigators and later refused to turn over documents to our Congress who also wished to investigate.
Mr. Vocker also stopped our Congress and withheld documents from them. Mr. Igbal Riza, chief of staff for Mr. Annan ordered the shredding of thousands of documents potentially of relevance to the Oil for Food inquiry. Some of those documents may have been generated by various organizations that were there to prevent these actions. There was an Undersecretary – general for Management duties, a Board of Auditors, a Joint Inspection Unit, an Office of Internal Oversight and an Advisory Committee on Administrative eir
functions to prevent fraud.
Mr. Annan also stipulated that the final report be turned over to him and approved by him before it was issued.
The final report stated, ― Our assignment has been to look for mis-or-mal administration in the Oil for Food program and for evidence of corruption within the U.N. organization and by contractors. Unhappily, we have found both‖. That report led 60 of our Congressmen to ask for Mr. Annan to resign. Mr. Annan called the findings ―deeply embarrassing‖ but said he had no intentions of resigning‖. In other words Kofi feels immune to any criticism. In case you were not aware the U.N. is impervious to our criticism and control.
This report tells us that there is no reason to trust anything that Kofi annan says and this also reveals that the United Nations is also corrupt and not to be trusted which is also borne out by their reports on climate change.
Which leads us to review the activity of the United Nations‘ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The global warming movement needed an organization behind it and the U.N. was perfect for that. Composed of bureaucrats from all over the world with the necessary funding the IPCC was formed in 1988.
In 1990 the UN IPCC issued a report on global warming which had been worked on by two thousand persons and more than 1000 of them were scientists. About 80 people saw and approved what they thought was the final report and then just a few altered it. That alternation was opposed by many who were skeptical about the altered version which included a ―Summary for Policymakers‖
containing a previously unmentioned factor involving human activity‘s effect on climate. This led to the conclusion that ―the balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human influence on global climate‖. Those altering the report actually altered a graph and some of the text of the report and got away with it.
The media welcomed the report and ignored those who were objecting to the reports conclusion and maligned those who objected to the alterations . That included Dr, Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences whose objection was 4
published in the Wall Street Journal.
That IPCC executive Summary for Policymakers report says they are certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting in an additional warming of the earth‘s surface.
The Supplementary Report was issued in 1992 and confirmed the 1990 report. The Second Assessment report was issued in 1995 and agreed with the past presentations and again blamed human activity for altering the earth‘s climate as well as placing confidence in the computer models they were using to predict the future. ( These models were absolutely necessary for their data was not sufficient to prove their contentions).
The Third Assessment Report was issued in 2001, verifying the past reports and conclusions but this report led to some complaints.
Keith Shine, one of the IPCC‖S lead authors, discussing the Policymakers Summary said, ―We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented‖.
Solid- state physicist Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, and past President of the National Academy of Sciences, publicly denounced the report, writing ―I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to the IPCC report‖. His opposition was printed in the Leipzig Declaration of S. Fred Singer‘s Science and Environmental Project.
The Fourth Assessment Report was issued in 2007 and continued with their global warming claims. ― Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations‖. (This presents a problem for the temperature did not increase from the mid-20th century). Further the report states that anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries….However, these claims are no longer being accepted.
The New York Post published an article on Sept. 2, 2010 titled, Meltdown of the climate ‗consensus‘. ―For two decades, The IPCC
has spearheaded efforts to convince the world‘s governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium – and to civilization itself‖. IPCC reports are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to ―save the planet‖.
But, the prestigious InterAcademy Council,a consortium of national scientific academies which was formed in 2000 to give ―high quality‖ advice to international bodies, ―has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices – and found them badly wanting‖.
For example, the IPCC‘s much – vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false – yet the IPCC cited it as proof of global warming. Then there‘s the IPCC earlier prediction in 2007 – which it claimed to have ―high confidence‖ in – that global warming would lead to a 50
percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa. But, the Inter Academy council investigation found this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As the Wall Street Journal reported, ― some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim but those challenges ―were not adequately considered‖. The truth is that the claim was speculation made after a phone interview of a single scientist.
The Wall Street Journal also reported that the InterAcademy council also said that the IPCC ignored scientific nuances and dismissed minority viewpoints in the report. John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama, who had participated in two of the IPCC‘s Reports said his doubts about man-made global warming were largely pushed aside both times. The investigation also said the IPCC sometimes failed to adequately reflect ― properly documented views of scientists who disagreed with the consensus conclusions‖.
The 2007 report being criticized had stated that climate change , ―is unequivocal‖ and ―very likely‖ caused by human activity.
However, Vice chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, two months later, wrote ― the panic over global warming is totally unjustified, ― there is no serious threat to the climate‖ and humanity is ―hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming‖
Everyone associated with the IPC C does not support global warming for Mojib Latif who is with the IPCC says we are in the first stage of a long-term cooling trend that will last another 10 to 20 years.
Shall we trust the bureaucrats at the United Nations? Their climate change bureaucrats are dependent upon global warming for their income. It is logical to conclude that they are always going to find that the globe is warming – and the faster the better for them.
The obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the IPCC has an agenda to promote global warming and that this agenda is leading them to present information to ―prove‖ their view and that this proof is not accurate and is even untrue.
There are many, many more predictions of catastrophe that could be cited but that should give an idea of the terrible fate that these alarmists state awaits us if we do not stop the globe from warming.
The Kyoto treaty was signed in 1997 and was rejected by our Senate by a vote of 95-0. Russia, China and India were exempted from it and so even if implemented would have had little effect on the environment. However, it was rejected on excellent grounds by our 5
The Kyoto treaty (1997) will not accomplish anything even it it was implemented states Dr, Fred Singer, head of the S&EPP. The treaty would reduce emissions by a mere 5% among industrialized nations but would have a devastating effect on our economy. The Energy Information Administration has predicted that Kyoto would cost the United States 4.2% of GDP per year from 2008 to 2012
and $240 billion a year in GDP by 2030.
According to one study, by 2010 Kyoto will trigger a rise in food costs of 9%, medical care of 11% , and housing of 19%.
The Global Warming Petition Project urged Congress to reject the Kyoto pact as there is , ―no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane , or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future , cause catastrophic heating of the earth‘s atmosphere and disruption of the earth‘s climate‖. More than 31,000 scientists signed the petition.
Dr. Arthur B. Robinson started a petition (The Oregon Petition) which was signed by 20,000 persons, 18,000 of whom have scientific degrees, many of them advance degrees and Dr. Fred Seitz helped get signatures by sending a letter stating the Kyoto agreement was
―based on flawed ideas‖ and that ―data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful‖.
The petition stated:
―We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals . The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
―There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth‘s atmosphere and disruption of the earth‘s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.‖
Now there is a real refutation. Carbon dioxide has been pictured as the villain in our atmosphere and here is someone claiming it is beneficial. Someone is very, very wrong and/or lacking in the ability to reason.
How do we know the globe is warming? Obviously, we now have a much greater ability to measure temperature than we did 200
years ago. History tells us of Greenland supporting agriculture around the period 1100 AD but we don‘t know how warm it was. We know that the Arkansas River froze solidly in the early 1800‘s but we don‘t know how cold it was then. Even now there are questions about the way we measure and the instruments used and their placement.
Dr. Walter Williams, professor at Georgetown University reported in his column that , ―During the 1960‘s and into the 1980‘s the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6000. By 1990 the number of stations dropped to about 1500. Most of the stations dropped were in the colder regions of the Earth. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, (S&EPP) Russia reported the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia. NASA satellites uniformly monitor the Earth‘s lower atmosphere. The satellite based measurements are uncorrupted by urban heat islands and localized use changes that often taint records from surface temperature stations, giving false indications of warming‖.
Meteorologist Joe D‘Aleo said, ―the global databases of (surface station reports) are all contaminated by urbanization , major station dropout , missing data, bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment, and black-box and man made adjustments designed to maximize (reported warming) ―
Dr. Fred Singer, past President of the Science and Environmental Project and distinguished research professor at George Mason University has indicated that weather satellites do not show any warming and they have been giving us data for 25 years. Weather balloons give the same results as the satellites.
Unfunded volunteers exposed how 89% of the temperature sensors at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) were being collated from sites polluted by being too near heating and air-conditioning outlets and car parks and other artificial sources of heat.
Satellite based devices are the most uncorrupted and provide the most accurate way of measuring temperatures and the S&EPP state that ―data from earth satellites in use since 1979 do not show any warming‖. Those scientists who present reports and analyses are free to use whatever they wish and it would seem that all sorts of measurement devices are available and can justify any conclusions.
However, anyone using anything other than satellite devices are presenting data to prove their contentions and so there are alarmists that are still saying that the globe is warming and has been for the last decade. They are wrong and probably know it and are deliberately lying to protect their jobs or are lacking in sanity. Satellite devices are the most accurate and incorruptible and any other source should be viewed with skepticism.
Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Openheimer, Stephen Schneider, and Kevin Trenberth are some of the most well known players in the global warming scam and Climategate is exposing them.
Clive Cook of the Atlantic, after reading the climate email files of the U.K.‘s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, called the overpowering ―stink of intellectual corruption‖ – combined with mafia like suppression of dissent , suppression of evidence and methods , and ―plain statistical incompetence ― exposed by the documents.
Three weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference convened on December 7, 2009 in Copenhagen , Denmark an unknown hacker penetrated the computer system of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Great Britain‘s University of East Anglia.
Those emails revealed that the climate change bunch were guilty of suppression of dissent, serious charges of fraud, unethical attacks on colleagues, censorship of opposing points of view and possible criminal destruction of, and withholding of evidence. Wow, that makes us wonder if this whole global warming movement is a scam.
Phil Jones, head of East Anglia‘s Climate Research Unit writes to colleagues that he has just used, ‖Mike‘s Nature trick ― of adding other temperature data to ―hide decline‖ in recent global temperatures. The Mike referred to is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential ―hockey stick‖ graph utilized statistical manipulation to produce a curve that would support claims about global warming. ( Mann later admitted the hockey stick was incorrect). In the same email Jones opines that the death of global – warming critic John L. Daly, ―In an odd way this is cheering news‖.
In a May 29, 2008 e-mail message, Jones writes, ― Mike, can you delete any e-mails you may have had with keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? Will be getting Caspar to do likewise‖.
East Anglia climatologist Keith Briffa wrote, ―I tried hard to balance the needs of the science with the IPCC , which were not always the same.‖ In another e-mail Jones suggests to Mann that he has received legal advice that he will not have to comply with the Freedom of Information requests from other scientists that would require him releasing data that would justify his research claims.
A statement from Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas which was published in the journal Climate Research led to Phil Jones writing to Mike Mann, ―I‘ll be emailing the journal to tell them I‘m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor‖. Mike Mann responded, ― I think we should stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues… to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or requests our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board‖. On July 11, 2003 Mr.
Mann wrote to Mr. Jones, ―I think the community should …terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels … and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute‖.
In a July 8, 2004 e-mail Jones assures Mann that he and Kevin Trenberth will censor opposing scientific views from the forthcoming IPCC report. Jones writes, ‖I can‘t see either of these reports being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is‖.
We then have the minority report from the Senate.
Washington, D.C.-The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report today titled,
"‗Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." The report covers the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN's IPCC, and how revelations of the IPCC's flawed science impacts the EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise