Is The Climate Consensus Beginning to Change?

Pages: 1 2

The current scientific consensus on Global Warming and Climate Change (or Global Weirding or Global Climactic Disruption, etc.) may be slowly shifting away from the catastrophism of the United Nations IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. True, the shift has been tentative. Carbon-driven global warming was an easy sell, but it will be a hard buyback—too many professional reputations are on the line. Nonetheless, the evidence is piling up to suggest that the human contribution to (earlier) global warming is far less than originally assumed and that a meteorological calamity is highly unlikely. Two-thirds of the scientists attending the 33rd International Geological Congress in Norway in August 2008 were “hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN’s IPCC report” (U.S. Senate Committee & Public Works online, December 10, 2008).

More recently, a coalition of 49 former NASA scientists and seven Apollo astronauts has accused the bureaucracy of both NASA and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, with which it is affiliated, of diddling with the facts. They write: “We believe that [their] claims that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.” (Watts Up With That, April 10, 2012).

Further, the Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) of August 29, 2011 showed unambiguously that the UN suppressed or ignored much of the countervailing data that challenged its official position. This is hardly surprising since the IPCC, which certified and entrenched the so-called “scientific consensus,” is essentially a political body with an agenda of its own. Mark Hendrickson of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College points out that the IPCC “does not speak as one voice,” since some of the “leading scientists on the panel contradict its official position.” Others have resigned in protest against its policymakers’ summaries, which are “produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.” It turns out that those “who compose the summaries are given considerable latitude to modify the scientific reports,” and Hendrickson quotes a U.S. State Department official who informed an IPCC co-chair that “it is essential… chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner” (Doc’s Talk, May 25, 2009).

Hendrickson cites warmist crusader and suspect guru Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, who has gone on record justifying the kind of scientific fraud perpetrated by the IPCC. “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,” he said, “we will be doing the right thing.” Further data casting serious doubt on this railroaded consensus may be found at Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Daily Tech online, and the journal Energy and Environment, whose findings are based on a survey of the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science database covering almost 9000 scientific publications.

But the fix is still in and soldered tight by all sorts of disreputable means. In her new book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Scientist, Donna Laframboise shows that “IPCC has been recruiting 20-something graduate students” as lead authors, many of whom had not even earned their degrees and some of whom were majoring in non-climate disciplines. More than a third of the 2007 IPCC report (or Climate Bible) consisted of so-called “grey references,” that is, unaccredited studies. The IPCC has also chosen “to muddy the water by aligning [itself] with lobbyists” and relies heavily on non-peer reviewed material, including newspaper items, press releases, magazine articles, unpublished graduate theses and Green activist sources.

And then there is the taradiddle, emanating from a University of Illinois 2009 survey, that 97.4% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. This is easily debunked when one considers its selection methodology. As Rich Trzupek explains (FrontPage Magazine, August 30, 2011), citing Lawrence Solomon’s crushing putdown (FullComment, December 30,  2010), the Illinois researchers decided that of the 10,257 respondents, the 10,180 who demurred from the so-called consensus “weren’t qualified to comment on the issue because they were merely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and the like. Of the remaining 77 scientists whose votes were counted, 75 agreed with the proposition that mankind was causing catastrophic changes in the climate. And, since 75 is 97.4% of 77, ‘overwhelming consensus’ was demonstrated once again.” The real percentage of concurring scientists in the survey is less than .008%. That these 75 were, as Solomon writes, “scientists of unknown qualifications” adds yet another layer to the boondoggle.

Pages: 1 2

  • Banastre tarleton

    Sorry David , but you're being MUCH too generous ; the modern day plague of the mind A K A ''Global Warming '' has clearly ''peaked '' and is dissapating like the hot air that it always was …this type of alarmism and hysteria has only a limited shelf life and the eco twits have cried wolf waaaay too many times to be taken serious anymore , but we can expect the ''true believers '' to become even more irate and hysterical as they are finally ignored
    GW is clearly a Titanic-like sinking ship and the eco creeps with any sense have already taken to the lifeboats and are off paddling off to the next scam ; but the zealots will remain to the bitter end and will still be parroting off their shrill warnings about GW from an iceberg in the next iceage

    Global Warming …….R I P … a victim of it's own bogus predictions

  • Bamaguje

    I'm pretty certain there's something criminal in all these deliberate lying, scheming and perjurious distortion of data in a futile bid to sustain the fiction of anthropogenic climate change.
    It's long past time to prosecute these corrupting global warming criminals whose treacherous retrogressive antics are inimical to human progress.

    • tarleton

      eco loons are metaphorical scarecrows trying to frighten folk with their hysterical climate predictions ….we skeptics are the jaunty , rakish crows squating on their heads and cackling in amusement and contempt

    • DMW

      Yes. But as with the US Supreme Court's deliberation on 'Obamacare', can we really expect a Judge (or jury for that matter) to wade through the equivalent of 2700 pages (or vastly much more) of bunk? As with so much, too many are not doing the Observation needed to develop sound Orientations with which to Decide and take effective Action (like getting rid of sychophant politicians that fund the bunk). (See OODA loop) And that's what the loons — for so many issues — are counting on so they can continue to get away with so much. Then there's ignorance by design which, of course, is another real plague.

  • Tony Roberts

    I WANT MY MONEY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All the phoney taxes, surcharges "carbon credits" and every other penny these liars have levered out of my pocket on the back of this monumental scam I WANT IT ALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Swemson

    The global warming hoax isn't a modern day plague, it's an ongoing symptom of the problem that's been plaguing human civilization since the dawn of history.

    Evil men will do or say anything to gain power over their fellow men. Eons ago, a shaman told his people that the storms, or the draught, or the earthquakes were a sign that the gods were unhappy with their sinful ways, and that unless they did exactly as he said, their world would come to an end. Nothing has changed since then. Indeed, this current iteration is the 4th example of climate alarmism in the last 100 years. I documented this in my article for NewsrealBlog.com "159 Years of Climate Alarmism at the N.Y. Times" < http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/24/159-years > and in previous articles for Newsreal.

    It would be nice if the perpetrators could be criminally prosecuted, but unless we can go after the real powers behind the hoax, people like Maurice Strong, John Holdren, James Hansen, & all the crooks involved in the carbon exchanges (including Gore) we're really not accomplishing much, and we can't, because those people are too protected politically. What we can do however, is go after everyone who has profited from the scam in the civil courts in suits for financial damages.

    All of the government grants, loan guarantees, and other green payola are part of the crime. If anyone thinks for one second that all of the top bureaucrats, from Obama down, didn't know that it was all green bull$hit, then they've got their heads in the sand. Obama and the progressives have made environmentalism into the key element in their plan to destroy the USA and the other industrialized nations. It's the cornerstone of their entire anti-capitalism propaganda.
    It's all a lie, and most of us believed it.

    If we want to fix this, we have to stop paying lip service to the lie by using bull$hit terms like "carbon footprint". Criticizing Al Gore because of the size of his electric bill is stupid. His crime isn't that he's a hypocrite. His crime is that he's a liar and a fraud. So whenever you hear anyone mention a carbon footprint, you should laugh at them and say: "It's the sun stupid!"………………

    and PS: Warming is good!

    fs

    • Banastre tarleton

      I agree insomuch that they would like to proclaim a'' climate emergency '' and use that as a pretext to push through theit Leftist agenda … a kinda mild version of the Reichstag Fire Decree and resulting Enabling Law of 33……..but I think you underestimate how many of these creeps actually believe it's true , because they want it , nay crave it to be true so that they can pontificate to ''we mere mortals ''on how we should live our lives ; they intend to be OUR SAVIORS !

      • Swemson

        Please note that I was referring to the "top bureaucrats" only.

        The vast majority of the blind followers of the far left and all the young campus idealists really do believe the lies, and this includes the majority of the bureaucracy as well…. Together they comprise the group that Lenin referred to as the "useful idiots" needed by the socialists / communists.

        Nobody has ever offered a more succinct indictment of the global warming hoax than H. L. Mencken, who said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_global

        • tarleton

          thanks , I read it and Menken was correct

          Here in the UK the GW cult is more entrenched because it has the full backing of goverment and will be dificult to discredit and remove …it is indeed a kind of group psychosis with a political leaning that bodes an ill wind for the future …in some ways kinda like a quasi pagan , nature loving version of scientology
          Have you noticed that the commonality of the eco loons is that none of them have any religion in their lives and this is a kinda substitute ; it is another example of the human desire to believe in something rather than the existential despair of nothingness
          Environmentalism will never put down deep roots in America because much of the population are still christians and this will act as a vaccine against this postmodern ''plague of the mind ''

          • Swemson

            While I agree that Climate Alarmism has certain religious characteristics, I disagree with your view that christianity in the USA is a vaccine against environmentalism. Would that it were.

            While it's true that Marxists use environmentalism as a shield behind with they advance their agenda, it doesn't follow that environmentalists are mostly all Marxists. Most are them are well meaning but naive. Much like the useful idiots described by Lenin.

            Marxists are also enemies of religion in general, because they know that religious institutions compete with them for control of the people. As a result, many on the right have made the error of assuming that most secularists are Marxists. This is NOT true at all, and another reason why I tend to dislike such comparisons & generalizations.

            Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is nothing if it's not IRRATIONAL in the extreme, and as a general rule, atheists do not tend to support irrational ideas.

            fs

          • tarleton

            but they supported the irrational ideas of utopian communism long after it was clear that it would not work …atheists do tend to be rational , except when they adopt a pseudo secular religion , after all ''hope springs eternal ''
            Furthermore I don't know of one single practising xian who believes in GW

  • Amused

    LOL…..they jailed Galileo /people were discouraged from bathing because that caused promiscuity /the Earth is only 10,000 tears old / a woman thrown into water and floats -that;s a sure sign she is a witch …..

    • Stephen_Brady

      Are you comparing Algore to Galileo?

      If you are, you do realize that Galileo was subject to the powers-that-were. Algore was one of the powers. Not a good comparison.

    • Banastre tarleton

      you sound like the type of post modern moron that 30 yrs of MTV has created ?

      • Amused

        Nope , just pointing out what kind of f—king idiots people who think like you are .

  • oldtimer

    This all started back in the 60's, maybe before. And quess what! We are still here. The numerous volcanic eruptions spill more polutants into the air. And a solar still is too expensive for most. And Al Gore is a hypocrite.

  • peter mizla

    The paleo climate records all tell a very different story then the misinformation that is discussed here. The climate is becoming increasingly unpredictable and unstable. C02 at 396ppm- the highest in millions of years. During the last million years- through ice ages and interglacials, C02 measured between 170ppm and 280ppm- the lower figure during an ice age- the higher during an interglacial. At the level we are at now- the scientists have long predicted the unraveling of our climate. The longer you dent, do nothing and protect the special interests- the worse it will become. As the disasters begin to ad up- so do the costs, there will be higher taxes, and more regulation. Its very simple.

    • davarino

      Wow, the oil companies must be spending a fortune to pay off all the scientists that dont believe. The 10,000 mentioned above are all dupes of the oil companies and all the rest of us scientists who know how to look at data are just stupid. The misinformation you speak of is all your court, and has been dealt with over and over again, but you want to keep repeating the same Bull$hit. AlGore and his ilk predicted we were supposed to have increasing and monstrous hurricanes. Where are they. That really is beside the point, mans got nothing to do with it and cant control it anyway. If it really was that critical, the gurus would be hammering China, India, and others about their pollution which is magnitudes greater than what we put out. Its a scam, get over it.

    • alan g

      Even if what you claim is true, scientists agree that carbon in the atmosphere has to reach 8 % to have any negative impact on mankind. 330ppm is a far cry from that. CO2 is necessary for plant growth. How can there be anything wrong with that? On top of all this, a majority of co2 gets absorbed back into the earth and oceans.

    • Swemson

      Mr. Mizla is simply wrong in everything he says. Whether he's just repeating the lies of others or making the stuff he says up as he goes along is irrelevant. The FACTS are simply otherwise. CO2 levels in crowded nightclubs commonly exceed 5,000ppm, and go even higher in submarines. Levels have also exceeded 800ppm in the period he refers to.

      There's a reason why Al Gore refused to debate Lord Monckton. He knows he's full of $hit, and after reading some of Mr. Mizla's other comments on other blogs, I suspect he knows it's all a lie as well.

      fs

    • Banastre tarleton

      here's another fine example of eco loon psychobabble and pseudo scientific CANT

    • Amused

      You're arguing with IDIOTS Peter . They have no idea of what they're talking about , only the political memes that they recite. But dont worry , when the situation becomes uinmanageable , they' ll blame the left . 95 % of the scientists on the panet agree , global climate change is taking place , and mean gradient temeratures are rising ……lol…but the other 5% have been bought off by people like the Koch Bros , and companies like Exxon …..and that's who these imbeciles choos to believe . Resurrecting the ole' Al Gore rant is their mantra , only problem is , Gore ain't no scientist , and it's the scientists they are railing against . The Pentagon , CIA and NSA , areplanning future strategy presupposed on climate change , so they must be commies too . What a bunch of schmucks .

      • HoR_Emperor

        "You're arguing with IDIOTS" — says the guy who trots out brainless Leftist cant every time he posts.

        LOL

      • Swemson

        Like Mr. Mizla, "Amused" is simply wrong:

        The following statement is the entire text of a petition signed by 31,487 American science, including over 9,000 PhD's. See: http://www.petitionproject.org

        "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 gasses 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 the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

        That there's a consensus of scientists who believe the AGW fairy tale is a very big part of the lie itself. A number of scientists who were listed by the IPCC as being supporters of the hoax literally had to sue or threaten to file suit against the IPCC in order to get their names removed from their reports. As is the case in many other dishonest schemes, it becomes simple if we follow the money:

        Obama, Clinton, and their cronies are in this up to their filthy necks.

        Patent Nos. 6904336, 7133750, for a system to trade residential carbon credits, were approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office right after the Democrats took control of Congress. The Patents were applied for by (are you ready for this?) Fannie Mae, whose Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines, two of his top underlings and select individuals in the "green" movement were personally involved.

        The patents were to a “method for identifying, quantifying, and aggregating reductions in residential emissions into a tradable commodity.” The patents are identically titled “System and Method for Residential Emissions Trading.” The idea appears to be for Fannie Mae to create “Collateralized Carbon Obligations”, by utilizing a methodology similar to its system for combining individual home loans into Collateralized Loan Obligations. The patents gave Fannie Mae the methods for identifying and measuring energy savings in homes that can be packaged and sold to carbon polluters as credits on a carbon exchange.

        Instead of selling the Collateralized Loan Obligations to institutional investors, including financial institutions and banks, the energy savings in thousands of U.S. homes would be packaged by Fannie Mae and sold as Collateralized Carbon Obligations on a carbon exchange, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange. The buyers would be carbon emitters who emit so much carbon dioxide they are required to buy carbon-offset credits.

        Franklin Raines was of course a key advisor to both the Clintons and Obama. They're all criminals (including Al Gore) and should all be doing hard time for their involvement in this hoax.

        It's important to keep this all in perspective. The biggest financial rip=off in history was set up by the biggest scientific hoax of all time, which was bought and paid for with over $50 billion dollars of taxpayer funded grant money. That's who the PROGRESSIVES are, that's what they do and how they operate. They're all liars and thieves. We used to simply call them COMMUNISTS!

        fs

    • pagegl

      "Its (sic) very simple." If you are an ideologue who does not understand science.

      • Amused

        That's right , and of the posts here 99% are ideologues FIRST , Scientists LAST , and mindless ignoramus' first and foremost . Every Major U.S. Science publication confirms the data , global tempoeratures are rising , climates are changing , and it manmade emissions into the atmosphere that are the culprit . But being good little Republican /Conservatives , you people suck up to big oil and big industry who are responsible for these emissions , who fight legislation for alternate energy , fight legislation to limit in any way these emissions , and convince little dunce/suckers like yourselves to buy into THEIR OWN self-serving policies . So again , its repocons licking the boot that kicks them .

  • Ronald Johnston

    This exposure of the global warming so-called scientists goes hand in hand with an exposure of mainstream medicine and the FDA by a sizable portion of medical doctors. Our education system has failed us miserably by infusing every part of it with liberal claptrap!!!!

  • Spider

    It looks as though the greatest HOAX in history is starting to unravel. Now I know why "global warming" it is referred to as part of the "green" movement: because so many snake oil seling scientists and other hucksters are stuffing plenty of green into their pockets. Think about it. If you were a climate scientist which theory would net you more research money?? 1) That the world is going to cook itself to death because of man made carbon emissions. -or-
    2) Earth temperature changes are part of a natural cycle and there is nothing that can be done.

  • John Dodds

    Just HOW can the IPCC be correct when they claim that
    1. Solar Insolation is the SOLE source of warming energy (AR4, WG1),
    2. that the Moon (lunar year warming cycle) and Planets (Jupiter/Saturn 12 and 60 year resonance orbit cycle yields 1880, 1940 , and 1998 warming peaks,) by changes in their orbits and gtravity do not cause cyclical (tidal )energy, cycles
    3. That Earth decay heat from radioactive decay does not exist (Nature Geoscience in July 2011 says it is 52% of Earth heat)
    Sorry but the IPCC fails to account for significant sources of energy

    • John Dodds

      Sorry, aside from the typos & mis-spellings, I forgot to mention that the Sun's varying gravity which causes the Earth orbit, also tends to severely overshadow the trivial amount of solar insolation energy coming into the Earth. The IPCC concept that "only" sunlight can supply the energy that causes temperature, and global warming is so blatantly absurd that the IPCC should be barred from scientific speculation about global warming and climate change. The proof is simple- solar insolation pushes OUT, the Sun's gravity pulls the Earth IN. IN wins the battle resulting in a near circular orbit instead of the Earth shooting off in a straight line into space (at least that's what I learned from some guy named Isaac Newton & basic physics.)

    • pagegl

      Another very inconvenient fact for the GW crowd is that we noticed temperature increases on Mars and Jupiter when earth's temps were trending up. No green weenie I mentioned this to has an explanation except to state that those are different ecosystems and cannot be compared to Earth. Yeah, right. Just about all the models predicting global warming fail to take into account solar heat, which just happens to be the only common factor in temperature gains on Earth, Mars, and Jupiter. Unless our auto manufacturers have markets they aren't telling us about.

  • Keith

    Great article. Just checked your numbers. It's not 0.008%, it's actually 0.7% = 75/10257
    Your point is still good.

  • Schlomotion

    Global temperature is a fact independent of the scam artists who want to take advantage of global temperature. To allege that global temperature is not a fact is to issue a fruity conspiracy theory that all the thermometers in the world are broken. We sure have come a long way since the Gore-Lieberman ticket.

    • Western Canadian

      Schlomotion is a twit independant of any knowledge of science or our planet. The raw data does not agree that temperature is increasing, it is only after it is ‘treated’ by the warmists, that any increase is claimed.

      • Schlomotion

        Here it is again. it's just numbers: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+tempe

        All models. You are claiming that ALL MODELS are incorrect. That global temperature is a conspiracy, that people all over the world can't read thermometers because accurately reading a thermometer is somehow bad for the Jews.

        • Ghostwriter

          Why do you have to bring the Jews into every post you write,Schlobrain? The subject is whether global warming is a scam or not. Nowhere in the article were Jews mentioned. Your anti-Jewish drivel is unbelievable.

          • Zionista

            because he is a very sick and jealous troll – like most Jew haters

          • Amused

            No , he's simply an anti-semite. A childish one at that .

        • davarino

          Numbers from where on the earth, and how were all the numbers combined, and massaged? And how were the data collected over time? That being said, 1.5 degrees, if true, you still have to answer the question of whether or not the sun is the cause, or CO2. Have you ever looked at what percentage CO2 is of all the gases? Its nothing compared to the biggest green house gas………water vapor. Look that number up you imbecile

          • Schlomotion

            Yes. You're right. the sun flared up at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and got even hotter during the heavy use of fluorocarbons. That clever sun, masking its evil effects behind human pollution. We should send a missile to the sun and destroy it. That will also stop the evil Muslim Obama from harvesting its anti-Israel solar energy. The sun is clearly diabolical and anti-Semitic. Or maybe people know how to use thermometers.

  • trickyblain
  • blowngasket

    Hurry up and levy a tax to build a giant spacecraft to fly to another solar system! Think of all the jobs it will create! Then when it comes time to choose who goes, we evil conservatives will all step back and let our enlightened liberal brothers take our seats. After they are gone, fire up the BBQ, rev up the 350 Chevy Camaro and party!

    • Swemson

      Would that we could get rid of them so cheaply!

      fs