More Bad News for Global Warming True Believers

Study shows how Democratic policies have deceived the public.

A stunning report by a panel of international scientists casts doubt that man is the cause of global warming or climate change. The study concluded that "natural causes," not anthropogenic (man-made) causes, "are very likely to be dominant.” This finding flies in the face of crucial climate policies and actions by President Obama and congressional Democrats.

They have needlessly wasted a fortune with legislation and other expensive actions to fight greenhouse gases and limit CO2 arising from burning fossil fuels. An untold number of jobs have been lost by the administration’s deluded policies. Many Americans have been baffled, and school children have been frightened by dire global warming lies over the past decade.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), formed in 1993, warned that the build-up of greenhouse gases could, in the century ahead, become catastrophic. Rising sea levels, extreme temperatures, violent storms, devastating droughts, and the spread of disease, would destroy food production and habitability in many regions and could eventually destabilize the entire biosphere. The panel released four assessment reports warning of dire consequences if the world didn’t address the matter. They expressed the belief that “humankind’s actions contribute to the predicament.”

But evidence of phony scientific conclusions were piling up even before this latest revealing report. For instance, Professor Mike Hulme at the School of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to the IPCC in a 2009 book admitted that “uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about climate change." As to the IPCC’s credibility, he acknowledged that the panel is “governed by selected governmental representatives, ensuring it would be serving the needs of government and policy.” It was never “a self-governing body of independent scientists.”

Soon after his book came out, “Climategate” revealed deliberate efforts by leading scientific supporters of the IPCC and climate alarmism to hide flaws in their evidence and analysis and keep “skeptics” from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. Climategate was followed by other revelations, including that the IPCC's assessments and conclusions often relied on little more than newsletters of environmental advocacy groups. IPCC had to retract scary claims about glaciers, floods and crop harvests. But it was not enough to keep a House committee in 2009 from passing a cap-and-trade bill that would have cost us many billions of dollars and wiped out some energy producers if it had become law.

The White House and the EPA have sought to impose harsh restrictions based on the faulty IPCC “science.” “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change,” said the president in his usual know-it-all manner. “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear,” Obama said at a global warming meeting in California in November 2008. He hasn’t changed his mind since. Ignorance persists.

In 2010, the Amsterdam-based Inter-Academy Council (IAD), made up of heads of science academies around the world, revealed major flaws in the IPCC’s peer-review process, saying it failed to give consideration “to properly documented alternative views." IAD also said certain estimates of “certainty” by IPCC were “make believe, almost to the point of a joke.” It told the IPCC to “keep its nose out of politics.”

The American Petroleum Institute announced Sept. 7 that changes in the U.S. oil and natural gas policies could generate more than 1.4 million new jobs, $800 billion in added government revenue, and 10 million barrels' worth of added oil and natural gas production by 2030. The figures are from a study by Wood MacKenzie, an economic research organization.

German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch last year released their latest international survey of climate scientists. It asked scientists to rank data for climate change on a scale from very adequate to very inadequate. More ranked available data “very inadequate.” Majorities of climate scientists responded that they don’t believe the claims that underlie the predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

The most recent and significant appraisal of climate change comes from Craig D. Idso, chairman of the Center of the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; Robert M. Carter, adjunct research fellow, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia; and S. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, along with executives of the Heartland Institute, the Chicago-based think tank. In its 415-page book, the Heartland Institute reached the conclusion that “natural causes," rather than man-made greenhouse gases, are most likely to be “dominant.” The study also made what to many may be a surprising finding: that “a warmer world will be a safer and healthier world for humans and wildlife alike.”

A Rasmussen opinion poll reported Sept. 8 that only 24 percent of likely voter consider Al Gore an expert on global warming, even though he and the IPCC won a Nobel Prize with his devastating forecasts on the subject. And he has made multi-millions on his crazed warnings for years.

The Huffington Post Sept. 9 wrote about a trivial study that made projections for 11 states with the ridiculous prediction that a 10 percent reduction in CO2 over the next 10 years would increase employment by 9,490-50,700 jobs and “carbon pollution from transportation [would be] cut by 5 to 9 percent.” Doubtful and inconsequential.

In its exhaustive study, the Heartland Institute and the three renowned scientists aforementioned declared the following: New evidence shows in the "Medieval Warm Period, approximately 1,000 years ago, when there was about 28 percent less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently," it was warmer than today’s world, there is currently less melting of ice in the Arctic and Antactic than previously thought, and there is "no sign of acceleration of sea-level rise in recent decades[.]"

Contradicting forecasts of the IPCC, the “frequency and severity of floods, droughts, and hurricanes all appear to be determined by natural processes other than anthropogenic climate change.” Continued warming “would not increase the incidence of diseases.” And, in fact, “mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today.”