Monday, November 23, 2009

Global Warming: Fact or Fraud?

Climate Change has been the less alarmist moniker for Global Warming. Of course since the beginning days of Earth, climate have been, is and will be in constant change. Global Warming on the other hand has been a direct accusation that anthropogenic (man made) green house gas emissions have altered Earth's climate.

I have been a skeptic of Global Warming since U.S. Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Prize and evidence of fraudulent statements in his movie and writings were revealed. Then I read "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" by Czech Republic's President Vaclav Klaus whom Al Gore has never agreed to debate. When I bring the subject of anthropogenic global warming subject up on the radio I get polite reminders from some of my university colleagues about my misunderstandings.

Today's announcement by the Global Warming Policy Foundation signals the beginning of the end of one of science's biggest errors. Error or not, Global Warming has been a tremendous source for political and business profit based almost entirely on hot air, real or manipulated.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity. Their data, interpretations and positions have effected British, European and international policy on climate change through the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC findings are broadly disputed by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

On November 23, 2009 Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into leaked revelations of fraud. I quote from the Global Warming Policy Foundation website (see source below):

"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that
(a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend;
(b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data;
(c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and
(d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."

It is not a coincidence that issues (a) through (d) are exactly what NIPCC scientists have been pointing out all along. The authors of the NIPCC report "cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC." The NIPCC finding can be summed up as follows: The warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

Lord Lawson's announcement also includes a passage that is highly critical of scientific honesty. It is highly unlikely that he would have included the sentence ... the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished... in the absence of mounting evidence of fraud. "There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."

The media have made Global Warming a household issue, although in most surveys generally a minority is interested or concerned about the subject. However, many real and fake green (or blue if you are in Europe) initiatives have been started to help "avert global warming." None were successful enough since Hollywood in the recently released 2012 movie proclaimed that the end is near: Both the Kyoto Protocol and the U.S. Congress' proposed Cap and Trade legislation were too little too late.

Quite likely 2010 will be the year to leave Global Warming behind us and tackle real issues such as the supply of adequate food, water, energy, mobility and health-care for an ever increasing population and an ever improving standard of living on Earth.

SOURCE: Lord Lawson Calls For Public Inquiry Into CRU Data Affair


Orion said...

Great post. It's always refreshing to see someone discussing the rampant fraud that is committed to support "man-made global warming". Perhaps this slow dissemination of the facts will prevent cap-and-tax legislation from further hurting our struggling economy.

Anonymous said...

Great post! Spot on.

Matsumoto said...

Kicker is, the more people there are the poorer people get. But people complain about financial crisis and then say some guy is a nut job for proposing birth restrictions to help everyone in the long run.

In regards to climate change directly though, if I remember correctly, Japan recorded an extremely dry period in the early 1300's which was later followed by a cooling of the climate system which allowed for massive agricultural booms then it got too cold and there was another famine again. Maybe we should assume that climate makes a shift every 200 or so years with varying degrees of severity.

Not to bash the "Green" movement in general due to the need of another source for energy besides the prevalent use of a limited supply of oil as well as the need for replacements of the goods produced from it, asphalt being the main one we are concerned about. But I think we got a little too excited over this shift and need to take a deep breath and not get the jitters over every little thing.

oahu real estate said...

I have also been a skeptic of global warming aka climate change. Whether real or not, it has caused the starvation of many people in third world countries as the rise in cost of corn and other foods has brought food shortages, especially in Africa - all starting from environmentalists' pushing people away from cheap energy

Anonymous said...

My original comment was too long to fit here, so I'm splitting it into two parts.

Part 1:
I find it rather disappointing that someone I had supported earlier as a rational candidate for mayor turns out to be so soundly anti-reality that he would post something like this. I would have liked to think that you would have done some basic fact-checking before going off into crazyland. But, since I'm here, let's go through all of your ridiculous assertions.

evidence of fraudulent statements in his movie and writings were revealed
I've looked. Really, I have. But every site that I find with this supposed fraud is from places like FauxNoise, WingNutDaily, FreeRepublic and wonderfully unbiased blogs like "".

Czech Republic's President Vaclav Klaus whom Al Gore has never agreed to debate
Why does Gore have to debate anyone who challenges him?

IPCC findings are broadly disputed by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
Let's compare: IPCC: an international scientific body whose goal is to examine all available data and evaluate the impact that people have on climate change.

NIPCC: A body aimed at bringing together climate change deniers.

And the Global Warming Policy Foundation has the same policies as the NIPCC. Why would anyone accept information from these groups at face value? Which of these groups is least likely to be biased? Not the denialist ones, that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

Here's one more, though it's more for your education than the blog:

I look forward to reading your reaction and retraction of your accusations of fraud on your blog in the future.

Anonymous said...

And yet another thorough debunking of your denialist claims:

So, when can we see your update and retraction of these absurd accusations?