Wednesday, May 19, 2010

More Problems for UN Climate Agenda

From those days when UN-inspired scientists arrogantly proclaim that “a ‘consensus’ has been reached and the ‘science is settled’ about manmade climate change, more troublous times have followed for this agenda meant to herd the nations together into a one-world government pact. While the reverberations from the Climategate email scandal still continues, new revelations of major errors in a key document generated by scientists and used by policymakers worldwide threaten to bring the entire house down. (see )

The document, the seminal AR4 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had been released in 2007 and portrayed as a thoroughly “peer reviewed” report representing the consensus position of scientists on the issue of climate change. World leaders, including President Obama of the US, have frequently fallen back on the report to coerce their citizens to take inconvenient and often unreasonable positions, using the “science is settled” cliché.

However, it is now becoming clear that the Report is rife with references to studies not originating from peer-reviewed scientific literature. Some of them are actually linked to environmental activists. For instance, a claim within the report that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 was discovered to have been based on a study from climate activist group the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – not a scientific organization. It further was discovered that the claim was false and pure speculation.

Five days later, in January this year, one of the most-cited claim in the report, linking climate change to an increase in natural disasters was also found to be false. The AR4 had cited an unpublished paper to back the serious claim up. When the paper was eventually published a year later, apparently after being peer reviewed, it said there was “insufficient evidence” to link the two events.

The situation gets worse as a third error was also discovered days later, pertaining to the dangers posed to 40% of the Amazon from lack of precipitation as a result of manmade climate change. The IPCC attributed that claim to another WWF report whose authors were not even scientists – they were a reporter / activist and a policy analyst. Worse still, even those authors did not mention the 40% figure stated in AR4!

More than a dozen additional questionable citations have been found, all in a report that the U.N. claimed was “robust” and a shining example of a thoroughly “peer reviewed” publication. According to the National Enquirer, “Whether the underlying science behind the manmade climate change theory is sound is debatable. What is unquestionable at this point is that the document that has formed the basis for decisions which affect billions of people is not sound.”
[See also “Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels]

No comments: