Thursday, December 19, 2013

Cooking the Books on Climate Change

Cooking the books; misstating and representing the "Surveyed" Papers said to support Global Warming to come to a 97% support:
"First the Los Angeles Times, and now the popular website Reddit have banned critical comments on global warming orthodoxy in responses to their articles. Giuseppe Macri of The Daily Caller reports:A content editor on Reddit's science forum wrote Monday that the site has banned climate-change skeptics, and asks why more news outlets haven't done the same."About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers," Reddit content editor Nathan Allenwrote in grist. "When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn't a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum."" 
"Allen explained further:When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation."
-Thomas Lifson:

"Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”" 
-James Taylor:
"Key components of the manufactured "consensus" fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.
Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a "consensus" global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.
Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.
In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory."
"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech."
-Marc Morano: U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

7% of 538 Papers on Climate Change endorsing Global Warming is not 97% it is not even 50%, it is in the vast minority.
"More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]"
-Marc Morano: Climate Depot

Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute.
“is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change.  NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency.  It is wholly independent of political pressures or influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.  NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda.  This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.”
...The report is “comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method.”  Moreover, it is “double peer reviewed,” in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed.  That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board established by federal law precisely for that purpose.  What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them?  That violation of federal law has now been challenged in court, and is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  But this would not be the first time that the Administration of this lawless President has openly flouted the law.
...The authors of the report do not deny that there is some effect of warming the planet from mankind’s emissions of CO2, primarily from use of traditional carbon fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas.  The argument is over how big of an effect that is, how that compares to natural causes of climate change, and whether the human caused effect threatens a catastrophe, or even severe distress, to human civilization and the environment.  The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.’s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result “is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.”&; The primary, dominant cause of global climate change is natural causes, not human effects, the report concludes.&; “The hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of ‘full scientific certainty’ but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility,” the report states.

The fundamentals of the argument is that CO2 is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere.  For readers disadvantaged by excessive exposure to the party propaganda organ called the New York Times, that is less than 4/100ths of one percent.  The report states, “At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world.  Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects,” such as catastrophic global warming
-Peter Ferrara: forbes

On September 17th, 2013:
 "...a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.: 
-Tony Lee:

That report you can read for yourself here:
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science [REPORT]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis -forbes
Seen Here:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong:
A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.

-David Rose: DailyMail UK

So what we get from all this is and other data not represented here but freely available elsewhere; Is that some leading scientists and World Leaders are working together to manipulate data for their own objectives. Carbon Tax, Air Tax, Etc.

Real scientific data shows that the World goes through multiple cooling and warming periods every decade or couple of decades and that we are actually based on historical known levels to present in a starved CO2 environment and no where near the World Norm.

We are being manipulated for someone else's personal gain, and we need to put a stop to this once and for all.

R. William Holzkopf Jr.

No comments:

Post a Comment