4 Sep

Global Warming Stats And Claims Rejected By Scientific Review

                                       

Gore and Pachauri receive their Nobel prizes for their contributions to the Hoax of Global Warming in 2007. The Nobel Prize is named for the man who invented dynamite; unfortunately for recipients, the prize has the bizarre habit of often blowing up in the faces of those who claim their award, OBama, Gore, and Pachauri are the most recent examples of those who suffer a reversal of fortune after being awarded the Nobel.

Al Gore’s contempt for those who questioned the Global Warming Hoax echoes the story of Apelles and the Cobbler. Appelles was the Greek portrait artist for Alexander the Great, so great was his talent that Alexander forbade anyone else to draw or paint his portrait.

Alexander commissioned Apelles to paint Campaspe, one of his many mistresses. Apelles fell in love with the woman and Alexander allowed him to marry her. Thus his relationship with Alexander can be considered fairly close.

Apelles was preoccupied with accuracy and once consulted a cobbler for his opinion of a pair of shoes in a drawing and the cobbler found a mistake in the eyelet of the shoes. He studied the drawing a little longer and found fault with the legs.

Apelles became incensed and replied, “ne sutor ultra crepidam”, a modern translation would be that a cobbler should stick to his shoes or last. The epitaph has since evolved into the contemptuous phrase, “The critic should never go beyond the sphere of his knowledge,” or risk being called a ultracrepidarian.

Of course Apelles was a gifted artist and Al Gore has been living a charade or a “through the looking glass” existence as a self-proclaimed Climate Expert. Like Obama, he has no documentation for the title or his qualifications; he has also been quick to criticize those who challenge any of his false assumptions with contempt. He refuses to debate his so called scientific theory; consequently, he ends up looking like a fool.

At last week’s Wall Street Journal Eco-nomics conference, Gore was directly
challenged to debate by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg. His reply:

“But you know, the scientific community has dealt with this – the approach
is extremely misleading, and the scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse.”

The Goracle has similarly squirmed out of debates with Dennis Avery and Lord
Monckton of Brenchley, just to name a few.

Monday morning at ICCC, California Congressman Tom McClintock informed the
audience that Heartland had offered to sponsor a debate at Oxford University
against any of three skeptics and in the format of Gore’s choice.

But the man who would be leader of the green world will not accept any such
challenge. And the reason is quite simple. As Lord Monckton put it so
colorfully yesterday in his rousing address to close the conference: The
bed-wetter knows he’ll lose.

The latest tolling of the bell for Gore’s Folly is in the form of a scientific rebuke from an independent scientific investigation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control.

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world’s governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium — and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to “save the planet.”

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of “the best scientists and engineers worldwide” (as the group’s own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give “high-quality advice to international bodies,” has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices — and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC’s much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false — yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

The UN’s IPCC predicted in 2007 that they had “high confidence” that Global Warming could mean a 50% decrease in rain for agriculture in Africa: consequently there were fears of future famine in Africa that would mean starvation for millions. The InterAcademy Council investigation found this claim to be based on weak evidence.

The IAC castigated the IPCC for basing scientific conclusions with little or no evidence and for making vague statements that were difficult to dispute. The phrase “high confidence” was used repeatedly without sufficient support and the reports were not expressed clearly.

The report on the Himalayan Glaciers melting bypassed the scientific process of peer review of scientific data or any data; instead, the theory is based on speculation based on a phone interview with one scientist. Science seems to have been an after thought for the IPCC. This last January, the Sunday Times of London reported that because of the fraudulent glacier story, “(IPCC Chairman) Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp… and the lion’s share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers.” Thus the Times concluded the EU taxpayers were funding fraudulent science that any ice researcher would recognize as a scam.

After the expose of East Anglia’s fraud and attempts to suppress criticism and this latest condemnation of the IPCC, Al Gore’s claim that the debate is over settled is about as meaningful as the carnival barker’s claims at a circus. Yet our legislature is still passing out grants and President Obama still hopes to pass a “Cap and Trade Bill” based on the Global Warming Scam and designed to collapse what is left of American Industry and to further strangle and stagnate the economy.

We now may safely assume that Anthropogenic Global Warming is an unproven hypothesis that has been exaggerated and distorted for the purposes of fraud and malfeasance: the awarding of grants has been one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated against the American people and the scam was so well implemented, even to the point of being taught to elementary school children, that we will be fighting the fraud for generations.

The Global Warming “Scientists” with their political agenda have brought the whole area of science into disrepute and under suspicion. Thus within the so called “scientific” community of “Global Warmers” and bureaucrats, the granting of huge cash awards of other people’s money and the blind acceptance of “scientific” papers is commonplace; consequently, a virtual ‘legal’ criminal enterprise is given a freehand and best wishes by sycophants and a gullible public that is willing to trade their wealth and sovereignty to have con artists and Socialists save the world.

From politicians and bureaucrats, we expect these criminal endeavors that skirt the thin ice of legality, but we now have a sizable portion of the scientific community engaged in ongoing political drama and malfeasance; consequently, the integrity of the scientific community will be damaged for generations and that is a tragedy, for mankind will, at some point in the future, suffer immeasurably when the real scientists try to warn us of an actual impending disaster.

About Skook

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has a personal website skooksjournal.com featuring his personal writings and historical novel type stories.
This entry was posted in Celebrity Idiots, ClimateGate, Culture, Environment, Global Warming, Socialism, The UN and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, September 4th, 2010 at 1:54 am
| 3,491 views

20 Responses to Global Warming Stats And Claims Rejected By Scientific Review

  1. Skookum says: 1

    I swear, I have seen Pachauri or his twin brother panhandling on PCH in Malibu.

    ReplyReply
  2. Servius says: 2

    Am I the only one who thought, “What was Algore doing at a Star Trek convention?”

    ReplyReply
  3. Dr.D says: 3

    Algore looks so smug, fat, and happy, confident that he has pulled off the biggest con job in the history of the world. He is fully deserving of every disaster that may befall him.

    ReplyReply
  4. AdrianS says: 4

    The recipients of the Nobel prize, especially Obama, Gore and Pachauri, have become a literal parade of fools. Their reward: The sudden awakening of the people these fools thought they had fooled.

    ReplyReply
  5. Otter says: 5

    ‘the prize has the bizarre habit of often blowing up in the faces of those who claim their award’

    In araFat’s case, that would have been quite appropo.

    Someone created a little program which shows- more or less- what parts of the Earth would be affected by a 7-meter rise in sea levels. algore’s latest massive carbon footprint mansion, would be standing in 2 meters of water, if his bogus claim ever proved out- which it will not, at least, not in the next few centuries, and certainly not because of natural climate change.

    ReplyReply
  6. Buffalobob says: 6

    Man Bear Pig’s carbon footprint is larger than most third world countries.

    ReplyReply
  7. suek says: 7

    Tell me…if the “government” _really_ believed that the GW was going to cause the seas to rise…why in heck are they doing _anything_ to help rebuild New Orleans? Isn’t that the epitome of stupidity??? Nearly the whole city is below sea level _now_!

    ReplyReply
  8. Dr.D says: 8

    @ suek
    With or without GW, there is no reason to rebuild any city that sits below sea level, such as NO.

    Are you failing to see the equivalence between “epitome of stupidity” and “government”? They are virtually interchangeable. The only difference is that “government” also includes “graft”.

    ReplyReply
  9. Oil guy from Alberta says: 9

    Where’s the Crayola crayons? I always thought crayons came with the award.

    ReplyReply
  10. dee says: 10

    suek, just curious, no answer needed, but does using_ in your comments_ mean anything? That’s a hard key for me to reach unless I peek. Just wondering.

    ReplyReply
  11. suek says: 11

    Dee…it serves me as an emphasis underline. I haven’t learned HTML…so I just make do!

    ReplyReply
  12. @ Skook,

    Mr. Inventor-of-the-Internet has been able to build a personal fortune exploiting fears.

    If we are to set serious guidelines to clean up our mess in the air and water, we should base decisions on sound data and not emotional hype. For example, …

    ARGO 4900781’s LETTER TO BICKERING SCIENTISTS

    The earth’s temperature may in fact be cooling, but only slightly.

    While we should be respectful of our environment, Al Gore’s and other self-serving arguments on Global Warming are rooted in inaccurate information.

    ReplyReply
  13. dee says: 13

    suek, thanks for the explanation. About all I can do is just move around and open and close, don’t know the “workings” of these blasted things at all.

    ReplyReply
  14. Pingback: pligg.com

  15. seriously says: 14

    I’m sorry, but who else besides the 3 recipients mentioned above were victims of the Nobel Prize blowing up in their faces, to paraphrase.

    ReplyReply
  16. Greg says: 15

    We now may safely assume that Anthropogenic Global Warming is an unproven hypothesis that has been exaggerated and distorted for the purposes of fraud and malfeasance: the awarding of grants has been one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated against the American people and the scam was so well implemented, even to the point of being taught to elementary school children, that we will be fighting the fraud for generations.

    One may assume that, but not safely. The IAC has not rejected the AGW hypothesis. Their review was of the overall effectiveness of the IPCC itself.

    http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/13042.aspx

    This was one of 6 independent reviews conducted during 2010. Links to the others can be found here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/press_information/press_information.htm#11

    ReplyReply
  17. Patvann says: 16

    It’s amazing to me…

    The Left will wring hands, and cry on the mountains, the ABSOLUTE TRAGIC consequences of MAYBE getting warmer by 1 deg C/century, but completely ignore (and in-fact add to) the REAL tragic results of being 15 trillion dollars in-the-hole.

    The “effectiveness” of the IIPC is based not on science, but on how much money they can suck out of us, and how many people they can get to believe their blather.

    ReplyReply
  18. ooops, the “warmers” were right, after all.

    What’s interesting is the response of Watt, of Watts’ Up fame. Watt piously claims that Watt’ll accept the results, even if they go against what Watt has been preaching. But then Watt backpedals, as Watt realizes that Watt’s gig is about to be over. It’s the behavior of a guy fighting to protect his turf, as opposed to that of a scientist prepared to revise his thinking, based on new data.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/03/climate_change

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

    ReplyReply
  19. @curt:

    Watt isn’t challenging the scientific findings — just a little bit of the process.

    And, even at that, he’s now backpedalling:

    UPDATE: Dr. Richard Muller’s testimony is now available here. What he proposes about Climate -ARPA is intriguing. I also thank Dr. Muller for his gracious description of the work done by myself, my team, and Steve McIntyre.

    (from your link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/clarification-on-best-submitted-to-the-house/#more-36957)

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>