The “Consensus” On Global Warming Inside the IPCC Report


With MSM reports coming out daily like “Walruses Die; Global Warming Blamed“, “Global Warming “Tipping Points” Reached, Scientist Says” or my favorite “Small group of US experts insist global warming not man-made” it’s little wonder many believe in the hoax known as man-made global warming.  Especially in light of the new IPCC research.

Of course if you look hard enough at the IPCC you will find a particular fact thats been overlooked.  There is no consensus on the man-made baloney:

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.  Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter.  Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report.  The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

So it appears that this “consensus” is really seven impartial scientists, and even one of those called the assertion by the IPCC that greenhouse gases have caused most of the global warming “doubletalk”.

Now that is something the environazi’s should hang their hat on. 


And then no one noticed the letter sent to Ban Ki-Moon signed by 100 scientists which said the following:

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.


Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

No, the MSM missed that one in their zeal to help their compatriots on the left push through agendas that ultimately lead to Socialism::

“The media obsession has been on the efforts of delegates at the U.N.’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference to craft an agreement for a
climate treaty that would take effect after the Kyoto Treaty expires in 2011.
Though it appeared the meeting would end with no deal, the delegates looked to
be near a compromise late Friday. That treaty is likely to be as effective as
the useless, symbolic Kyoto protocol with which no nation has yet complied.

A day earlier, however, a panel at the IPCC conference titled “A
Global CO2 Tax” took a step that will have a more lasting impact than an empty
agreement. It urged the U.N. to adopt taxes on carbon dioxide emissions that
would be “legally binding to all nations.”
And guess who would be hit
the hardest? That’s right, the tax, if levied, would put an especially high
burden on the U.S.

“Finally, someone will pay for these costs” related to global warming, Othmar
Schwank, a global warming busybody from Switzerland, told Sen. James Inhofe’s
office. We imagine Schwank, a panel participant, took great glee in saying the
U.S. and other developed nations should “contribute significantly more to this
global fund.”

And now you see the real agenda by our environazi’s……Socialism:

The driving force of the environmental movement is not a cleaner planet — or a world that doesn’t get too hot, in the case of the global warming issue — but a leftist, egalitarian urge to redistribute wealth. A CO2 tax does this and more, choking economic growth in the U.S. and punishing Americans for being the voracious consumers that we are.

Eco-activists have been so successful in distracting the public from their real intentions that they’re becoming less guarded in discussing their ultimate goal.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” Emma Brindal, a “climate justice campaign coordinator” for Friends of the Earth Australia, wrote Wednesday on the Climate Action Network’s blog.”

My favorite:

“When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it,” he says. “This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.”

Long live freedom!  As long as your doing and paying what we tell you.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

In order to highlight Gaia’s fever, the Christmas Tree urgently needs to be renamed the Global Warming Bush, or GW Bush for short.

Getting closer to lock and load time!


The “funny” part is that these were the exact same swindlers and socialists who were screaming “new ice age” 20 years ago.

The logical fallacies “man made global warming” snake oil salesmen push are wonderous, as are those who believe them.

Too little snow: Global warming
Too much snow: Global warming
Too little rain: Global Warming
Too Much rain: Global Warming
Earthquakes: Global Warming
Fish migrations: Global Warming
Wars: Global Warming
Starvation/famine: Global Warming
Record crops: Global Warming
Glaciers Growing: Global Warming
Glaciers shrinking: Global Warming

Receding hairlines, bad hair days, too few babies, too many babies, grass too grean, grass too brown, etc etc etc: Glabal Warming….

You would think that more rational people would figure out this makes as much sense as “comet dust poisoning” did years ago when Haileys Comet’s tail hit the Earth.

Is the climate changing ?
Is it possible that some of the climate change is because of man
Should both the CIA and the US military stop wasting money on global climate change studies ?

“Is the climate changing?” Yes. It has never “stayed the same”. It is cyclic.

“Is it possible that some of the climate change is because of man”. IF it is possible, why are these asinine environmental policies NOT curbing the real polluters: China, India, and Russia? Why do European cars have to be UPGRADED to meet stricter US emissions laws? Why are the environuts only going after the “politically correct” targets? Or is this just more “death to America” socialist crap?

I believe the thread above answered that.

“Should both the CIA and the US military stop wasting money on global climate change studies ?” ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is a waste of funds and a mis-use of money for these organizations to duplicate the work best done by others. Considering that a rapidly growing number of scientists are debunking man made global warming, along with the gross amounts of corrupted data from ill-placed temp sensors and the ignoring of historical data, the waste of funds becomes more apparent.

G-D created this planet and there is nothing man can do to destroy it. They (man) may be able to destroy them selves, but the planet will remain till otherwise notified.

No doubt that global warming is very debated. I, however, have never heard that man is causing global cooling. For this – all I can say is that I hope that the people that believe this is natural are not wrong. But if man is causing at least part of the problem then why not do all we can. One thing not in dispute is that we cannot continue to use non-renewable sources on energy forever.
Are you familiar with the ground floor movement to take solar to the masses by a company called Citizenre? They are trying market solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent agreement. They intend to put a complete solar system on clients home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company intends to charge. The company currently has no product available but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently taking reservations and have over 26,000 takers so far. I have written several articles on this company in my blog and even have a couple of videos that I have recorded at Feel free to take a look. I welcome comments. As in any start up business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case – the potential client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative. This solution would mean that we could produce at least a little less pollution and would be a great step “just in case”. And hey, the fact that you will save money on your electricity bill over time is a pretty good reason to look into it as well.

Solar energy is a good idea, but as you say “The company currently has no product available” means that solar is part of a future solution.

Meanwhile, the socialists and one worlders at the UN are pushing for a global carbon tax (well, global really only means the West).

Global warming alarmists know that time is running out. Not for planet earth, but time before their scaremongering is seen for what it is.

As we tackle that threat to basic economic liberty we can move forward with energy alternatives.

I looked into wind and solar systems for my home in Michigan. Neither are rated to work well her and both cost huge amounts of money for almost no return in this area.

Now if the new nano-carbon tube systems are reliable and cheaper.. then maybe. But nothing for the near future.