Posted by I admit that I have been skeptical of man-made global warming from the get go. For one thing Al Gore does not impress me one bit with his “end of the world” predictions, knowing full well that an ulterior motive is at bay. But it wasn’t until I started reading “Climate Change Reconsidered — The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” (“Reconsidered”) that I realized that not only does it appear that Gore is dead wrong on his (and others) theory of man-made climate change, but the entire movement, that bases its findings on biased and inconclusive science, is really about perpetrating a global socialist society aimed at redistributing wealth on an international scale.
Much of the language and direction of the meeting of Environmentalists at Copenhagen is based upon four Reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) originally published in 1990 with its fourth Assessment published in 2007. The panel, assembled by the United Nations (“UN”), sought to present legislative language so as to bind sovereign countries to reduce UN directed carbon emission, as well as force industrialized nations to fund carbon emission standards and applications on non-industrialized nations.
Recall the UN is the same body that fumbled the “Oil for Food” program designed to provide food to hungry people, but instead doled out funds and favors to greedy interlopers. It is only smart to question the veracity of a UN report, and certainly there is nothing “stone aged” about debating a topic that can have dramatic effects on the entire planet. There is one thing that is very clear in the scientific material presented in Reconsidered, that the science is anything but settled, and that continued research and review moving forward is imperative.
Reconsidered is a 700+ page Report published in June 2009, that analyzes the four reports presented by the IPCC. A list of 31,478 scientists are appended to Reconsidered in general support of the perspectives expressed. You can view the signatories to the Petition appended to Reconsidered at www.petitionproject.org. I am not completely through the report, but my initial findings are important now as Environmentalists continue to propagate fear, distortion and obstruction at the Copenhagen event currently in progress, and where the President is headed tonight to participate in the grand finale scheduled for Saturday.
One has to wonder whether the President is serious when he suggests that the American people, at the behest of their own labor, should commit to global funding to curb carbon emission at a time when America has no money to spend. It would be amusing, if not so serious, that the Whitehouse is in charge of convincing China to submit to UN regulation and fines that would drastically affect its economy, when America already owes China trillions of dollars.
If I were the President, I would dump the whole trip right now. After all, the science of man-made climate change is still being debated despite Gore and some media outlets and education institutions refusing to debate the topic. Recently uncovered emails documenting thousands of pages of blatant fraud exhibited by the IPCC ought to at the very least raise some eyebrows, plus the type of constraints advertised at Copenhagen would severely limit American sovereignty, in effect handing over to the UN the kind of power over the world’s population that it desperately wants, but never was meant to have. Surely, there is enough reason for the President to proceed with caution, not rhetoric.
I hope to continue to carefully read Reconsidered over the coming weeks, and share my findings with you, but for now, the following are some of the issues being reconsidered in the science of man-made climate change:
* There is clear evidence of productivity benefits to plant life due to CO2 enrichment.
* Rising CO2 levels make it possible to feed a growing global population.
* IPCC temperature models contain major inadequacies and fail to simulate basic weather conditions.
* The IPCC failed to adequately account for changes in the technology used by temperature stations over the years and adjustments to raw data compounded measurement errors.
* Temperature history provides no evidence for CO2 induced global warming, and in fact, the evidence argues against it.
* No obvious global trend of an increase in glacier melts in recent years.
* No evidence of a sudden change in temperature at the end of the 19th century.
* Aerosols that are released by plants create clouds which reflect sunlight that acts to cool the planet.
* Increases in aerosols diffuse solar radiation from reaching the earth’s surface.
* IPCC ignores the potential for positive feedback due to increased CO2.
* The IPCC’s claims of “unprecedented” warming are untrue.
* The IPCC fails to document the Medieval Warm Period, which occurred about 1,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period in the 1st century AD.
Although there is an argument to be made that even if carbon induced or man-made global warming is true, the proposals Environmentalists are entertaining are draconian (seek to revert American consumption of energy back to the top of the 20th century), grossly expensive, and unrealistic to implement, it is just as important if not more important to highlight the inconsistencies with the science that is being labeled as settled as Einstein’s theory of relativity (apples and oranges). The bottom line is there is no reason to spend so much time and so much money conjuring solutions to a problem that may not exist.
One final and quick word on Cap & Trade. Cap & Trade is legislation designed to force companies to pay extra for carbon emission the government deems excessive (fees that are naturally passed on to the consumer). In order for companies to use more carbon than allotted, it could buy carbon credits from someone who is not using excessive amounts of carbon. The system would run on an exchange that is overseen by the government, where ultra rich people can trade carbon credits. Guess who’s set to run the exchange and make a percentage of money on each trade (we’re talking trillions)? None other than Al Gore, now that’s what I call an ulterior motive.
There was also a belief that increased CO2 into the atmosphere would get trapped causing a warming effect, something that has been proven not to occur.
NASA launched a satellite to study the release of CO2 through the atmosphere. It learned that when CO2 levels increased, the output into space increased. Basically, the atmosphere maintains a level of CO2 and when there is excess, it releases it. Hmmm.
My biggest fear is that nations will sign on to some sort of CO2 reduction, costing billions, if not trillions of dollars. Then our climate will continue to see a temperature increase and these nations will say we’re not doing ENOUGH!!!
Since it is now winter and I’m all bundled up in clothing when a month ago I wasn’t, I can say Climate Change is natural and happens all the time. Heck, NY’s climate changes four times a year. It’s called “seasons”
By daniel Peterson on Dec 17, 2009
awesome raquel. good job!
By lorena villegas on Dec 17, 2009
A great job, Raquel! Real science would be open to ALL of the facts. These characters are not–what does that tell you?
It appears to be a sophisticated way to “turn the ‘power’ tables.”
Let us pray–
By Florence on Dec 17, 2009
See:
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2009/12/okyay-debunks-climate-change-report.html
By Mitchell Langbert on Dec 18, 2009
Dear Raquel,
I totally agree with you about all this climate change crap. As Mr. Gore continues to fly around in his toxic private jet, spreading lies that will lead to the continued squandering and centralization of desperately needed financial resources, the public is being duped into: to quote Norma Segal : ‘worship at the alter of the recycle bin ‘.
By Freda on Dec 18, 2009
Raquel:
Your contribution to this controversy on climate change is extremely useful for understanding and exposing the waste and corruption involved in this bogus fear mongering nonsense. The bureaucrats at the U.N. and the Obama administration will go to Copenhagen, make few speeches, stay in comfortable hotels, feast on big and expensive meals, travel on private jets, and come home empty handed. They will, however, claim victory. You have to be complemented for this excellent piece on the subject. Best. Sharad
By Sharad on Dec 18, 2009
Thanks everyone! Link here to see record breaking snow in Copenhagen. http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/6064
By Raquel on Dec 18, 2009
Raquel-
Your assessment is right on the money. I was glad to see that you mentioned that CO2 doesn’t have a negative impact on the planet. The whole thing is a farce but is being used to create a new money system by certain banks and individuals, especially Gore.
One factor that also needs to be addressed is the many geo-engineering programs that are being implemented on a global basis. These can actually worsen long-term climatological changes. For example, it is my contention that the persistent jet contrails that some call chemtrails are creating a permanent haze over the earth. It’s easy to see this when you compare photos taken by astronauts on lunar missions in the 60′s to the shots of the earth from EVA’s on Shuttle missions. What happened to the deep blue we used to know and love?
I discovered this aerial activity over NYC during the summer of ’06 and have been documenting this ever since. I am researching this with another gentleman, KSD, from Brooklyn and he maintains our website http://www.newyorkskywatch.com. KSD also created a wonderful DVD about climate engineers. It combines audio interviews with climatologists and footage shot over the city.
I am glad that people are waking up and seeing this travesty for themselves. I hope that it’s not too late to stop these international criminals from pulling off the scam of the century, if not the millenium!
By Alan Gross aka AirshipAl on Dec 18, 2009
Hi Alan!! Nice to see you are still fighting the good fight! I will take a look at your website.
If Al Gore was serious about dangerous chemicals harming the earth’s atmosphere. He would call for an immediate ban on private jets, and cut commercial flights in half. It is a simple and quick way to limit pollution. Of course that is not something I would advocate, but for different reasons than Al Gore.
By Raquel on Dec 18, 2009
Cap and Trade is just another way to generate income from the masses. It will take from all, increase the cost of energy and not effect the environment at all. Not thst the environment needs our help. The purpose of cap & trade is to redistribute wealth from the general population to persons and or corporations that have made a deal with the current administration. It’s just another hidden tax cloaked in faux-science. As for Mr. Gore, he is not frugal with his carbon imprint. But don’t worry he buys carbon credits…from a company he owns and profits from. WAKE UP and VOTE people.
By mpm on Dec 22, 2009
Hi Raquel! How are you? I hope you and your family had a wonderfully merry (but not too COLD!) Christmas.
You make some excellent points here (as usual!). Although I am not a scientist and don’t feel that I’m knowledgeable enough to make a definitive statement on the subject, neither is Al Gore. He is a politician with – as you pointed out – his own agenda for personal and ideological power. I’m sure he’s read a few (biased) articles on the subject, and maybe some books that covered the flawed studies you discussed above. That does not make him an expert, and I find it sad that anyone takes the hot air he blows too seriously.
Remember when Ted Danson stated, about 20+ years ago, that we only had ten years to save the earth? I think the big scare then might have been global cooling and the coming Ice Age. This man is an actor – what does he know about the environment?
There are certainly valid scientific opinions that express concern about human activity, but it’s disturbing how the other side is frequently censored by academia and the media elite. Also gagged are those who propose different solutions from those espoused by those great Guardians of Social Welfare – the UN. It’s not enough that the left wants to virtually shut down private industry and relegate everything to Washington; now everything must be subject to WORLD approval (at least the leftists of the world).
Anyway, there’s my rant for the day! Great thought-provoking article. I look forward to catching up soon.
By Paula on Dec 29, 2009
Hi Paula!!! Nice to hear from you and THANKS!
We are all well.
Please plan a trip in the Spring so you can see the kids.
All the best for a Happy and Healthy New Year!!
By Raquel on Dec 29, 2009
Thanks, I’d love that! Your children are beautiful; can’t wait to see them in person finally. Happy 2010 to you & the family (a decade since Y2K – can you believe it???)!
By Paula on Dec 30, 2009