The Unmasked Fraud of Manmade Climate Change: A report by the InterAcademy Council, composed of the world’s top science academies, branded the UN’s IPCC panel, led by Rajendra Pachauri (pictured) as basing its assertions on “little evidence” while focusing on a non-fact-based worst-case scenario.
Did you miss it? Probably. The report hardly made a ripple in the sea of global warming propaganda that permeates the popular press.
First, a little background. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the organization that spearheads the effort to convince the public, and more importantly, our political leaders that the earth is headed for catastrophic warming and that man is largely to blame. For years, many of us have been arguing that the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis is both mired in politics and totally devoid of science. The evidence piling up is revealing that we were right all along.
Amid claims that surfaced last year about the shoddy science that the IPCC used to compile their latest and much publicized Fourth Assessment Report (2007) there was many calls from scientists worldwide for an independent investigation into the methodology employed by the architects of the AGW hypothesis. This, coupled with the widespread dissemination of the hacked emails of climate scientists who engaged in downright fraud in manipulating climate data and suppressing scientific criticisms–an independent investigation seemed prudent. [ii] Well, you may not have heard about it, but the independent investigative report was issued last week. The verdict is just what many of us suspected: global warming is a hoax.
Last week the InterAcademy Council (IAC), a multinational organization of science academies that regularly produces independent analyses on major scientific, technological, and health issues, released a 113 page assessment of the UN’s IPCC. In the kind of diplomatic language you would expect from such a distinguished body, the council strongly hinted that Rajendra K Pachauri, the current IPCC chairman, should resign. While it was Pachauri who shared the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore for their work on spreading the Global Warming mantra–it should be noted that neither one has an ounce of scientific training. The IAC’s assessment notes that many of the IPCC’s science panel leaders have skirted the science in favor of advocating specific policies. It also suggested that the panel should change the way it evaluates scientific doubts about their reports, that the process of choosing the scientists who write the reports be more open and that the conflicts of interests by members of the IPCC should be made public.
Overall, the IAC rebuked the IPCC for reporting “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’ to the statements.” The report goes on to state that “many such statements are not supported sufficiently in the literature.”
In reporting the IAC’s assessment (on their opinion page), the New York Times, a long-time media outlet for global warming advocates, said that “straying into advocacy can only hurt the IPCC’s credibility.” Gee, you think? The New York Post, known for not mincing words, was more deliberate. It asked: “What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the ‘right’ results.” In reference to the aforementioned hacked emails, The Post took the opportunity to further state: “the warming ‘scientific’ community, the emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other’s papers–and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.”
The reaction to the report from skeptical scientists has been positive. A climate scientist at the Institute of Meteorology at the University of Hamburg, Dr. Hans von Stoch, has labeled the report damning and has called for the resignation of Mr. Pachauri. Dr. von Storch said that the deliberate errors in the IPCC reports “exaggerated the effects of climate change.” He said he hoped the IPCC would heed the criticisms by the IAC in order to “make the climate panel much less aloof and help the climate change debate.” He added, “I am pretty optimistic that all this will lead to a much more rational and cooled-down exchange.” I am not as optimistic as Dr. von Storch. I suspect that the criticisms will only make the handful of scientists who run the IPCC circle the wagons. They have way too much to lose in an open exchange.
For years, individual scientists who publicly called the science of global warming “suspect” or more accurately, “junk science” were dismissed as fringe “deniers” who simply didn’t have all the facts. Now, the “deniers” have an international body of scientists to hang their doubts on and the self-proclaimed “keepers of the facts” have their own dismissal to deal with.
Al Gore and his alarmist minions have insisted for years that “the debate is over”–that the science was “settled.” What a load!
[i] In fairness, the news was spread across the front pages of newspapers all over Europe.
[ii] This entire email scandal is well documented in the book, Climategate, by veteran meteorologist, Brian Sussman.