lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Global Warming : Shut down the IPCC

2010-03-26
By

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced yet another “flaw” in their reports. It’s time – once and for all – to be very clear about the obvious. There are serious conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the “flaws” in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction.

The latest announcement admits an error that supported Vegan propaganda against the meat industry. Researchers have also admitted that there is no scientifically supportable case for the IPCC’s exaggerated worst-case sea-level rise (which by the way has been orders of magnitude lower than Al Gore’s), dramatic ice-melts in the Himalayas and elsewhere, danger to the South American rain forest, warming of oceans, etc. etc. etc.

These (perhaps more accurately) “forced confessions” are consistent with public awareness, triggered by Climategate, of the general evaporation of the warmers’ case.

Their case for dire warnings about man-made global warming has always rested on computer models that predict rapid temperature increases. These “models” were nothing more than an alternative method of presenting extremist “climate change theory.” Predictions made by the models have been consistently wrong. Lacking verification, they carry no more weight in serious scientific discussions than computer games with purely imaginary scenarios designed to entertain players.

There is no actual scientific evidence supporting the models or the warmers’ theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. Warmers replaced real temperature data with fake data sets showing the trends they wanted. When the final press for public access to real data came, they destroyed the data.

So, let’s be absolutely clear about the obvious. They knew there was no scientifically supportable case for catastrophic man-made global warming. They lied.

For decades, the IPCC has constructed reports containing junk science to promote a scientifically unsupportable theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. A core group incorporated fake data, filtered out real science and data, and presented conclusions in direct contradiction to scientific evidence and consensus. (Other than a core group of warmers, scientists reviewing the IPCC reports insisted that there is no scientific case for catastrophic man-made global warming.)

So, let’s be absolutely clear about the obvious. The IPCC is a publicly supported lobbying group that used deceptive practices to promote manipulation of energy markets, higher taxes, economic chaos, global political revolution and the illegitimate “cap-n-trade” industry.

Years after the infamous “hockey stick” warming graph has been discredited, it’s still used for far-left political indoctrination aimed at teenagers. (From tigweb.org.)

tigweb.org far left propaganda

The IPCC public relations campaign continues, but there seems very little room for new moves. Confessing errors in reports allows the IPCC to attempt to manage the public reaction; superficially a much better approach than the dramatic error of denial. Case in point: After IPCC head Rajenda Pachauri denied that their rapid Himalayan ice-melt claim was scientifically unsupportable, accusing “skeptics” of “voodoo science,” solid evidence turned up that Pachauri knew the claim was wrong. It emphasized the deceptive nature of the IPCC and those in charge.

Announcing and discussing their own problems is intended to give the impression that the IPCC has reformed itself into an open-minded, self-critical, and more objective scientific organization. Announcing one problem at a time avoids the big picture and comes with damage control. It’s not new to the warming debate. Warmers have battered us with claims of the absolute scientific certainty of their theories – we’re on our way to certain catastrophe unless their economic and political demands are met. But when backed into a corner over their junk science, suddenly it’s all very complicated and uncertain.

Regarding rapid Himalayan ice-melt, the IPCC eventually issued a statement saying “The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.” When a published paper on rapid sea-level rise was recently retracted, The Guardian was quick to point out, “Many scientists criticized the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more.”

The IPCC was established in 1988 years ago by the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) under the UN’s Environment Programme. It was tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity. Although we could not rely on the UN organization to fulfill its task, the task is nonetheless completed. Corruption in the organization and the dishonesty of the core science team has been exposed. Quite publicly, the world has been made aware that human activity does not control the climate. There is no legitimate reason for the IPCC to continue to exist.

So, let’s be absolutely clear about the obvious. The IPCC should be shut down – immediately. Each nation then has an independent responsibility to hunt down those involved in the conspiracy and pursue appropriate legal action against them. What could be more obvious?

2,863 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • http://www.nikeindoorsoccer.com/ nike mercurial superfly

    but they did not stand when the enemy called them up to answer for their crimes

  • http://www.nikevapors.com/ nike mercurial vapor iii

    . You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed

  • Anonymous

    scientific discussions than computer games with purely imaginary scenarios designed to entertain players.

  • Anonymous

    scientific discussions than computer games with purely imaginary scenarios designed to entertain players.

  • Anonymous

    conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the “flaws” in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction

  • http://www.nikeindoorsoccer.com/ nike mercurial superfly

    ok! very good!
    wonderful!     
    thank you!

  • Anonymous

     the homes of elderly, but they did not stand when the enemy called them up to answer for their crimes.

  • Anonymous

     the homes of elderly, but they did not stand when the enemy called them up to answer for their crimes.

  • Anonymous

     to be drawn from the fact that the “flaws” in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay
  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Oh no. I can’t believe it. The infamous Kim showed up to comment on my article. Look everybody: it’s a famous person!

    Kim is best known for ruthlessly maintaining global warming propaganda on Wikipedia. After being exposed in newspapers around the globe, she kept right on doing it.

    Is that job still working out for you Kim? We’re hearing rumors of reorganization as the propaganda effort crumbles to dust.

  • Kim Dabelstein Petersen

    I find it interesting that not a single person here has notice the major flaw in Rogers posting…….

    …. Take a bit of time and look for it…..

    Can you see it? Did you notice it? No?

    Try this: It is a report by FAO *not* the IPCC.

    Two entirely separate organizations.

  • http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/index.php sunsettommy

    mjones,

    I hope you are being sarcastic but if not.I want to state that I do not agree with the attitude that we just burn as much oil and coal as we can.

    I think we can do so much better by greatly reducing the waste of power consumption in various fields,such as design and construction of homes and retail stores.To shut off the streetlights and retail store lights after most people go to sleep.Are we trying to help mosquitoes fly better at night?

    We can still live comfortable on far less power consumption.It is the sheer waste of it that we need to deal with.We are too intelligent to continue to tolerate the sheer waste of so many things we take for granted.What ever happened to the idea that we can do better and be satisfied of the results?

    AGW believers have completely failed in all the main claims they have made in last 20 years.By now rational people would have concluded that the hypothesis has failed.

  • http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/index.php sunsettommy

    Oh puhlease!

    I see that you have no idea what is considered a proper laboratory experiment.

    You provided NO rational hypothesis before hand and then you make conclusions that is not verifiable since you utterly failed to provide the data for your effort.

    There are far better ways to debunk the stupid AGW hypothesis than what you are doing.I had assumed you would know the obvious,but apparently not.

    It is amusing that you fail to know what the most obvious one that is practically staring in your face.All good skeptics should know what it is and thus make any ignorant AGW believer flounder around with ranting replies.

    Hint: attack the original AGW claims and you have them beat easily,since what they go on has nothing to do with legitimate science research.

    In my forum we went over your claims and decided that you have not made a viable case.

  • mjones

    Ya, I agree, let’s PROVE THOSE GLOBAL WARMING MORONS WRONG.
    I say we BURN as MUCH and AS FAST all the OIL and COAL we CAN NOW!
    Ya, that will SHUT THEM UP!

  • http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html Politicians cost lives

    sunsettommy:

    You have completely missed the point by a mile. If you watch the second video, the one I indicate which is titled £3.50 not the one titled £5.00, you can clearly see that the heat is applied for 14 minutes.

    Both containers are subjected to exactly the same conditions. The result, according to “greenhouse gas” theory should be that the container with pure CO2 should absorb far more heat than the one with ordinary air. But it absorbs less.

    Remember that Oxygen and Nitrogen are supposed to be transparent to infrared radiation and “greenhouse gases” like CO2 at 0.0385% of the atmosphere, are supposed to be responsible for all atmospheric warming.

    The other links I provide substantiate the experiment and the points I make in the post.

    You say there are better ways to debunk AGW.

    But you just can’t be bother to go ahead and do so right?

  • http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/index.php sunsettommy

    Politicians cost lives writes:

    “For proof, see here: “AGW Debunked for £3.50?”

    It is really bad since the man applies “heat” for only a few seconds and that the plastic bottles can actually block a lot of the CO2 absorption part of the IR spectrum from entering.

    There are much better ways of debunking the never verified AGW hypothesis than this.

  • http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/index.php sunsettommy

    I find it revealing that people like Fredo and Earl just make standard rants that avoids the actual topic such as shutting down the IPCC.

    The old canard about big oil influence and other stupid fallacies are really proof that they are ignorant of the actual science process.That they are unwilling to understand the skeptics viewpoint and why in the long run they eventually run into someone who effectively make a fool of them.

    I for one KNOW why the IPCC is a worthless scandal ridden organization.It is built with with a warming bias from day one.They were TOLD to find the “evidence” of human induced warming.

    It is not operating as a scientific body but as a POLITICAL one.

    By the way Roger nice article!

  • Anton

    Fredo said:

    “4000 pages of science 3 years ago, you guys focus on the 3 pages proven wrong, not the 3997 that say we are in deep shit.

    “You know Saudi Aramco made $233 BILLION off your oil addiction in 2008; ExxonMobil made $47 billion.”

    This is more political drivel having nothing to do with the subject. The oil companies you blast are heavily involved in promoting the myth of man-made global warming. ALL of them have carbon trading units set up, and they have given infinitely more money to the pro-warming side than to the skeptical side. In fact, none of them has contributed a penny to the skeptical side for years. They know where the profits are to be made.

    You also lie when you say only three pages have been proved wrong. Look at my other post. MOST of the pages have been proved wrong. Clearly, you have not read the CRU e-mails (there are three thousand of them), or would not not make such an idiotic statement. You are parroting talking points concocted by the CRU team, James Hansen et al, and their lawyers. The phoney investigations of their crimes headed up by global warming fanatics and carbon trading executives are, and will always be, a complete whitewash.

    Go to the intelligent skeptical sites; read the evidence for yourself. You sound like the 9/ll truthers; not like a rational being.

    Not ONE of the dire predictions made by the AGW scientists has panned out. Not one. The seas have not risen (I live on sea water), the winters are not warmer, the storms are not worse, millions are not starving because of global warming (but millions ARE starving because of the diversion of food crops to worthless biofuels), polar bears are not drowning because of disappearing ice, and nothing else bad is happening because of supposed global warming.

    The precautionary principle doesn’t work here. By wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on an imaginary crisis, the promoters of this nonsense are responsible for incalculable human and animal suffering around the world. Get off your soap box. You are only making things worse.

  • Bookdoc

    i am so sorry- I cannot drink a toast to one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century. Carson’s ridiculous and totally unsupported claims on DDT hve CONDEMNED millions in subtropical areas to death from malaria, typhoid, etc. Yeah-big time thanks….

  • Pingback: Global Warming : Shut down the IPCC - Mens Newsdaily | The Warming Zone

  • owl905

    “The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced yet another “flaw” in their reports.”

    Looks like the article is a good example of the kettle calling the pot black. It’s not an IPCC report. It’s the Food and Agriculture Organization. Sure, whoever they are, let’s shut them down for a single reference on page 272 that miscalcs the transportation sector based on fuel consumption alone.

    The rest of the report stands on its merits. But don’t let that slow down the witch-hunt. Make it be the true vegan conspiracy, assign it to your target, and let ‘er rip.

    Lame article.

  • http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html Politicians cost lives

    The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis of CO2 is based on the claim that Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb infrared radiation.

    Only “greenhouse gases” absorb infrared according to this hypothesis.

    It has been necessary to falsely claim that Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation in-order to demonise CO2 and other gases and blame them for causing atmospheric warming.

    All gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. The fallacy of CO2 “greenhouse effect” is the keystone of AGW fraud.

    Air is :

    20% Oxygen

    79% Nitrogen

    0.0385% CO2

    Inconvenient truth:

    Air, pure oxygen and pure nitrogen all absorb more infrared radiation than pure CO2.

    For proof, see here: “AGW Debunked for £3.50″

    and for verification see here:

    “A close up of an infrared absorption band for NITROGEN”,

    “Infrared absorption bands for OXYGEN”,

    “Specific Heat Capacity of Gases”

    AGW R.I.P.

    Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, know it!

    http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Fredo: Stop it already. We know you’re Al Gore dressed up like ManBearPig. You’re not fooling anybody.

  • Pingback: Today’s quick list of how global warming alarmism is winding down - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

  • Fredo

    @Meme Mine—

    “what the climate change movement certainly has to do is back away from the ‘crisis’ and all suggestions of death for people’s children.”

    Yeah, but then they would be lying. Sometimes fear is necessary, because if you open your eyes and look at what is really going on, you’d be right to be afraid. The difference between Cheney getting us into Iraq and the climate change movement, is the climate change movement is honestly projecting our own fear. Cheney was being a cynical manipulator.

    If you spent some time focusing on the 99% of the climate science which has NOT been withdrawn or disproved, you would also be honestly afraid. Honestly, I think a lot of “deniers” are just too “afraid” to face the reality of what is happening. So you focus on the three pages out of 4000 that make you feel better.

    Please know that all you are doing is providing free support to the Saudis and ExxonMobil types who are leading the effort to IMPOVERISH your children and put $billions in their pocket every year from your oil addiction.

    Yes, oil addiction. And coal addiction, are what this is all about.

    First step, admit you have a problem…

  • Fredo

    Yet more propaganda for the Saudis and ExxonMobil.

    Ditto the point above. 4000 pages of science 3 years ago, you guys focus on the 3 pages proven wrong, not the 3997 that say we are in deep shit.

    You know Saudi Aramco made $233 BILLION off your oil addiction in 2008; ExxonMobil made $47 billion.

    The point is not to be anti-capitalist. Capitalism is fine as long as it doesn’t utterly capture politics, or distort basic knowledge. But here, you have to ask yourself, who actually has all of the incentive to spread propaganda… the folks making hundreds of billions of dollars from their polluting ways, or Al Gore?

    I actually read comments on these foolish, denier-filled blogs that Global Warming is a conspiracy by Bangladesh.

    Well, Bangladesh and Al Gore may have a few billion between them, but oil and coal are trillion-dollar industries, and they are dominating this debate without regard to what is true.

    They don’t give a rat’s arse about your land in Louisiana… your kids’ house on the beach… the Vermont maple syrup farmer… the Colorado hunter… the Wisconsin fisherman… or a hundred million impoverished Bangladeshis. They just want to keep their Benjamins comin’ in, and they’ll say and do anything they need to do to keep that happening.

    And you knumbskulls stand by them every step of the way. Real Patriots, you all.

    Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. I guess it’s a new flavor they’ve got… “BLACK GOLD.”

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    I don’t even think the big barrel of poop analogy is needed. There is no scientific evidence supporting the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming – none. Somebody created some computer programs and pretended they made sense by creating fake data sets. Those many estimates of the damage caused by global warming – usually flawed on their own merit – are based on fake data about rapid warming.

    Estimates of the contributions to warming by CO2 and human activities are small, and even those are suspect.

    There just isn’t any serious basis for political action based on scary stories about man-made global warming. There isn’t any – none.

  • Ian Mc Vindicated

    If you have a 50 gallon drum of pig poop, and pour in a bottle of fine wine….what do you have…..50 gallons of pig poop. On the other hand, if you have 50 gallons of fine wine, and pour in one bottle of pig poop…what do you have…..you have 50 gallons of pig poop….
    The IPCC document is the 50 gallon drum. It may have some pretty pitcures in it, and a lot of assessments all based on a foregone conclusion….that MAN is responsible for the earth warming .
    However, the the pig poop has contaminated the entire document, and aside from the pretty nature pictures, none of it can be taken seriously . It is all suspect.

  • Earl_E

    A hoax by rabid Greens? You mean like the yellow-cake hoax by rabid oil?

    Shock and awe are scientific facts. You can measure the depleted uranium waste in and around the city of Bagdad. Our soldiers return with cancer, their children still-born or deformed.

    You summarize a few e-mails sent by a couple of scientists out of the ten billion e-mails sent by all scientists as a reason to toss out the rocket science and rocket scientists that took us to the moon and back safely?

    Your dripping oil from that boil on your lip.

  • Anton

    Earl said . . .

    “I always find it interesting how people get so upset over climate science, or free healthcare, yet continue to steal Iraqi oil and sell their stolen property to brick-throwing neanderthals.”

    So your position is political, not scientific. Why pretend otherwise? What does faking climate catastrophe have to do with “steal[ing] Iraqi oil?”

    There aren’t a few mistakes in the IPCC report; there are countless errors, falsehoods, and fabrications. Half of the so called peer reviewed literature cited was not peer reviewed at all, and much of the other half was “peer reviewed” by friends and cohorts of the authors, even by the authors themselves.

    And now we discover that those in the highest places of the IPCC have huge financial interests in carbon trading and other schemes, and a vested interest in creating a panic. We also now know that only a handful of “scientists” and politicians actually wrote the final document, not the 4,000 scientists claimed to be behind it by Gore–many of whom have protested the misrepresentation or outright falsification of their research.

    The flaws, flubs, and fictions are too numerous to keep track of. And the money is too huge to follow. But, some are working hard to do both.

    One of the best, and most user-friendly Web sites pointing out the fallacies is joannenova.com.au. Have a look. No colonial empire-building people there. Most of the bloggers are scientists (engineers and geologists seem to be the largest number), and they are a very smart crowd. While visiting, try downloading the free timeline: ClimateGate: 30 Years in the Making. See for yourself what the warmists have been up to for a quite and while, and read their own words–including some of their e-mails: the same e-mails Gore and others have tried to whitewash. See for yourself what “hide the decline” really meant, not what Michael Mann and others are now pretending it meant. And see for yourself the hateful, unethical, spiteful, malicious, juvenile schemes, tricks, libels, and slanders the e-mail-writing “scientists” were up too all along. On government time and money, no less.

    These crooks are all political fanatics, not objective scientists, using tax money and ill-gotten private grants to promote a political agenda and destroy anyone perceived as standing in their way.

    Since all four of the supposedly independent temperature data sets have now been shown to be faulty (three of them are interconnected), and since all of the temperature data has been rewritten (falsified) over and over and over by a handful of crackpots for their own ends, there is nothing left to support the theory. No ocean rise, no super hurricanes, no hot winters, nothing.

  • John B

    You have got to be kidding Earl! After Climategate and all the scandals that followed it it is quite evident that AGW is nothing but a hoax by rabid Greens.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Earl;

    Come on now. That one’s already been tried. To ignore all the evidence and simply copy-paste one of the standard but failed IPCC defenses just proves one of the points in the article. The new PR stuff has nothing new to offer.

  • Earl_E

    Garbage in, garbage mountains. Ever walked near a mountain of garbage at your local dump? Don’t light a match.

    Is it hard to imagine that out of 4000 pages of collected science from 3 years ago that some of it may be proven wrong, incomplete, or faulty?

    Not to me. But then science has always been based upon skepticism. But to conclude the entire document is faulty is more like saying that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

    We know that isn’t true at all, but your well within your rights to whine like a schoolyard child.

    I always find it interesting how people get so upset over climate science, or free healthcare, yet continue to steal Iraqi oil and sell their stolen property to brick-throwing neanderthals.

  • KDK

    Thank you for the article… I agree 100%; as do many of the scientists that were former IPCC collaborators–yes, there are those that have spoken out and, of course, their voices were NOT published.

    The UN is a socialist agenda-making entity which is controlled by those not seen; those at the UN profit HIGHLY via investments/scams/fear etc. Sure, the lower-level serfs ‘believe’ in what they are told, why the upper structure laughs at the human folly/gullibility.

  • Meme Mine

    What does the scientific community have to do to gain back the lost voter support that is needed to have the climate action recommendations approved by the voting majority? Because without the popular vote, this climate science may as well just be stored down the university’s basement in banker boxes and at all the other voter funded research centres.
    Without question, what the climate change movement certainly has to do is back away from the “crisis” and all suggestions of death for people’s children. We all know that 24 more years of motivating with just more fear puts environmentalism in the neocon playbook. Things have changed and consensus now applies to the voter and sustainability applies to asking if the CO2 theory itself is sustainable. Is history calling climate change yet another WMD-like media-politics dog’s breakfast? Sliding support is there and it’s only going to get worse. The environmental movement has gone with an all-in playing this enviro poker game of high stakes PR. At this point in public voter support, the movement can’t cover this bet it made: a promise of a climate crisis. So unless the voting majority actually crawls to the voting stations starving in a real and experienced climate crisis, this enviro poker can’t go on for another two and a half decades of more predictions of danger.
    I say we preserve, protect and respect Nature, not save and rescue it from what the voting majority can clearly see is a CO2 mistake, at best. If the movement doesn’t admit the mistake now, climate change will do to the left what Bush did to the right, not to mention drag the entire environmental movement down the wrong road. Author’s Note: I sometimes feel guilty for scaring my children all those years. They thought we were telling them to save the planet for themselves from real “death”, as in “save the planet” death.

    So lighten up environMENTAL movement, it’s not all bad. The smoggy 70′s are gone and all of us together need to face the future of energy needs with optimism, not with spears at our backs.

    How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

    None, but they DO have consensus that it WILL change.

    Instead of Earth Hour? Celebrate Happy Hour and the incredible accomplishments of environmentalism since back in the smog years when a river caught fire in Ohio. I say bring on the progress of the future and raise a carbonated drink to Rachel Carson, not the fat American politician so many had bowed to because he promised to lower the seas with taxes.

  • Ian Mc Vindicated

    Nice article, but it seems that the entire debate is online, I see no MSM championing this scandal at the IPCC… Whats it going to take ??

    Ian







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search