Executive summary: Al Gore’s new book and movie, both titled An Inconvenient Truth, have been hailed by environmentalists–despite being filled with false or misleading claims about the science of global warming and related issues. This page details errors in the book (2006, Rodale Books), which in summary include:

• Misleading links between weather events and climate      change: Climate is the average of      weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is      inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of      trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual      events, claiming this is global warming in action: a European heatwave,      record daily highs in U.S. cities one summer, hurricane Katrina, floods in      Europe and China, and more. To address the issue of climate change, all      such events must be considered over time. As it turns out, in several      cases such analysis refutes any claims of recent trends (for example, with      regard to floods).
  In other cases, the scientific community is engaged in much research and      debate. Gore claims that there is “an emerging consensus” that      hurricane activity is on the upswing due to global warming. The reality is      that this is the subject of much debate in the scientific community:      different researchers have produced contradictory conclusions, but the      factors involved are far more complex than Gore admits, and research is      continuing.
• Misrepresentation of data: Of the various graphs and other data Gore presents,      some of it is misrepresented. Gore presents one graph, said to be      temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial      claim of one research group–Mann et al.–that current temperatures are      higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core      data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other      proxies. The broader claim is questioned by many scientists as well–much      research suggests that temperatures around 1100-1300 AD were about as warm      as today–as well as the methodology used to support such claims. Gore      uses another set of ice core data to claim that carbon dioxide      concentrations have driven global temperatures for the last 600,000 years.      He admits the actual relationship is “complicated”, which is as      close as he comes to admitting the fact that the temperature changes came      first, and probably helped drive the carbon dioxide changes.
  These aren’t the only cases of sloppiness with data: Gore claims the      hottest year on record was 2005, but in reality existing observations      don’t have the accuracy to discriminate between, say, 2005 and 1998, a hot      year due to an extreme El Nino event. He claims that the increasing      closures of the barrier’s on Britain’s Thames River show sea level is      rising, but doesn’t mention that the British government recently changed      the rules for such closures, including closing the barriers to deal with low      sea level; and he claims that a particular bird species is “in      trouble” in the Netherlands due to climate change, but researchers      report no change in this bird population. He cites a peak in tornadoes in      2004 as further evidence, but this peak came from new technology      permitting the counting of more weak tornadoes than ever before;      comparison of consistent data shows no trends in tornadoes.
• Exaggerations about sea level rise: Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in      Greenland and West Antarctic will force the “evacuation” of      millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This      flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific      community. Most research indicates that such melting, even if it could      occur, would take 1,000 to 5,000 years; the minimum timescale described by      any researcher for such melting is still centuries. Even the United      Nations’ IPCC, source of the “consensus” analysis which still      overestimates future warming, only predicts sea level rise of 0.1 to 0.8      meters (4 to 30 inches) in the next 100 years.
• Misleading claims about effects of climate change: Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related      to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no      relationship to climate. Even in the case of malaria, a disease with a      stronger link to climate, health experts cite the management of human      infrastructure and health systems as far more important factors. In other      cases Gore neglects the strong influence of human resource management, as      with linking occurrence of wildfires or pest outbreaks to global warming.      He also claims global warming is causing a “significant” number      of polar bear drownings, based on a report of four drowned polar bears;      however, other researchers report the polar bear population is generally      unchanged. Melting of glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro and in Glacier      National Park are cited as consequences of global warming, but in both      cases these glaciers have been melting since the 1800s, when the Earth      emerged from a period of global cooling.
• Reliance on worst-case scenarios: An underlying problem is that Gore seizes upon      worst-case scenarios and presents them as fact–sometimes omitting      important qualifiers. Much of the claims about the consequences of future      global warming rely on climate models that Gore calls “evermore      accurate”, but significant questions about the reliability of these      models remain, and the effects cited by Gore presume that the worse-case      predictions of these models are the correct ones. More generally, climate      change should be considered at the regional or local level, where impacts      would variously be positive or negative–especially depending on how we      choose to respond. Gore consistently discusses the most negative impacts,      and even minimizes the possibility of positive change.
• False claims about scientific views on global warming: Gore asserts that the scientific community is in      essentially unanimous agreement with his interpretation of global warming,      and dismisses skepticism of global warming as an energy industry      conspiracy. Not only are such claims false, they severely misrepresent the      very process of science. Gore cites a flawed editorial from a science      journal to claim that all published research agrees with the      “consensus” view on global warming; in reality, much published      research contradicts Gore’s position on global warming, and a recent      survey of climate scientists found the community fairly split on the claim      that there is an imminent threat from human-caused global warming. Despite      the abundance of scientific research contradicting his position, Gore      instead concentrates on refuting a handful of skeptical claims from      outside the scientific community–and can’t even get the facts right on      those. To add insult to injury, Gore repeatedly impugns the motives of      scientists and non-scientists who question his “consensus” on      global warming. Rather than confront the scientific facts, he stereotypes      the critics and dismisses them based on imagined motives.
• Misleading claims about the responsibility of the      United States: Gore says the United States is      particularly to blame for the claimed global warming crisis, but doesn’t      give a fair view of the issues. He makes misleading comparisons of fuel      economy standards in the U.S. and other countries; also, he criticizes the      U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways      in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. He      also understates the economic adjustments required to attain the goals he      sets.
• Conceptual errors:      Gore’s explanation of several topics, including the greenhouse effect, the      relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature, decline in Arctic      Ocean pack ice, structure of the Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion,      contain conceptual errors. He may indeed have a correct understanding of      these issues, but what he communicates serves to perpetuate misconceptions      on these subjects. Combined with the low reading level of the text, this      tends to convey the lowest expectations of his readers.

Gore’s portrayal of the subject of global warming is scientifically unsupportable; even some scientists who accept the premise of global warming have been willing to call him on some errors. His portrayal of scientific skepticism regarding global warming is shameful; science requires healthy criticism to progress. The effect of attempts by Gore and others to silence dissent is harmful to scientific understanding as well as its application by society. The effort to use such twisted science to further a political agenda is such a harm.

As I’ve often written, the mainstream media hypes stories about heatwaves as evidence for global warming, and buries stories about record cold weather.  Warming zealots have even tried to eliminate the impact of global cooling on their cause by claiming that the issue is ‘climate change’– i.e. that global warming INCLUDES global cooling!  They bolster their cause by relying on the one thing that is true about weather– that it changes!

Don’t be a sucker.  The news from down under:

Further snowfalls expected tonight

6:34 PM Tuesday Aug 16, 2011

Many areas of New Zealand – including the hills surrounding Wanganui – have been smothered in snow over the past few days.

The bitterly cold blast that has hit New Zealand this week should ease off over the coming days, but heavy snow is still expected overnight in many areas, including Wellington and Christchurch.

Snow returned to the nation’s capital this afternoon, with a late afternoon surge seeing the the temperature plunge to just above freezing with a wind chill of -5, according to weatherwatch.co.nz

The polar surge in the capital forced police to close roads, including the Rimutaka Hill Road, Wainuiomata Hill Road, Paekakariki Hill Road, and State Highway 58 between State Highway 2 to Moonshine Road and Blue Mountains Road in Upper Hutt.

Police said driving conditions were treacherous and people should only travel if it was essential.

Extreme caution was needed on all roads in and around the Hutt Valley.

Head weather analyst Philip Duncan said the snow will spread across the lower North Island tonight, although some main centres to the north west of the city may avoid the worst snowfalls.

“Snow is expected to be heavy around Wellington, Upper Hutt and Wairarapa tonight with a moderate risk of snow flakes returning to low levels of the lower North Island like Wanganui and Taranaki”.

Heavy snow in Wellington is expected to come and go all night with snow easing tomorrow morning.

While Gisborne took the national high with 13 degrees today, snow is forecast to move into the Hawkes Bay and Gisborne regions, to 100 or 200 metres.

Mr Duncan said that the city and region had so far missed the worst of the weather but the southerly will fire up the east coast of the North Island across Hawkes Bay and Gisborne tomorrow.

Christchurch and other coastal parts of Canterbury are also expected to see more snow tonight.

Weather analyst Richard Green said snow showers may return to the city tonight, but should ease in the early hours of tomorrow morning.

Snow isn’t expected to be as heavy as it was yesterday with passing snow flurries, but he said there was still a strong chance there would be some falls.

“The freezing level has lifted just enough so that Christchurch, Timaru and Ashburton are all on the borderline of snow. It’s an extremely fine line between sleet, rain and snow for those centres tonight but we don’t expect the falls to be long lasting and heavy as they were last night”.

A few brief snow flurries are possible further south in Dunedin, but conditions there should be easing, while Auckland’s chance of seeing more snow is quickly fading.

Graupel and sleet fell in some areas this afternoon, while snow was confirmed on the tops of the Waitakere Ranges.

Light rain showers are expected to move in to the city again tonight as a very small low tracks by but snow is not predicted in the CBD.

Farmers and their stock coping in snow

The polar blast is making life difficult for farmers but they are coping, despite some having to work their stock in thick snow for the first time, Federated Farmers adverse events spokesman David Rose says.

“It’s very unusual for a storm to affect absolutely the whole country. In some areas, particularly in the lower North Island, farmers wouldn’t have had to deal with a weather event like this before,” he said.

In some regions, particularly Canterbury and Wairarapa, farmers would be hoping the snow cleared before it turned to ice, which would make it impossible for stock to graze.

“They’ll be hoping for a bit of sun or even, dare I say it, a bit of rain, which actually gets rid of snow quite quickly,” he said.

“The worst thing that could happen is if it freezes. If that happens it will take a lot of warming up before it melts. If we get a lot of overcast days and it stays ice they’ll have to feed their stock completely on supplement, and that’s a huge job.”

Lambing had started in some areas so there would have been some stock losses.

It was fortunate the storm didn’t hit later in the season, which could have had devastating consequences, Mr Rose said.

With calving also beginning to get underway, dairy farmers were putting their cows behind shelters and doing what they could to protect them from the elements.

“Lambs and calves are incredibly robust. Even if it’s cold for us humans, it takes just a few days of settled weather for them to find their feet.”

Better weather expected

The bitterly cold polar blast that blanketed much of the South Island in snow and brought record low temperatures to Auckland is set to ease over the next few days, forecasters say.

Metservice said threats of intense snow will lower as a ridge approaches from the Tasman Sea and moves onto southern New Zealand tomorrow.

Snow showers were still likely in higher areas between Gisborne and Canterbury but were not expected to reach warning levels by Friday, it said.

What’s the current weather forecast? Click here for the latest.

A weather historian says the polar blast has been a ‘once in a life time’ event.

Erick Brenstrom told Newstalk ZB the recent snow falls are similar to the massive storm of 1939, but temperatures were “a wee bit colder and the sheer quantity of snow was a lot worse” in the 1930′s event.

“In Auckland, for example, in 1939 you had 5cm of snow lying on top of Mt Eden, as well as snow falling in the suburb like Ponsonby, Remuera. And it also snowed at the lighthouse at the very top end of the North Island. It snowed in Dargaville, Ruapekapeka up in Northland. There was also three hours of snow Gisborne City – so there were snowball fights there. In Banks Peninsula and Otago we had snow drifts of 10 metres.”

“That one was worse than the one we’re having now.

Lucky tourists

Two American tourists have had a lucky escape out of a snow-covered Whirinaki Forest Park in the central North Island.

The pair had spent a night in the Central Whirinaki Hut but efforts to get to another hut were hampered by the cold conditions.

Two off-duty police officers heading out for an overnight hunting trip located the pair and were able to call for assistance.

Detective Sergeant John Wilson says without local knowledge it would have been almost impossible to successfully negotiate the maze of roads.

He says another night in such conditions may have had serious consequences.

Closed for business

Both Lincoln and Canterbury University were closed today.

Airports in Queenstown, Dunedin and Christchurch were closed this morning, but all have since reopened, albeit with some delays.

Wellington Airport was operating, but its website homepage crashed earlier this morning under an onrush of travellers and the airport advised them to contact their carrier.

MetService head forecaster Peter Kreft told NZPA yesterday the polar blast was “of the order of a 50 year” event and warned it could last for several more days.

Some NZ Bus services were cancelled in the capital this morning.

The New Zealand Blood Service is calling on people in Nelson and North Island to come in and donate this week if they are eligible, to make up for collections lost after disruptions yesterday.

The Christchurch and Dunedin Donor Centres were closed yesterday and Westport and Mosgiel mobile collections were cancelled as a result of bad weather.

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority closed access to the city’s quake-damaged red zone and would reassess the situation this morning.

Power outages

Heavy snow cut power to 1000 houses amid bitterly cold conditions in rural Canterbury, Orion confirmed.

Areas including Rakaia, Westmelton, Leeston and Greendale were hit by the outages last night.

Orion General Manager Commercial Rob Jamieson said trees and branches falling on overhead lines were the main cause of cuts.

Crews had been assessing the damage since dawn this morning, he said.

About 750 homes in south Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu and Wairarapa also spent the night without power after high winds and snow caused trees and branches to tear down overhead lines.

And around 450 homes in Upper Hutt were without power this morning.

Unusual weather for Auckland

Climate scientist Georgina Griffiths of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research said yesterday was the coldest day ever recorded in Auckland. The temperature got up to only 8.2C – compared with the previous lowest high of 8.7C, on July 4, 1996.

The last time snow settled on the ground in the city was 1939. It fell to ground level at the airport in 1976.

The snow caused waves of excitement in Auckland. Kevin Prohl saw a snow flurry as he was driving around Western Springs and described it as a fairy tale. “Looking at oncoming drivers and seeing their smiles as we were fascinated by this unusual occurrence – it was truly delightful to see, yet all too short.”

Richard Brown, 53, has lived in Auckland his entire life and had never seen snow in the city. “It was snow, I’m sure it was.”

There was even debate among weather experts as to what was actually falling.

MetService weather ambassador Bob McDavitt said most Aucklanders had witnessed “graupel” – effectively hail with a soft centre.

While many Aucklanders were delighted with the light flurry of snow – the result of weather MetService described as close to a one-in-50-year-event – the high winds created havoc. Four people were injured when a tree toppled on to a house in Pakuranga.

Not so fun for some

The cold snap also wreaked havoc further south including the quake-devastated eastern suburbs of Christchurch. Power was cut to hundreds of homes, mail postponed, schools were shut for the day and heavy snow made it too dangerous to drive on.

In the Wellington region, five main roads were closed and 24 crashes were reported yesterday.

“We’ve been getting calls from people getting stuck on the road, or cars sliding down the driveway and getting stuck in the gutter. We’ve got quite a lot going on,” Inspector Ken Climo of the police said.

Prime Minister John Key commented on “the very uncharacteristic weather” during his post-Cabinet press conference.

Describing the capital as a “winter wonderland”, Mr Key said it was the first time he could recall seeing snow fall in downtown Wellington.

“My wife tells me there is snow around our house [in Parnell, Auckland]. It’s very unusual, and the main message to New Zealanders is just to be cautious and a little bit careful – make sure they keep an eye out for their family and friends, and if they are aware of their neighbours living alone, it might be a good idea just to check up on them and make sure everything is OK.”

- NZPA, HERALD ONLINE

The BBC recently admitted to tilting the climate change discussion by giving preferential reporting to stories supporting global climate change.  This situation is a perfect example of the larger debate over climate change– of how political correctness can lead to scientific theory becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Science runs on grant funding.  Every grad student, post-doc, assistant professor, and tenured faculty depends on grants to pay the bills– and to impress the establishment where they are working to offer academic advancement.  To get funding, one must know where the money is– and where it is not.  Asking for funding to show the ABSENCE of climate change is a sure path to poverty– and to being labelled a heretic.

On the other hand, asking for money to show evidence for the emperor’s new clothes will guarantee that the money will flow in.  This creates a systemic bias where only one outcome is expected and published– and negative findings are ignored.  Twenty years ago, everyone knew that breast implants caused autoimmune disorders;  nobody did research to prove the opposite, and if you study anything long enough, you’ll have a few positive findings.  For those who don’t know the rest of the story, after 2 billion dollars were paid out to ‘survivors’ and attorneys, the matter was put to rest– with a huge study that showed very clearly that there was NO actual connection between implants and autoimmune disease.  Science is filled with similar examples.  Climate change is only another.

UPROAR AS BBC MUZZLES CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS

THE BBC was criticised by climate change sceptics yesterday after it emerged that their views will get less coverage because they differ from mainline scientific opinion.

In a report by its governing body, the BBC Trust, the corporation was urged to focus less on opponents of the “majority consensus” in its programmes.

It said coverage should not be tailored to represent a “false balance” of opinion if one side came from a minority group.

The report was partly based on an independent review of coverage by Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London.

Although he found no evidence of bias in BBC output, he suggested where there is a “scientific consensus” it should not hunt out opponents purely to balance the story.

He highlighted climate change as an example along with the controversy over the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine potentially leading to autism.

On climate change, Professor Jones said there had been a “drizzle of criticism of BBC coverage” arising from “a handful of journalists who have taken it upon themselves to keep disbelief alive”.

The report says: “In its early days, two decades ago, there was a genuine scientific debate about the reality of climate change. Now, there is general agreement that warming is a fact even if there remain uncertainties about how fast, and how much, the temperature might rise.”

But critics accused Professor Jones of using the report as a cover to “push the BBC’s green agenda”.

Among them are former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson, who was accused by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington, of making “incorrect” claims in An Appeal To Reason, the peer’s book on climate change.

Lord Lawson, chairman of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the fact that carbon dioxide levels were rising leading to global warming was not under dispute. However, he added, its extent and effect could not be explained by majority scientific opinion alone.

He said: “The BBC is already extremely one-sided on this issue. They have a settled view which is politically correct.

“The idea that because scientific opinion falls largely on one side you can’t have a debate is outrageous. Because there’s a strong majority in basic science doesn’t mean the issue is off the table, yet the BBC says it should be.”

The foundation’s director, Dr Benny Peiser, said the report would lead to biased coverage of climate change and stifle any real debate.

He said: “This is nothing the BBC has not been doing for the past 10 years, however. They are completely biased on the issue of climate change and this is nothing more than an effort to push their green agenda.”

Dr David Whitehouse, the foundation’s editor and a former BBC science correspondent, said the corporation had “lost the plot” when it came to science journalism.

He said the corporation was “grouping sceptics with deniers” which would result in a lack of valid scientific input to its reports.

He said: “A sceptic is not a denier, all good scientists should be sceptics. The BBC has got itself into a complete muddle.

“In seeking to get the science right it has missed the journalism which is about asking awkward questions and shaking the tree.”

But the BBC Trust defended the report. A spokesman said: “The report is not suggesting that climate change sceptics will not have a place on the BBC in future.

“The point Professor Jones makes is that the scientific consensus is that it is caused by human activity. Therefore the BBC’s coverage needs to give less weight to those who oppose this view, and reflect the fact that the debate has moved on to how to deal with climate change.”

In the article below, the climate research center—an oxymoron these days—was exposed for fudging their numbers, to make sea level elevation appear 20% higher than actual.  The researchers argue that the oceans are getting bigger because of shifting continents, and so they should add to the sea level—since if the continents weren’t moving, the level would be higher.

In other words, the sea levels aren’t increasing as much as they say, but if the continents were not shifting, the levels would be higher—so they will just pretend that they are higher.

Very strange logic.  But what would you expect from climate scientists, who used to argue that the planet was warming, until data showed that it isn’t—so they instead argue that the planet is cooling and warming at the same time, which is why we can’t measure it.

The actions of these ‘researchers’ show why political zealots and science don’t mix.  To lefties, the ends always justify the means—so the research doesn’t really matter, since they already know what the planet needs.  Not to mention that writing grants for ‘climate change’ has become the low-hanging fruit in the quest for funding.

I’ve always said that the lefties have a major problem—that copies of Gore’s movie will eventually be as serious as ‘reefer madness’, as people watch him talk about the countries that will be under water—while standing in the countries in the years that they are supposed to be gone.  I wonder—will there be calls for Al to give back the Nobel Prize?  Maybe he can take Obama’s Peace Prize with him, and drop them both off to save the taxpayers the cost for the trip…

The article:

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued — or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters — or about the thickness of a fingernail — every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

“Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring,” said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

“We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger… water volume is expanding,” he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

“There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda,” he said.

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.

“To me… sea level rise is what’s measured against the actual coast,” he told FoxNews.com. “That’s what tells us the impact of rising oceans.”

Taylor agreed.

“Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume.”

In e-mails with FoxNews.com, Nerem indicated that he considered “sea level rise” to be the same thing as the amount of water in the ocean.

“If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger,” Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

“For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny — only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet.”

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases.

“We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That’s not insignificant,” he told FoxNews.com.

By MATT PATTERSON

If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.

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.

Then there’s the IPCC’s earlier prediction in 2007 — which it claimed to have “high confidence” in — that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.

Overall, the IAC slammed 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 critics note “many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges ‘were not adequately considered,’ the InterAcademy Council’s investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report.”

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn’t based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data — but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on 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, “EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus.”
All this comes on top of last year’s revelation of the “Climategate” e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.

Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that “the debate is over” — that the science was “settled.” That claim is now in shreds — though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous “cap and trade” anti-warming bill.

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.

The warming “scientific” community, the Climategate 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.

Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it’s a travesty.

In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists’ reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.

Matt Patterson is editor of Green Watch, a publication of the Capital Research Center .

Don’t you wish we had honest news in the US?  An interesting article from the BBC:

By Pallava Bagla in Delhi

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″. The authors deny the claims.

The Himalayan Glacier: Around for another 300 years

Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and “a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology”.

The Himalayas hold the planet’s largest body of ice outside the polar caps – an estimated 12,000 cubic kilometres of water.

They feed many of the world’s great rivers – the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra – on which hundreds of millions of people depend.

‘Catastrophic rate’

In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

“Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.

It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035″.

“I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future,” says Mr Cogley.

He said the error might also have its origins in a 1999 news report on retreating glaciers in the New Scientist magazine.

The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.

When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the “outer year” for shrinkage of glaciers.

They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.

Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.

Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.

But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed – or ‘unpublished’ – documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.

‘Alarmist’

Recently India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a study on Himalayan glaciers that suggested that they may be not melting as much due to global warming as it is widely feared.

He accused the IPCC of being “alarmist”.

Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as “voodoo science” and said the IPCC was a “sober body” whose work was verified by governments.

But in a joint statement some the world’s leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: “This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology… has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected.”

Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused “some major confusion in the media”.

“Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.

“From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century.”

Pallava Bagla is science editor for New Delhi Television (NDTV) and author of Destination Moon – India’s quest for Moon, Mars and Beyond. 

Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as “voodoo science” and said the IPCC was a “sober body” whose work was verified by governments.

But in a joint statement some the world’s leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: “This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology… has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected.”

Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused “some major confusion in the media”.

“Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.

“From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century.”

Pallava Bagla is science editor for New Delhi Television (NDTV) and author of Destination Moon – India’s quest for Moon, Mars and Beyond.

Today there was a confluence of articles that has occurred in similar fashion since I started the blog and companion web page.  I’ll copy them below to show what I am talking about– basically we have the heaviest snow in years in Spain on the same day that Al Gore is out spewing his crazy rhetoric.  I remember a couple years ago, when Gore gave a major speech in NYC on one of the area’s coldest days in decades. 

The global warming loonies, of course, will say that the cold weather in Barcelona is just one more sign that the earth is warming.   They have created a world that could not have existed without the help of our mainstream media playing along– a world so hot that it is cooling. 

The first article from the UK Telegraph:

Barcelona hit with heaviest snowfall in 25 years

Schools were closed, roads were blocked and power was knocked as Barcelona was hit with its heaviest snowfall in 25 years.

Snowfalls of up to 50 centimetres (20 inches) were forecast for the worst affected areas of the region of Catalonia, prompting the regional government to cancel classes for more than 142,000 students at 476 public schools.

Spain: Warm enough for snow!

Power was lost in homes throughout the region, with energy company Fecsa-Endesa reporting 200,000 clients without electricity, mostly in the province of Girona.

Emergency services workers helped evacuate some 500 passengers who became trapped on trains traveling between Barcelona and Portbou, on the French border, which became stuck due to the lack of power, said regional interior minister Joan Boada.

Thousands of commuters were left scrambling for an alternative way to get home after the blizzard forced the suspension of bus services in Barcelona and the closure of five suburban train lines in the Mediterranean port city.

Barcelona city hall ordered the metro system to stay open all night to help people move around the city.

Traffic on over 60 roads in Catalonia was either prohibited or restricted. Spain’s border with France at La Jonquera was closed because of the snow, leaving some 4,000 trucks stranded, public television TVE reported.

While Barcelona’s El Prat airport was operating normally, 21 flights out of the airport in nearby Girona were cancelled and nine others were diverted to other cities due to the snow and strong winds, airport officials said.

The second article:

Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric

By Jeff Jacoby

THE CASE for global-warming alarmism is melting faster than those mythical disappearing Himalayan glaciers, but Al Gore isn’t backing down.

In a long op-ed piece for The New York Times the other day, Gore cranked up the doomsday rhetoric. Human beings, he warned, “face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.’’ His 1,900-word essay made no mention of his financial interest in promoting such measures – Gore has invested heavily in carbon-offset markets, electric vehicles, and other ventures that would profit handsomely from legislation curbing the use of fossil fuels, and is reportedly poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.’’ However, he did mention “global-warming pollution’’ no fewer than four times, declaring that “our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation’’ if we don’t move decisively to reduce it.

By “global-warming pollution,’’ Gore means carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a “pollutant’’ in roughly the way oxygen and water are pollutants: Human existence would be impossible without them. CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, the process that sustains plant life and generates the oxygen that human beings and animals inhale. Far from polluting the world, carbon dioxide enriches it. Higher levels of CO2 are associated with larger crop yields, increased forest growth, and longer growing seasons – in short, with a greener planet.

Of course carbon dioxide also contributes to the greenhouse effect that keeps the earth warm. But the vast majority of atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally, and it is far from clear that the carbon dioxide contributed by human industry has a significant impact on the world’s climate.

On the other hand, it is quite clear that the economic and agricultural activity responsible for that anthropogenic CO2 has been enormously beneficial to myriads of men, women, and children. In just the last two decades, life expectancy in developing nations has climbed appreciably and infant mortality has fallen. Hundreds of millions of Indian and Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty. Whatever else might be said about carbon dioxide, it has helped make possible a dramatic increase in the quality of many human lives.

But there is no awareness of such tradeoffs in Gore’s latest screed. He brushes aside as unimportant the recently exposed blunders in the 2007 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These include claims that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, that global warming could slash African crop yields by 50 percent, and that 55 percent of the Netherlands – more than twice the correct amount – is below sea level.

Gore seems equally untroubled by Climategate, the scandal involving researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, who apparently schemed to manipulate temperature data, to prevent their critics from being published in peer-reviewed journals, and to destroy records and calculations to keep climate skeptics from double-checking them.

Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s errors and the Climatic Research Unit scandal have triggered major investigations, and opinion polls show a falloff in the percentage of the public that believes either global warming is cause for serious concern or that scientists see eye to eye on the issue. Yet Gore insists, against all evidence, that “the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.’’

To climate alarmists like Gore, everything proves their point. For years they argued that global warming would mean a decline in snow cover and shorter ski seasons. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’’ one climate scientist lamented to reporters in 2000. The IPCC itself was clear that climate change was resulting in more rain and less snow.

Undaunted, Gore now claims that the blizzards that have walloped the Northeast in recent weeks are also proof of global warming. “Climate change causes more frequent and severe snowstorms,’’ he posted on his blog last month.

Gore is a True Believer; his climate hyperbole is less a matter of science than of faith. In almost messianic terms, he urges Congress to sharply restrain Americans’ access to energy. “What is at stake,’’ he writes, “is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.’’

But while Gore prays for redemption, the pews in the Church of Climate Catastrophe are gradually emptying. The public’s skeptical common sense, it turns out, is pretty robust. Just like those Himalayan glaciers.

I have been too busy lately to do my part to keep readers entertained, and I am sorry for that. There is so much nonsense in the world lately that it is getting more and more difficult deciding where to start! There have been a number of events consistent with the things I have written about on my companion web site ’Warmal Globing’… for example, I write on one of the pages about the way science works, or more importantly the way scientific funding works. As a former scientist and former grant applicant, I know that one must apply for the right things if one is to get funded. The applicant ALWAYS looks at who is funding the grant, and what that agency ‘wants’ to find. Yes, the grants always come with wording like ‘unrestricted funding’, but all scientists know the ‘nudge nudge wink wink’ behind that statement! And sure enough– we recently found that a number of very respected scientists have engaged in ‘unscientific’ behavior by covering up or distoring data, hiding messages that admit to doubts caused by the REAL findings– the findings that they can’t report, for fear of losing the golden goose that is global warming. Just think about it– can you imagine how much money will be lost by so many people, if global warming turns out to be a crock?! And it is a crock, of course. And eventually the truth will come out, because as much as Al Gore wants it to happen, the low-lying areas of the world will not be inundated with the floods– beyond the floods that they have ALWAYS been inundated by.

Which brings up another point that is also on my web site… the global warming zealots get to blame everything on ‘warming’! We recently had a cold spell and nasty snowstorm across the southeast US– in fact, it shut DC down for several days, just as they were getting ready to pass more carbon taxes ‘to stimulate the economy’ (you truly cannot make this stuff up). One of the Kennedy clan had just penned an op-ed about the good old days when it snowed so much more…. suggesting that it snows less now because of ‘global warming’. BTW, even the smart people out there who are idiots about global warming will admit that what they refer to as the current ‘climate change disaster’ has nothing to do with the snow that a Kennedy is writing about– that all of the local phenomena people tend to point to as they nod their heads in reality have nothing to do with ‘climate change’. But as he pens this piece, this massive snowstorm hits. But what does the mainstream media do? They BLAME GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE SNOW!!! They truly get it both ways– because in their odd world, warming causes cooling. Yes, I understand what they are saying- that the contrast in temps and the increased ‘thermal energy’ somehow causes storms that include snow and ice….. but it is not reasonable for them to claim that warming causes less snowstorms (ala Kennedy) and at the same time say that the snow is FROM the warming. And besides– also on my web site there is a copy of the Newsweek article from the 1970′s about the coming disaster of global cooling, and in that article the same scientists who are cited now were saying that the Earth would have increased glaciers and tornados and snowstorms, all from ‘global cooling’.

The other thing that happened just recently was that another leading global warming alarmist announced ‘never mind’, admitting that the Earth’s temp has not changed significantly in over 15 years.  Never mind.  Think about all the money wasted over the last few years, and the raised taxes, the increased government control, the sagging economy, the disastrous election of Democrats–  all over something that doesn’t exist.  Can we sue Al Gore?  Maybe he and Obama can travel to Stockholm together and both give their silly awards back at the same time!  You know what?  They are both so shameless that they would each give a speech about why it is OK flying separately, now that ‘they were right all along that the Earth wasn’t warming’.  And people would actually believe them, and some would credit them for finding out that global warming is a myth.

Another realist’s thoughts on the issue of global warming were sent my way.  Here is the link:  75 reasons to be skeptical of global warming

I used to be quite Left in my thinking.  My views changed midway through the Clinton Presidency when I could no longer overlook the hypocrisy of my position.  People wedded to liberalism avoid the truth like subway-dwellers avoid the glare of bright sunlight, but at some point the light is bright enough to shine through the thickest sunglasses!  I am often surprised at how much hypocrisy the Left can ‘overlook;’ in the Clinton era a liberal needed only a bit of hubris to ignore the media double-standards, but now huge distortions of logic on the level of delusional thought are required in order to maintain the liberal argument!  As I try to understand how an entire country can fall victim to ‘folie a deux’,  I find order by dividing the delusional Left into two groups– the ‘low insight Left’ and ‘high insight Left.’   I will use a practical example to explain the difference.

Obama promised that HIS administration would be much more open than the Bush administration.  He said that all bills winding through Congress toward his desk would be debated and discussed openly on C-span (something that was already happening under Bush, by the way, but that has largely disappeared under the Democratic ownership of the government).  Obama promised there would be no back-door sessions, no private meetings with lobbyists, no kickbacks or bribes, and that every new piece of legislation would be published for at least 5 days on the internet for all citizens with a computer to see and review.  He promised to seek bipartisanship and to listen to the ‘middle’ of the country.  Of course anyone with even half a mind knows what has INSTEAD happened  (and if you don’t already know all of this, you must have quite a blind spot!!).  We can look at the ‘stimulus’ bill– a piece of legislation that spent more money than 99% of the bills that ever pass through the legislature.  Obama sent it to Congress demanding passage, without allowing time for even Congress or the Senate to review the bill– let alone the American people!  There was no bipartisanship, and no allowing for debate.  Anyone from private industry who stood in the way was called out publicly by the President in a way that I have not witnessed during my 50 years—and in a way I hope I never have to see again.  Obama literally provoked death threats against bankers and company executives—openly, without complaint by the media!  Given the way it was thrown together, it is not surprising that studies of the ‘Stimulus’ Bill show that most of the money goes to districts where Democrats hold power.  Even worse, more money goes to wealthy Congressional districts than to poor districts!  Secret meetings with lobbyists were not disclosed, and that the press did not asked about them.  The process was more secretive than ever before– forget ‘more open!’  The result was a mess;  pay-offs to liberal groups and spending that occurs years after the recession ends, rather than targeted stimulus.   And not surprisingly we have had no job creation beyond what happens after every recession– perhaps even lower job production from the fear of higher taxes for businesses instilled by Obama spending a trillion extra dollars.  It is one thing to avoid trimming government too far during a recession, but another thing to waste of massive sums of money, resulting in deficits four times higher than the worst deficits under Bush (Obama also promised to trim the ‘immoral’ Bush deficits, by the way). 

The low-insight Left can be divided again into ‘true believers’ and ‘simple idiots.’  The true believers WANT to tell the truth, and really mean it when they say they want things to be truthful and open– but they believe so strongly in their liberal principles that things that aren’t liberal causes don’t ‘count’.  They don’t consider it lying; they think that keeping our own money instead of paying it to the government is a selfish, silly idea– and so fair and open debate doesn’t need to include that opinion.  Similarly, they believe that the Earth is going to be destroyed, so the climate debate doesn’t need to be ‘fair’– in fact, they think that evil businesses fight dirty, so they CAN’T be fair in return– that NO serious, ‘good’ person would even EXPECT fairness when dealing with evil business people.  The minds of true believers simply dismiss opinions that differ from what THEY believe to be true, but still consider themselves open, honest and fair, even if every counter opinion is suppressed—because the counter opinions are not ‘valid’ enough to count.  If a respected scientist makes a discovery that causes his/her opinion to change to the counter-argument, the true believer actually believes that the person was paid off or became mentally ill– and so the ideas don’t deserve ‘fair and open’ expression.  The other half of the low-insight group– the idiots– believe whatever they hear without question, as long as the messenger fits a certain image.  Obama was the perfect messenger to appeal to this group, and they continue to buy into him hook, line, and sinker.  Emphasis on sinker.

The high-insight Left can also be further divided into the ‘manipulators for a cause’ and the power-hungry egomaniacs.  Rahm Emanuel is probably in the first group, and I would put some of Hollywood into this category— at least the few Hollywood and media types who have a decent education.  These people know they are being hypocritical, but justify their hypocrisy by believing that the ends justify the means.  Tom Daschl’s book about reforming health care displays this type of thinking very clearly.  The reform is needed, so lying, cheating, breaking promises, and double-speak are all OK as long as they lead toward the correct goal.  They cannot trust leaving such complicated decisions in the hands of regular people, because they consider regular people to be a bunch of fools that they push this way and that way around election time.  Their contempt for average Americans was obvious during the TEA Parties, when Nancy Pelosi literally cried at the thought of meeting up with those unwashed masses.  The insight of this group of liberals is somewhat limited, as they cannot see the self-righteousness that their position requires.  They see people as good or bad depending only on party affiliations.  When someone from the Right gets into trouble, these liberals scream from rooftops about hypocrisy.  But when someone on the Left does something far worse, the transgression is a ‘fluke’– devoid of any meaning or importance.  Packwood, to these liberals, was a ‘serial groper’.  Clinton on the other hand was ‘victimized by a right-wing conspiracy’.  Go figure!

Finally, there are the high-insight liberals who don’t even care about the cause; they only care about the power that the cause can bring.  We know that Obama is in this group because of his efforts to distort the meaning of words and phrases to try to look good, without any effort to really DO good.  Measures to prevent privacy while voting about unions are called ‘Free Choice Acts.’  Pay-offs for favors from unions are called ‘stimulus acts.’  Government takeover of health care is called ‘insurance reform’ or ‘healthcare reform’, depending on the polls.  Worst of all are the outright lies.  Obama is not an idiot, so he surely knows that the passage of his health care bill will raise insurance premiums and eventually destroy the insurance industry—and the competition that it brings.  Obama knows that the bill cuts Medicare spending, and he knows that it will reduce the freedom to choose one’s own doctor.  But his speeches claim the exact opposite!  He claimed that the bill will LOWER premiums (watch yours and see), PROTECT Medicare (watch that as well), and INCREASE choice (good luck!).  Everybody watching the game knows by now that Obama couldn’t care less about the content of health care legislation– he just wants a win.  He doesn’t care that all of his promises will be untrue, as long as people keep believing him.  I used to put him in the first group of high-insight liberals, thinking he was saving up his ‘honesty’ for something important.  Before that I even gave him credit as a ‘true believer.’  But we have seen him lie about pretty much every issue!  There are no more issues to ‘save up for.’  He does not care about the future of the planet, the future of the economy, or the future of health care in America.  He just wants his applause.  He goes to the Middle East and bends over, in order to get a roomful of people to stand up and applaud him– even if there are others in the basement of the same building working to destroy us.   Obama’s lies are too complete to be accidental.  He has become utterly reliable in what he says, as long as you just substitute the opposite.  If he says ‘I will cut spending,’ you know that he is planning on a major spending increase, and is simply preparing for the response. He uses the forgetfulness and ignorance of the American people to avoid being found out– and members of the press are true believers, so they don’t call him on it.  Obama could give a speech claiming that the sun rises in the West every morning, and the press would either ignore the comment or print it as true, boycotting any stories that claim the opposite.

Many of the climate types are in this group, by the way.  How else do you explain people like Al Gore living with Carbon footprints the size of Rhode Island, while selling books and movies about cutting back?  I chuckled at the stories about the shortage of limos in Copenhagen–  they were shipping limos in from thousands of miles away, rather than forcing attendees at the climate summit to drive hybrids– or take the bus!!  Many scientists have hopped onto this gravy-train for years, knowing that any research proposal with ‘warming’ in the title is more likely to win support than a proposal seeking only the truth.  I put Soros in this latter group as well.  Streisand and Huffington are probably true believers or simple idiots.  Pelosi is probably in the low-insight group somewhere;  I used to thing she was smarter, but after watching the ‘deer in the headlights’ look in response to the Town Hall meetings and TEA parties, I have to assume that the insight isn’t there.

With all of that as a background, some of the people who are trying to follow the truth have come to the opinion that the climate nonsense is a front for something else– namely for control.  This was certainly in evidence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit—people talking about seizing global power that made Obama’s selfish desires seem amateurish in comparison!  I supposed the ‘one global government’ folks have their ‘true believers’ as well– those who picture a world ruled by one leader, with all people believing together in the same, noble goals.  They are the same people who hate the US, and want us to pony up trillions of dollars for ‘past carbon sins’—ignoring the amazing advances in technology and medicine that came from our enviable Capitalist system, and that raised the standard of living for every person on Earth.  But take away the true believers– the peace fairies and blind idealists– and you have a frightening group of people who are to the current world, as Hitler was to Europe.

We are lucky that the modern Left as a whole lack the intelligence and insight to go very far;  the most insightful are also the most power-hungry, preventing any meaningful collaboration as each new leader is eaten by the others who want to sit on the throne.  But the power-driven efforts of the insightful Left combined with the sheer mass of ‘useful idiots’ can easily cause damage to our economy that will take decades to repair.  We are already at a point where half of the population pays no Federal income tax, opening the door to confiscatory tax policies.  It would be asking too much for a large number of idiots to recognize the hypocrisy of the President who they elected.  But the rest of us should at least keep OUR eyes open!  Please join me at my blog, where I do my best to read between the lines of the weakest and most secretive government to rule our country in decades. 

I’m tired of writing– you can read more about this issue in an article by a gentleman named Monckton, a member of the British Parliament, using the link below.

British Peer:  Copenhagen Summit Has Established A World Government;  “Institutional framework” paves the way for unelected international bureaucracy

For the past few years the US news media have been silent as leading climate scientists walked away from the wild claims for weather catastrophes from global warming.  The press said nothing in response to the drop-off in hurricane activity, just as the fear-mongers on the left predicted wave on wave of Katrinas, destroying the Eastern US.  Now we have the findings that the few scientists who have remained outspoken about climate change have some ‘splaining to do– as we now know that they fudged the data to create impressions that were not true, and hiding studies that showed that the earth has been cooling for the past decade.

I will just site a few of them, and the reader can find them and give credit where it is due.

From ‘The Hill’:     Rep. Issa: Obama’s refusal to investigate ‘Climategate’ emails is ‘unconscionable’

From the Media Research Center:  Day Fourteen and Counting

From Politiken Denmark, the quote:   The Speaker of the Danish Parliament has issued a damning criticism of the climate debate, saying politicians gullibly turn theories into facts. (from the article Climate debate derailed?)

I can’t imagine any better argument for reading only the ‘foreign press’.  Why read press that is censored, when you can get the real story by turning on your computer?