A new Senate report on global warming shattered the myth of ‘scientific consensus’ about anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, after hearing from more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries.
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.
The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.
Not too long ago, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Rahendar Pachuari, joked that there were perhaps ‘ a dozen’ skeptical scientists left in the world on the subject of climate change.
Al Gore claims a ‘universal scientific consensus’ exists that blames human activity for what he says will be catastrophic climate changes over the next fifty years.
Like Pachuari, Gore has publicly equated the global warming skeptics among the scientific community with members ‘of the Flat Earth Society.’
Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who ‘believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona’.
A new minority Senate report on global warming shattered the myth of ‘scientific consensus’ about anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, after hearing from more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, views that stand in stark contrast to those of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Indeed, many of the same scientists who contributed to the Senate report were themselves either current or former members of the UN’s IPCC ‘consensus’ opinion.
The Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007.
Many of the scientists featured in the report testified that many of their colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.
This is a long list, but I am going to include it because of its sheer size. The dissenting scientists listed are far from members of the “Flat Earth Society”. Instead, they are members of:
Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
Told you it was a long list!
The most comprehensive definition I could find for “consensus” is this:
“General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.”
The Senate report flatly contradicts the solemn pronouncements of the mainstream media, as well, which probably explains why it isn’t exactly a “Breaking News” headline.
One would think that the opposition of so many scientists, especially given the prestige of the institutions they represent, might cause somebody to rush for a dictionary to look up the word ‘consensus’ but no such luck.
The media has been been universal in its, (forgive me) consensus opinion about scientific consensus on global warming.
“The scientific debate is over. We’re done. [Global warming skeptics] are “bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.” (Miles O’Brien, CNN July 23, 2007)
“There are only a “handful of skeptics” to man-made global warming fears.” (Washington Post, May 23, 2007)
“After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (ABC’s Bill Blakemore, August 30, 2006)
‘Science’ is supposed to be, well, scientific, which therefore suggests there is empirical evidence of sufficient weight to form a scientific ‘consensus’ — which would also then mean the end of the debate.
But 17,000 top scientists signed a letter expressing the contrary view last year. Four hundred scientists expressed their opposition before the UN Senate.
The debate continues to rage among scientists, even as Al Gore, the UNIPPC, the mainstream media and the Nobel Peace Prize Selection Committee assure us that the science is ‘settled.’
All through the 1990’s new climate models and new projections, each more terrifying than the one before, resulted in an avalanche of grant money.
Governments used their findings as fuel to run various pet energy projects, justify spending, (or the lack thereof) and provide governments with a ‘boogey-man’ to scare their constituencies with.
This isn’t conspiracy theory — it’s conspiracy fact. The scientists getting all the grant money are in ‘consensus’ — those outside the gravy train say its all baloney.
But . . . they are all looking at the same statistics!
Somebody is conspiring with somebody, here.
But for there to be a conspiracy, there must also be a motive. What is the motive for advancing the theory of man-made global warming?
Let’s connect the dots. The UN is dependent on member governments, (particularly the US) for its operations budget. That makes the UN, at least marginally, accountable to those governments.
If Congress, for example, were to cut off UN funding, it would lose both its headquarters and a quarter of its budget.
The ability to impose taxes on difficult governments, (such as the USA) turns that equation on its head, making the member governments accountable to the UN — in essence, handing the United Nations absolute sovereign power.
Absolute global power is a pretty convincing motive.
And as you go down the line, the motive, power, remains pretty static. Global warming turned Al Gore from a failed national politician into a global political superstar.
Global warming turned Dr. Heidi Cullen from a weathergirl on the Weather Channel into a global scientific authority with such prestige that her call to revoke the credentials of any meteorologist who didn’t agree with her made headlines worldwide.
Global warming offers something for everybody: power, prestige, money, control, glory . . . it reads like a Biblical list of Satan’s five ‘I wills’.
Global warming is the UN’s Declaration of Independence — if it can manage to pull off the greatest fascist power-grab in the history of the world.
Global warming has become the politician’s refuge of last resort, a sort of whipping boy that can be trotted out and blamed for anything from raising taxes to exonerating genocide.
(Witness Ban Ki Moon’s pathetic attempt to divert the blame for the genocide in Darfur away from the Islamic government in Khartoum — which might inflame the Islamic world mid-massacre — and the UN’s inaction, by claiming the conflict is the result of global warming.)
The myth of global warming runs the gamut of Biblical signs for the last days.