Select Page



Leaked Emails Snag Global-Warming Alarmists: 'Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling'

While NASA climate alarmist James Hansen insists record summer heat and drought are caused by man-made global warming, leaked internal emails from just three summers ago reveal that he and his colleagues expressed alarm that the planet was inexplicably cooling.

Hansen, often called the “godfather of global warming,” asserted earlier this month that blistering heat across the United States is so rare that it can’t be anything but the man-made global warming he has been warning about for decades.

“This is not some scientific theory,” he told the Associated Press. “We are now experiencing scientific fact.”

But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”

They lamented that Mother Nature was not cooperating with their predictions that global temperatures would smash heat records last decade. They blamed their miscalculation on sulfate emission trajectories and revised their forecast to show a cooling trend lasting until 2020.

Then, they predicted, global warming would return with a vengeance.

In an Oct. 12, 2009, email to Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, fellow warming alarmist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., asked, “Where the heck is global warming?”

“We have been asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record,” he added. “The Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday[sic] and then played last night in below freezing weather.”

Then Trenberth dropped a bombshell: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

He ended by admitting the global warming “data are surely wrong.”

“Our observing system is inadequate,” he wrote.

The leaked emails were obtained from the computer server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. Some of the scientists there were copied in the emails between Trenberth and Hansen.

Critics say the hacked messages show that climatologists in the U.S. and U.K. have engaged in a conspiracy to manufacture a case that global warming is occurring due to auto and factory and other emissions related to human activities.

Critics say Hansen, who has called for a worldwide tax on carbon emissions and advocated a ban on the construction of coal-fired power plants, is an activist with a political agenda.

Ignoring the record-breaking 2009 cooling period, Hansen recently argued that the evidence for human-made global warming is “overwhelming.”

“We can say with high confidence that such extreme anomalies would not have occurred in the absence of global warming,” he said.

Left unexplained, however, is the 2009 cooling anomaly.

Trenberth, for his part, later explained that while most of the planet experienced record cooling that year, “there were exceptional conditions in Southern Australia,” where temperatures rose.

He now says the record heat wave is proof of “global warming from the human influences on climate.”

“This is a view of the future,” Trenberth warned last month in a PBS interview. “So watch out.”

His analysis, however, ignores cool spots such as the Pacific Northwest, where Washington and Alaska have experienced the coldest spring and summer on record.









Exclusive Report: Climate Change Can Kicked Down the Road

The United Nations finally concluded its Climate Change meeting in Durban, South Africa at about 3:30 a.m. Sunday, a day and a half late. Delegates did not create a new treaty to legally bind nations to limit greenhouse gas emissions to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Nor did they approve a global tax scheme to fill the Green Climate Fund. Nonetheless, developing (poor) nations, called G-77+China, took home the spoils because some developed (rich) nations voluntarily extended their commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and voluntarily granted start-up funds to the Green Climate Fund.

… The G-77+China negotiated forcefully to continue the Kyoto Protocol so that they can continue to profit from mostly European nations (the U.S. Senate has not ratified the KP) that offset their greenhouse gas emissions by moving industries to developing nations, primarily to India and China.

India led the G-77+China efforts calling "equity" the "centerpiece of the climate change debate." Jayanthi Natarajan, the Indian minister of environment and forests, added that her country would "never be intimidated by threats," expressing her disapproval of the notion that ALL nations be part of a new binding treaty.

China was a bold supporter of the G-77+China position that only rich nations be legally bound by greenhouse gas emissions limits. When the EU proposed language to put every country under equally binding limits, the Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua waved his arms and yelled, "We are doing whatever we should do. We are doing things you are not doing. What qualifies you to say things like this?"

Even language calling for "a protocol, another legal instrument, or a legal outcome" was replaced with, "an agreed outcome with legal force," to accommodate the G-77+China.

… Next year's Climate Change meeting in Qatar is to build on these commitments, preceded by a meeting called Rio+20 in June 2012, the UN Sustainable Development Conference. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has high hopes for Rio+20, stating, "We hope to chart a new path for development — sustainable development…. You know the threats as well as I: climate change, environmental destruction, growing scarcities of essential resources — water, food, energy, the clean air we breathe…. We cannot afford to fight over religion, race, or any of the other categories that separate us."

The global economic crisis worked in the favor of most Americans who oppose new taxes, global or otherwise. Americans who support free markets and clean dependable energy, and oppose the economically destructive and environmentally ineffective legally binding greenhouse gas emissions limits, won a temporary stay on a new treaty and a new global tax.

We will see what happens at Rio+20 next June and in Qatar next December.
[Cathie Adams, December 12, 2011]


ClimateGate 2.0: 5,000 New Emails Confirm Pattern of Deception and Collusion by Alarmists – Newsbusters, 22 Nov 11

What these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.

Insurance industry helped generate “greatest environmental scare success in history” by Lawrence Solomon – National Post

Global warming runs out of gas by Rex Murphy – National Post
Gore’s meltdown might just be the moment when the people of the planet saw the carney show for what it was.

Arctic Ice Not Disappearing After All – Wesley J. Smith
From the BBC story: Writing in the journal Science, a scientific team found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism – Yahoo News
The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted

The moral climate by Peter Foster – National Post
Lord Andrew Turnbull, a former head of the British Civil Service, has become profoundly concerned about the corruption of climate science by moralism. “What is profoundly shocking is the way large parts of the scientific community have allowed themselves to be co-opted into this movement.”

The left’s climate moralism by Peter Foster – National Post
What Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit” of Marxist utopian rationalism came crashing with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but then made a comeback through the claim that carbon dioxide-spewing industrial capitalism was threatening life on Earth….the “Climategate 2” emails reveal that there was in fact a co-ordinated effort by the BBC and the University of East Anglia to marginalize skeptics

CERN Scientists Gagged On ‘Politically Incorrect’ Global Warming Data – Prison planet
Despite the sun’s obvious and significant impact on climate change, the IPCC refuses to include cosmic ray penetration as a factor in temperature change.
…the establishment is keen to use the threat of overpopulation, which amounts to little more than unscientific quackery

Federal Wildlife Biologist Investigated for Scientific Misconduct in Global Warming Debate By BECKY BOHRER, Associated Press

[For much, much more on this subject type “climate change”, Global warming” and environmental extremism” into the LifeSiteNews search – Also, see RELATED STORIES underneath this page) —]







U.N. Climate Models Flawed – Grossly Exaggerate Warming Effect

Steven W. Mosher: The supposed threat of man-made Global Warming is used to justify population control programs. But a new study suggests that the threat is virtually non-existent.

We have all heard, ad nauseum, about the so-called “greenhouse effect.” Even little children can tell you how the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat by increasing humidity and thickening the cloud layer.

Except that it doesn't — at least to the degree that the U.N climate models have been programmed to “believe.”

Instead, as soon as the climate begins to warm, the Earth's atmosphere begins releasing much of this energy into space.

How do we know this?

Two University of Alabama scientists, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Danny Braswell, compared eleven years of data from the real world with U.N. climate model predictions — and found the models grossly flawed. The study, rather pointedly called On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance, appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, Remote Sensing, in late July. (Remote Sensing. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.)

As Dr. Spencer stated in a press release, “The [NASA Terra] satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

This new study supports earlier National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA data showing that humidity and cloud cover did not increase the way that the flawed U.N. computer models predicted.

James M. Taylor, managing editor of the Environment & Climate News, also notes that “The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.”

This may sound to some like an abstract question of scientific research. It is not. There are many, including the President's science czar, who would like to make fundamental changes in our way of life — even dictating how many children we can have — in order to combat the threat of “man-made global warming.”

To such anti-people ideologues we may add the profiteers. The United Nations, joined by dozens of nonprofits, has literally raised billions of dollars by frightening both politicians and ordinary people with the specter of the planet overheating. It is safe to say that there are thousands of people who, one way or another, profit from climate alarmism.

In a sane world, the Spencer-Braswell study should sound the death knell for the theory that, by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are making the planet unlivable.

Unfortunately, radical environmentalist and population control groups are largely immune to facts. For example, they continue to propagate the myth of overpopulation even as the populations of country after country age and die. Why should the myth of man-made global warming be any different?

Then, too, the Global Warming establishment has built up considerable forward momentum by this point. Movements with millions of adherents and billions of dollars in resources simply do not go quietly into their graves.

Still, while Global Warming alarmists like Al Gore continue to hyperventilate over the supposed danger of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and call for increased funding for abortion and fertility reduction programs — the rest of us can breathe easier.

It's becoming abundantly clea

r that the only thing “man-made” about Global Warming is the hoax itself.

[PRI Weekly Briefing, 16 August 2011, Steven W. Mosher, M.S. Oceanography, M.A. East Asian Studies, M.A. Anthropology, is the President of the Population Research Institute and has a research interest in historical climate change.]








[for your reading pleasure… not necessarily the opinion of the editor of this website]

The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory
By Mark Musser

One of the primary pioneering theorists on apocalyptic global warming is Guenther Schwab (1902-2006), an Austrian Nazi.[i]  In 1958, Schwab wrote a fictional novel built off of Goethe's (1749-1832) Faustian religious play entitled "Dance with the Devil." 

While a few scientists since the late 1800's had contemplated the possibility of minor global warming coming from industrial pollution, Schwab used Goethe's dramatic approach to convert the theory into an apocalyptic crisis.  The book outlines many looming environmental emergencies, including anthropogenic global warming.  Guenther Schwab's very popular novel was an apocalyptic game changer.  By the early 1970's, it had been translated into several languages and had sold over a million copies.

At one point in his novel, Schwab opines on the fragile relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.   Assuming the planet has only about 100 years remaining, Schwab frets over the continuing rise of carbon dioxide that "will absorb and hold fast the warmth given out by the earth.  This will cause the climate to become milder and the Polar ice will begin to thaw.  As a result, there will be a rise in the level of the ocean and whole continents will be flooded."

Schwab had been a strong nature lover since boyhood, and by the 1920's he became very active in the emerging environmental movement in Austria. 

Later, he joined the Nazi Party.  While this may sound odd to many who have bought into the Marxian propaganda over the years that the Nazis were right wing capitalistic extremists, greens who signed up for the Nazi Party were actually very typical of the day. 

The most widely represented group of people in the Nazi Party was the greens, and Guenther Schwab was just one of among many.  The greens' interest in lonely places found a solitary niche in the singleness of Adolf Hitler, who ruled the Third Reich from his spectacular mountain compound, high in the Bavarian Alps called the Berghof.  In English, this could easily be translated as Mountain Home, Bavaria.

After the war in the 1950's, Guenther Schwab's brand of environmentalism also played a fundamental role in the development of the green anti-nuclear movement in West Germany. 

The dropping of the atom bomb and the nuclear fallout of the Cold War helped to globalize the greens into an apocalyptic 'peace' movement with Guenther Schwab being one of its original spokesmen. 

The unprecedented destruction in Germany brought on by industrialized warfare never before seen in the history of the world only served to radicalize the German greens into an apocalyptic movement.   Their hatred toward global capitalism became even more vitriolic precisely because the capitalists were now in charge of a dangerous nuclear arsenal that threatened the entire planet.

Later, Guenther Schwab joined the advisory panel of "The Society of Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and Behavior Research."  Schwab was especially concerned with the burgeoning population explosion of the Third World that he was sure would eventually overrun Europe. 

By advocating modern racial science based on genetics, Schwab believed that the population bomb, together with its associated environmental degradation, could be averted. 

Here, Schwab shows his basic commitment to the Nazi SS doctrine of 'blood and soil' — an explosive concoction of eugenics and environmentalism loaded with eco-imperialistic ambitions that had devastating consequences on the Eastern Front in World War II. 

The success of Schwab's book helped him to establish an international environmental organization called "The World League for the Defense of Life." 

Not surprisingly, Werner Haverbeck, former Hitler Youth member and Nazi environmental leader of the Reich's League for Folk National Character and Landscape, later became the chairman of Schwab's organization.  In 1973, Haverbeck blamed the environmental crisis in Germany on American capitalism.  It was an unnatural colonial import that had infected Germany like a deadly foreign body.

Both Schwab's organization and Haverbeck were also instrumental in establishing the German Green Party in 1980.  Such embarrassing facts were later managed with a little housecleaning and lots of cosmetics, which was further buoyed by characterizing such greens as extreme 'right wing' ecologists — a counterintuitive label that continues to misdirect and plague all environmental studies of the Third Reich.  Worst of all is that Haverbeck's wife is also a Holocaust denier.

Long before Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," green Nazi Guenther Schwab played a large role in catalyzing the frightening theory of global warming.  With no small thanks to Schwab, the Great Tribulation of Global Warming was ushered into the modern consciousness behind the collapse of the Millennial 1,000 year Third Reich.  There is therefore a swastika in the German woods that needs to be closely watched here.

Mark Musser is the author of "Nazi Oaks: The Green Sacrificial Offering of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust"

[i] Gert Gröning, Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, Stiftung Naturschutzgeschichte, Naturschutz und Demokratie!?: Dokumentation der Beiträge zur Veranstaltung der Stiftung Naturschutzgeschichte und des Zentrums für Gartenkunst und Landschaftsarchitektur (CGL) der Leibniz Universität Hannover in Kooperation mit dem Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Gestaltung (GTG) der Universität der Künste Berlin, Martin Meidenbauer Verlag, 2006, p. 113.

Find many imbedded links in original article at: ; February 15, 2011]




Eminent Geophysicist Rejects Global Warming Theory, Says World on Verge of ‘Mini Ice Age’

An eminent Mexican geophysicist says that despite predictions of global warming based on computer models, the world may be on the verge of an eighty-year cold period similar to the “little ice age” experienced by Europe from 1300 to 1800 A.D..

Víctor Manuel Velasco, of the Univers

ity of Mexico’s Institute of Geophysics, says that recent winter conditions are similar to those of the “little ice age”, and in particular the “Maunder Minimum,” a period during which sunspot activity dropped significantly.  He also notes that the Earth is in a similar position today in relation to the rest of the solar system, a fact which he regards as significant for climate.

“We are talking about the period between 1645 and 1715, which is known as the Maunder Minimum, a period in which the sunspots practically disappeared from the surface of the sun, and in which our planet occupied a position similar to which it has today, with respect to the center of gravity of our [solar] system.” Velasco said in an interview published by the university.

Velasco dismissed computer models that are used to predict global warming as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, noting that “today we are experiencing a scientific revolution in which on one side there are are supercomputers and on the other, human intelligence.  Only human beings create knowledge and science, and those who bet on computers are making an erroneous diagnosis.”

“It will be nature that demonstrates which theory is the correct one.  However, the Earth is getting colder,” he added.

Although sunspot activity has been higher in recent decades, which has correlated with higher global temperatures, it has recently shown signs of dropping. The year 2009 marked a particularly low point in the 11-year sunspot cycle, representing the “deepest solar minimum in nearly a century” according to NASA.

Velasco says that he has been studying the relationship between solar activity and climate since 2002, and “our observations led us to predict, in 2008, that the climate would begin to grow colder around 2010, and nature is beginning to demonstrate if the prediction was right or not.”

The geophysicist believes that a “mini ice age” began in 2010 which will last between 60 and 80 years, and says that “there does not exist a scientific consensus regarding the influence and responsibility of man in global warming,” according to a University of Mexico press release describing his views.

Velasco is one of many scientists who question the conclusions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a political body which has been the primary force behind the promotion of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis.

The theory is a favorite of organizations seeking to justify population control measures such as abortion, contraception, and sterilization.

Visit link for charts… [18 Feb 2011, M.C. Hoffman, MEXICO CITY,]





Serious Blow to ‘Global Warming’ – Study: Many Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing or Stable
A new study published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience has concluded that the claimed melting of the Himalayan glaciers, trumpeted by the United Nations as “proof” for catastrophic global warming, does not match the evidence. Instead, the researchers found that many glaciers in the Himalayas are expanding or stable.

Noting that their study corrects “erroneous statements in the fourth report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” the authors say that their results show “that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change.”

Rajendra K. Pachauri, head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), famously claimed in the IPPC’s fourth assessment report in 2007 that the probability of the Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high,” a claim rejected at the time by India’s leading glaciologist, Dr. Vijay Raina.  Pachuari responded by calling Raina a practitioner of “voodoo science.”

In January of 2010 the IPPC admitted that the claim about the Himalayas melting was was not based on any peer-reviewed scientific study, but rather an interview by climate scientist Syed Hasnain with the left-wing magazine New Scientist. The organization publicly apologized for the error, but Pachauri continued to assert that the Himalayan glaciers were melting at a “rapid rate,” according to Britain’s Telegraph newspaper.

However, the new study by Dirk Scherler, Bodo Bookhagen, and Manfred R. Strecker of the Universities of Potsdam and California at Santa Barbara, indicates that there are “strong spatial variations in glacier behavior” in the Himalayas.

“More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts,” the authors write, adding that “In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.”

The image of melting glaciers in the Himalayas has been called one of the two principal “icons” of global warming alarmism, along with polar bears, who have been declared a “threatened” species despite the fact that their numbers are growing.  Defenders of the theory of catastrophic global warming claim that within 20-40 years the polar bears could be extinct due to higher global temperatures.

Population control has been one of the principle underlying objectives of leading proponents of the concept of human caused global warming. During the 2009 climate change conference in Copenhagen population control emerged as a key issue after it was brought forward by Chinese delegates. In 2010 Ted Turner, founder of CNN, called on, on world leaders to address the global warming crisis by drastically reducing the number of people on the planet.

The UN Population Fund has also been leading the push for drastic de-population measures as what it claims is a necessary tactic to combat climate change. [ Feb 07, 2011, M.C. Hoffman,





Analysis by Kevin Libin: Consensus on Global Warming Challenged

In December, a prominent scientist named Peter Gleick testified before the U.S. Congress to defend the science behind the manmade global warming hypothesis. The environmental scientist, a member of the National Academy of Science and co-founder of the respected Pacific Institute, made it clear that he believes wholeheartedly that human activity is warming the planet’s atmosphere. But he acknowledged there was always room for dissent. The scientific process is “inherently adversarial,” he said, and “scientists build reputations and gain recognition … for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation.” The trouble was that, in his

opinion, skeptics about anthropogenic global warming had yet to provide a better theory for the unusual climate effects being observed. “Every major international scientific organization … agrees that humans are changing the climate,” he said.

But there’s a big difference between believing that humans are changing the climate and that we’re doing so in significant and dangerous ways that must be urgently addressed by dramatic policy measures, points out Tom Harris, author of a study released this week by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Winnipeg-based, free-market-friendly think tank. And, he says, “Getting Society Off the Climate Change Bandwagon” aims to expose that difference, reminding policy makers that while there may be agreement that humans affect their environment, there remains frequent and active dispute over the extent — and whether it would be efficient or advisable to direct vast public resources to remedying it.

In just the last few days, Democratic congressional members fighting Republican efforts to block the government from regulating CO2, have contended that the GOP’s thinking “directly conflicts with the consensus of climate scientists and the world’s most authoritative scientific organizations” that CO2 emissions must be curtailed; a book critic in the Boston Globe mentioned in passing the “scientific consensus that the world may be heading toward a climate Armageddon if nothing is done to reverse the present course.” And in the National Post, the executive director for the Ontario advocacy group, People for Education, asserted: “There’s no longer a debate around how much conservation is needed about what we’ve done to our atmosphere.”

None of these people were actual scientists, yet this language of “consensus” about dangerous global warming has become accepted wisdom.

“It’s laziness. An urban legend,” says Mr. Harris, director of the International Climate Science Coalition, a league of researchers who maintain that the science of climate is copiously unsettled and, therefore, caution against premature policy prescriptions to address it. “You can say thousands of scientists agree, and then you don’t have to get into the actual facts.”

Since there has, Mr. Harris points out, never been any global poll of scientists to assess the unanimity of views on the scale and threat of environmental impacts, such claims are dubious enough. But, he notes, even among scientific groups whose leaders publicly and broadly endorse the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that human activities are driving ruinous climate shifts, there’s no evidence of consensus from their own membership.

One news story in 2009, for instance, suggested that “3,000 scientists” had called on the federal government in an open letter to take immediate action in curtailing carbon emissions. But among the members of the Canadian Geophysical Union, one of the organizations represented by the letter, a low response rate had only 28% of members explicitly declaring themselves behind the statement.

“They’re way overstepping their mandate,” Mr. Harris says of the executives of these groups. “In an issue this controversial they should be having proper polling of their members and only releasing statements of support of climate alarmism if the majority of their members actually support it.”

In some cases, groups have been pressured by members to retract alarmist statements. Though the president of the prestigious Royal Society of London initially gave his organization’s sanction to the predictions of warming and its effects in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, royal society members pushed later to adjust the position to assert instead that “it is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.”

And a challenge last year by the membership of the Geological Society of Australia forced its executives to retract its position that “strong action be taken” to prevent “rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather events,” pending a poll of the group’s members.

And the Frontier Centre study documents tens of thousands of scientists who have signed their names to open declarations contesting the dangers of manmade climate change, and Mr. Harris believes there are many more scientists — he says he hears from them all the time — uncomfortable with the drastic predictions proffered by various scientific leaders, but reluctant to put their names to public documents for fear it might harm their careers.

Ray Weymann, a retired California astronomer and co-founder of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, designed to straighten out journalists handling dissenting global warming viewpoints, maintains that despite all this, the majority of scientists published in peer reviewed journals support the IPCC’s line on climate change. “In fact, among this group, the number who doubt the AGW hypothesis is very nearly zero,” he writes in an email.

Still, a study last year published by the National Academy of Science found nearly 25% of published, peer-reviewed climate researchers were “unconvinced” about the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming generally. That’s hardly a consensus, although the proportion fell significantly the more publications a researcher had under his or her belt.

That might be because more senior researchers, with more publications, know more than their less published peers. Or, it could be because the peer-review process itself has been “corrupted” as Mr. Harris believes, and that top scientific journals, as revealed in the emails exposed in the 2009 Climategate scandal, actively suppress the work of dissenting researchers.

Whatever the case, the survey didn’t measure what even those scientists convinced of manmade global warming thought about its dangers to humans. It is here, Mr. Harris believes, that activists mislead policy makers with claims of “consensus,” insisting that because most scientists believe humans are having some impact on the climate, that it must be stopped through rigorous policy measures, though clearly one does not necessarily follow the other.

And until someone actually determines whether there truly is broad agreement among researchers to support the billions of dollars committed by governments to counter human effects on the climate, he says, we might better devote our resources to adapting to climate change, or on remediating “toxic waste dumps, [poor] urban air quality and ocean pollution.” In other words, things we can all agree are harmful.

[9 Feb 2011, Kevin Libin, National Post,
Read more:



 December 2010

Commentary: Time to Freeze Global Warming
There's a Mini Ice Age Coming, Says Man Who Beats Weather Experts
An Anti-Human Ideology: Global Warming may Just Be Statistical Fluctuations
Global Warming Hysteria: Attempted International Power Grab…


Commentary: Time to Freeze Global Warming
The global warming prophets and propagandists, who enjoy living in style on other people's money, gathered last month in the plush resort of Cancun, Mexico, where January temperatures usually hover around 80 degrees. God must have a sense of humor because Cancun was hit by its coldest temperature in a hundred years.

The first day of the conference featured an address from Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, who spoke with much concern about global warming and the damage that humans are perpetrating on the planet.

He cited the deaths of 60 people in Mexico because of weather extremes, but didn't mention Mexico's 22,000 deaths caused by the illegal drug trade.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that "We need to fundamentally transform the global economy, based on low-carbon, clean energy resources." Barack Obama's announced goal of fundamentally transforming the United States has morphed into transforming the world.

This 16th annual conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), called COP 16 (Conference of the Parties 16), attracted some 20,000 delegates from 194 countries. It had little to do with any science about climate change, and everything to do with trying to get the United States and other industrialized nations to redistribute their wealth to the poorer nations under the supervision of eager United Nations bureaucrats.

Like previous climate change conferences, COP 16 deliberately pitted the poor countries against the rich countries, encouraging the poor countries to demand what the rich countries have without earning or paying for it. This is the internationalist version of the basic Marxist tactic called the class war.

COP 16 propagandists blame every human tragedy on the high standard of living enjoyed (and earned) by the rich countries. Our over-consumption is alleged to cause global warming. We are guilty because we are prosperous, so we supposedly owe reparations to the poor nations.

At COP 15 in Copenhagen a year ago, the poor countries ganged up on us and agreed that the United States should create a $30 billion "Fast Start" global climate fund by 2012 and reduce U.S. greenhouse gases by 17 percent below the 2005 levels. This Fast Start climate fund would be committed to grow to $100 billion by 2020.

Fortunately, the Copenhagen proposals were never formally adopted. President Obama came and left empty handed, Communist China refused to limit its emissions, and the Third World dictators didn't get the $100 billion handouts they expected.

The poor countries now say they want cash handouts, not loans, because they don't want to take on any debt. They also floated a scheme to force 37 industrialized nations to transfer their technologies along with huge financial bonuses to the poorer 155 nations.

Donations to the Fast Start Fund are not coming in as rapidly as the avaricious countries want, so COP 16 participants decided it's time to call for a global tax. They want it to be unlimited in scope and unlinked to national treasuries so that tax receipts can flow without the nuisance of having to be approved by the rich countries' legislatures.

The UN Secretary General's High Level Advisory Group confirmed that the goal is to impose taxes on international shipping, aviation, and financial transactions involving stocks, bonds and foreign exchanges, as well as a carbon tax. Those taxes could raise at least $100 billion annually, and the International Maritime Organization is ready to be the assessor-collector.

COP 16 agitators consider all these payments compensatory for damages caused by the rich nations. The World Wildlife Foundation estimates that the amounts needed to protect against climate change will run to $160 billion to $200 billion yearly by 2020.

COP 16's bag of tricks also includes plans for global governance. The new UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres, said that COP 16 "is a litmus test for global governance capacity," and that "Cancun will be successful if governments compromise" by launching "a new era."

The poor nations at COP 16 presented a document called "Declaration from the South-South Summit on Climate Justice and Finance." It claimed that climate change is "an economic and social crisis, a political crisis, a food and energy crisis, and an ecological crisis."

This diatribe called for "climate justice, ecological justice, economic justice, gender justice and historical justice." Its presenters concluded by chanting, "Let's globalize the struggle!"

The main cause of poverty in other countries is the lack of enough energy. We should be increasing the use of energy rather than expanding government powers to restrict energy.

Tell your newly elected members of Congress that we reject all COP 16 demands as well as the insulting proposition that our successful economic system caused the world's poverty. If poor countries want to be rich, the way to go is to follow our American model for success, freedom and prosperity.
[17 December 2010, Phyllis Schlafly, ]

There's a Mini Ice Age Coming, Says Man Who Beats Weather Experts

Footprints remain after people walked on the snow-covered beach at Weston-Super-Mare, England.

Footprints remain after people walked on the snow-covered beach at Weston-Super-Mare, England. Photo: Getty Images

Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson, London's mayor.

Well, folks, it's tea-time on Sunday and for anyone involved in keeping people moving it has been a hell of a weekend. Thousands have had their journeys wrecked, tens of thousands have been delayed getting away for Christmas; and for those Londoners who feel aggrieved by the performance of any part of our transport services, I can only say that we are doing our level best.

Almost the entire Tube system was running on Sunday and we would have done even better if it had not been for a suicide on the Northern Line, and the temporary stoppage that these tragedies entail. Of London's 700 bus services, only 50 were on diversion, mainly in the hillier areas. On Saturday, we managed to keep the West End plentifully supplied with customers, and retailers reported excellent takings on what is one of the busiest shopping days of the year.

We have kept the Transport for London road network open throughout all this. We have about 90,000 tons of grit in stock, and the gritters were out all night to deal with this morning's rush. And yet we have to face the reality of the position across the country.
Advertisement: Story continues below

It is no use my saying that London Underground and bus networks are performing relatively well – touch wood – when Heathrow, our major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall; when substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling; when there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country; and when yet more snow is expected today, especially in the north.

In a few brief hours, we are told, the snowy superfortresses will be above us again

, bomb bays bulging with blizzard. It may be that in the next hours and days we have to step up our de-icing, our gritting and our shovelling. So let me seize this brief gap in the aerial bombardment to pose a question that is bugging me. Why did the Met Office forecast a "mild winter"?

Do you remember? They said it would be mild and damp, and between one degree and one and a half degrees warmer than average. Well, I am now 46 and that means I have seen more winters than most people on this planet, and I can tell you that this one is a corker.

Never mind the record low attained in Northern Ireland this weekend. I can't remember a time when so much snow has lain so thickly on the ground, and we haven't even reached Christmas. And this is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?

Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its "mild winter" schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year's mythical "barbecue summer", and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.

He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people – notably in farming – are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.

He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles.

He takes a snapshot of what the Sun is doing at any given moment, and then he looks back at the record to see when it last did something similar. Then he checks what the weather was like on Earth at the time – and he makes a prophecy.

I have not a clue whether his methods are sound or not. But when so many of his forecasts seem to come true, and when he seems to be so consistently ahead of the Met Office, I feel I want to know more. Piers Corbyn believes that the last three winters could be the harbinger of a mini ice age that could be upon us by 2035, and that it could start to be colder than at any time in the last 200 years. He goes on to speculate that a genuine ice age might then settle in, since an ice age is now cyclically overdue.

Is he barmy? Of course he may be just a fluke-artist. It may be just luck that he has apparently predicted recent weather patterns more accurately than government-sponsored scientists. Nothing he says, to my mind, disproves the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists, that our species is putting so much extra CO? into the atmosphere that we must expect global warming.

The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world? The Sun is incomparably vaster and more powerful than any work of man. We are forged from a few clods of solar dust. The Sun powers every plant and form of life, and one day the Sun will turn into a red giant and engulf us all. Then it will burn out. Then it will get very nippy indeed.
[December 21, 2010, The Daily Telegraph, London; ]

An Anti-Human Ideology: Global Warming may Just Be Statistical Fluctuations

By Václav Klaus

The global warming dispute starts with a doctrine which claims that the rough coexistence of climate changes, of growing temperatures and of man-made increments of CO2 in the atmosphere — and what is more, only in a relatively short period of time — is a proof of a causal relationship between these phenomena. To the best of my knowledge there is no such relationship between them. It is, nevertheless, this claim that forms the basis for the doctrine of environmentalism.

It is not a new doctrine. It has existed under various headings and in various forms and manifestations for centuries, always based on the idea that the starting point of our thinking should be the Earth, the planet or nature, not man or mankind. It has always been accompanied by the plan that we have to come back to the original state of the Earth, unspoiled by us, humans. The adherents of this doctrine have always considered us, the people, a foreign element. They forget that it doesn’t make sense to speak about the world without people because there would be no one to speak. If we take the reasoning of the environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology.

To reduce the interpretation of the causality of all kinds of climate changes and of global warming to one variable, CO2, or to a small proportion of one variable — human-induced CO2 — is impossible to accept. Elementary rationality and my decades-long experience with econometric modelling and statistical testing of scientific hypotheses tell me that it is impossible to make strong conclusions based on mere correlation of two (or more) time series.

In addition to this, it is relevant that in this case such a simple correlation does not exist. The rise of global temperature started approximately 150 years ago, but man-made CO2 emissions did not start to grow visibly before the 1940s. Temperature changes also repeatedly moved in the opposite direction than the CO2 emissions trend suggests.

Theory is crucial and in this case it is missing. Pure statistical analysis does not explain or confirm anything. Two Chinese scientists, Guang Wu and Shaomin Yan, published a study in which they used the random walk model to ­analyze the global temperature fluctuations in the last 160 years.

Their results — rather unpleasantly for the global-warming alarmists — show that the random walk model perfectly fits the temperature changes. Because “the random walk model has a perfect fit for the recorded temperature … there is no need to include various man-made factors such as CO2, and non-human factors, such as the Sun” to improve the quality of the model fit, they say. It is an important result. Do other models give a better fit? I have not seen any.

The untenable argument that there exists a simple causal nexus, a simple functional relationship, between temperature and man-made CO2 is only one part of the whole story and only one tenet of environmentalism. The other, not less important aspect of this doctrine is the claim that there is a very strong and exclusively damaging relationship between temperature and its impact upon nature, upon the Earth and upon the planet.

The original ambition probably used to be saving the planet for human beings, but we see now that this target has gradually become less and less important. Many environmentalists want to save the planet, not mankind. For them, the sophisticated economic reasoning we offer is irrelevant.

Only some of them look at mankind. Only with them the debate about the intergenerational discrimination and

solidarity and about the proper size of discount rates used in any intertemporal analysis comes into consideration, only here can the economists make use of some of their concepts. The unjustifiably low rate of discount used by the environmentalists was for me the original motivation to enter the discussion.

The choice of discount rate is critical in assessing which policies might make sense, and which clearly do not. With a higher discount rate, the argument for radical action over global warming collapses completely.

Many serious economists argue the same way and are in favour of using higher discount rates. University of Chicago Prof. Murphy says quite strongly: “we should use the market rate as the discount rate because it is the opportunity cost of climate mitigation.”

This is what alarmists clearly do not want to do. They think in misconceived ethical terms, but it is wrong. We do not deny that if the existing trend continues, rising temperatures will have both its winners and losers. Even if the overall impact happens to be detrimental — which is something I am not convinced of — the appropriately defined discount for the future will ensure that the loss of value in the years to come will be too small for the present generation to worry about.

How is it possible that so many politicians, their huge bureaucracies, important groups in the scientific establishment, an important segment of business people and almost all journalists see it differently?

The only reasonable explanation is that — without having paid sufficient attention to the arguments — they have already invested too much into global warming alarmism. Some of them are afraid that by losing this doctrine their political and professional pride would suffer.

Others are earning a lot of money on it and are afraid of losing that source of income. Business people hope they will make a fortune out of it and are not ready to write it off. They all have a very tangible vested interest in it. We should say loudly: This coalition of powerful special interests is endangering us.

Our interest is, or should be, a free, democratic and prosperous society. That is the reason why we have to stand up against all attempts to undermine it. We should be prepared to adapt to all kinds of future climate changes (including cooling), but we should never accept losing our freedom.

Financial Post
Václav Klaus is President of the Czech Republic. His comments, excerpted here, were made on Tuesday at the Global Warming Policy Foundation annual ­lecture in London. The full text of his speech is available at

Posted in: FP Comment  Tags: carbon dioxide, Climate change, environmentalism, global warming, Vaclav Klaus

Read more:
earthhands_FT, Financial Post Staff  October 20, 2010, Vaclav Klaus

Global Warming Hysteria: Attempted International Power Grab
Friday, December 10, 2010, 11:47 AM
Wesley J. Smith

GWH is about many things.  One, is to slow warming.  But some are using climate fears as a pretext to destroy the nation state system and replace it with a radically socialist authoritarianism controlled by international bureaucrats and despots, who would use the power of bureaucracies and criminal tribunals to bring the wealthy West to heel and redistribute its wealth to the poor–after the usual take off the top for corruption. If they got their way, we would see the creation of a massive international collective that would keep the destitute mired in self-imposed misery and destroy human freedom.

Lest you think I suffer from global warming hysteria, hysteria, pay careful attention to the statement by the President of Bolivia at Cancun.  From the story:

    Bolivian President Evo Morales called Thursday to save the Kyoto Protocol and to create an international climate justice tribunal. ‘The planet is wounded,’ Morales, Bolivia’s first president of indigenous descent, said in Mexico’s Caribbean resort city of Cancun. ‘The planet is wounded,’ Morales, Bolivia’s first president of indigenous descent, said in Mexico’s Caribbean resort city of Cancun.

    If we send the Kyoto Protocol to the bin, we will be responsible for ‘ecocide,’ and thus for genocide, because we would be attacking humanity as a whole,’ he said. Morales called delegates to discuss not just the effects of climate change, but also its consequences, which he blamed on capitalism. ‘We have the obligation to change those policies,’ he said.

Oh, Wesley, he’s just one man, the president of a small country. 

Really?  Was he booed in Cancun?  Did delegates walk out or condemn his call to destroy capitalism?  If they had, it would have been reported. 

But they didn’t, because his views are within the mainstream of GWHs of the NGO and “international community” types.  In other words, his views, while probably not the majority, are clearly not fringe.

Ecocide, by the way, would criminalize large development as a “crime against peace”–akin in heinousness to genocide and war crimes. 

A movement is actively underway to create just such a crime or cause of action, which could land corporate CEOs in the Hague and bring development of resources to a screaming halt.

Bottom line: We should not agree to any treaty that would let any of these people exert control over our countries or international treaty enforcement mechanisms.

Many Related Articles —



The Green Bubble is About to Burst
By S. Fred Singer
There is a revolution coming that is likely to burst the green global warming bubble: the temperature trend used by the IPCC (the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to turn out to be fake.

It has become increasingly clear that any observed warming during the past century is of natural origin and that the human contribution is insignificant.

It is doubtful that any significant warming is attributable to greenhouse gases at all.

Once the public accepts these scientific conclusions, it should have immense consequences for policy.

It would also mean that wind energy, solar energy, and other "non-carbon" energy sources are not needed and are in fact counterproductive.

Germany led the world in putting up solar panels, funded by €47 billion

in subsidies.

The lasting legacy is a massive debt and lots of inefficient solar technology sitting on rooftops throughout a fairly cloudy country, delivering a trivial 0.1% of its total energy supply.

Denmark's wind industry is almost completely dependent on taxpayer subsidies, and Danes pay the highest electricity rates of any industrialized nation.

Spain has finally discontinued its solar subsidies as too costly
[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac



Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss
Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.
[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac

UN Calls for Higher Taxes to Combat Climate Warning
A top UN panel on Friday called for increased taxes on carbon emissions and international transport to raise 100 billion dollars a year to combat climate change.

The group led by the prime ministers of Norway and Ethiopia also said there could be a tax on international financial transactions.
[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac

Global Warming Hysteria! Here Comes the UN Tax Man – Wesley J. Smith
One purpose of GWH is to move us toward international governance.  Americans aren’t up for that (or is it, down for that, I never know which).   If we tax Americans, the money should go to the U.S. Treasury, not directly to an international fund, nor should specific American taxes be reserved for non American uses.
[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac



Vaccinate the World: Gates, Rockefeller Seek Global Population Reduction
The global elite has launched a world-wide operation against an unaware population to reduce and control fertility. 

Vaccines and even staple food crops  have been modified to achieve these goals.

The fact that such a global mechanism like GAVI exists – in the hands of outspoken population control advocates – for delivering vaccines to millions of people across the world should be disconcerting to say the least; especially when confronted with the mountains of documentation proving that anti-fertility vaccines have been researched and delivered by the World Health Organization with grant money from the Rockefeller Foundation. [November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac




Congressman Calls For Schools To 'Promote The Agenda' Of Climate Change, Population Limitation.
[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac


Video – Global Warming Unmasked : The Hidden Agenda

One hour 23 minutes, but well worth watching
Are the environmental movements and groups simply devoted to laudable, correct stewardship of God's creation, or do they have a more sinister, hidden agenda?

Is "global warming" being used as an excuse for something far darker?

[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.Compiled by Steve Jalsevac

Climate Scientists Plan Campaign Against Global Warming Skeptics
The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election.

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.,0,545056.story
[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked
items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac

Nutty Professor Pleads for Extinction of All Carnivorous Animals

If a certain nutty professor has his way, all lions, dolphins, as well as all other carnivorous animals on this planet would be selected for controlled extinction for the "high crime" of eating meat and causing suffering in other animals.
[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac

Animal Rights Fanatic Vlasak: Reduce Humans, Not Mosquitoes – Wesley J. Smith
[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac

Birth Control and The Environment
Curt Cunningham, water quality issues chairman for the Rocky Mountain chapter of Sierra Club International, crusaded to get Boulder to remove fluoride from its drinking water, believing it had negative effects on the environment.

But he had no intention of asking anyone to rethink the use of birth control patches and pills, despite their effects on fish.
[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac

The Biofuels Scam
Since 2007 the price of food around the world has just about doubled.

Bad harvests, inflation, or George Bush didn't cause this price increase.

According to a secret report from the World Bank, reported in the UK's Guardian, 75% of the increase in price has one source:  "Biofuels."

Ethanol is highly corrosive. It absorbs water from the air like a sponge. It cannot be transported in pipelines, necessitating delivery by (diesel) tanker trucks. 

If used in aircraft, water in the fuel can cause engine failure at the colder high altitudes. If left in your lawn mower or chainsaw over the winter, it causes serious rust problems.

It causes rust in your fuel lines and engine[November 8, 2010, NewsBytes – Global Warming, Environmental Extremism]
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of They are presented only for your information.
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac

More Scandals Implicate IPCC Climate Scientists
author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
by F. William Engdahl
January 22, 2010

Only days after the failed Copenhagen Global Warming Summit, yet a new scandal over the scientific accuracy of the UN IPCC 2007 climate report has emerged. Following the major data-manipulation scandals from the UN-tied research center at Britain’s East Anglia University late 2009, the picture emerges of one of the most massive scientific frauds of recent history.

Senior members of the UN climate project, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been forced to admit a major error in the 2007 IPCC UN report that triggered the recent global campaign for urgent measures to reduce “manmade emissions” of CO2. The IPCC’s 2007 report stated, “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world.”

Given that this is the world’s highest mountain range and meltdown implies a massive flooding of India, China and the entire Asian region, it was a major scare “selling point” for the IPCC agenda. As well, the statement on the glacier melt in the 2007 IPCC report contains other serious errors such as the statement that “Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035." There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas. And a table in the report says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters.

Then comes a math mistake: It says that's a rate of 135.2 meters a year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year. Now scientists around the world are scouring the entire IPCC report  for indications of similar lack of scientific rigor.

It emerges that the basis of the stark IPCC glacier meltdown statement of 2007 was not even a scientific study of melting data. Rather it was a reference to a newspaper article cited by a pro-global warming ecological advocacy group, WWF.

The original source of the IPCC statement, it turns out, appeared in a 1999 report in the British magazine, New Scientist that was cited in passing by WWF. The New Scientist author, Fred Pierce, wrote then, “The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a paper published by the Indian Government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist."

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.” 1

The same Pachauri, co-awardee of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, has recently been under attack for huge conflicts of interest related to his business interests that profit from the CO2 global warming agenda he promotes.2

Pearce notes that the original claim made by Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, in a 1999 email interview with Pearce, namely that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035, never was repeated by Hasnain in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that Hasnain now says the remark was "speculative".

Despite that lack of scientific validation the 10-year-old claim ended up in the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers
in the Himalayas.

Since publication of the latest New Scientist article, the IPCC officially has been forced to issue the following statement: “the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

The IPCC adds,  "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.” 3

In an indication of the defensiveness prevailing within the UN’s IPCC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, insists that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report."

Some serious scientists disagree. Georg Kaser, an expert in glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the IPCC. Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published.

"This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time'. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured." 4 … see for the entire article.