Former UN Official Says Climate Report will Shock Nations into Action

Brisbane Times - Former UN official says climate report will shock nations into action

THE next United Nations climate report will ''scare the wits out of everyone'' and should provide the impetus needed for the world to finally sign an agreement to tackle global warming, the former head of the UN negotiations said.

Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks, said his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking.

"That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,'' Mr de Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia. "I'm confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.''

I wonder what fresh hell on earth scenario these people are going to try to get us to buy into now.

Also from the article -

They also want proof the UN's Green Climate Fund - aimed at supporting efforts to counter climate change - will get the $US100 billion in government and private funding promised.

Yep ... there it is .... .... faux man made global warming ... give us all your money and invest in green companies (and ignore that we are heavily invested in them as well). Money making scam ... and they'll use psuedo-science and scare tactics to get their funding and $$$.

Side note - Media Ignores Al Gores Financial Ties to Global Warming
Anyone who says this push to get us all to believe in man made global warming isn't a money making scheme .. seriously ... ya'll need to take a long hard look at the dollar figures involved and who is making a ton of money off it.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I have no doubt that humans are having some kind of impact on the global climate and I also have no doubt that situation could be grim as the result of human kinds actions. However, I think I will agree with the OP that there seems to be something else motivating this call to action.

I am under the impression that any climate change, though hotly contested, operates on a much larger time scale and that putting deadlines like 90 years and immediate action, is laughable in the context of the age of our planet.

Industrial expansion and pollution has been around for only approx 200 years and that folks is no were near on the scale of environmental impact of millions of years of global effecting events such as Volcanoes, continuous forest fires and other similar events that have pumped similar green house gases into the atmosphere.

Now, i am not trying to cast off any blame or connection of environmental impact by humans and I do feel change needs to happen, but I find that need for immediate action and the setting of deadlines to be ridiculous.

With respect to Gore, I still believe he is environmental conscious and that his investments will in fact aid the development of the industry, its how capitalism works, but that article certainly paints a profit oriented philosophy.

None the less, we do need to take a serious look at the environment, but we will not wake up one day a realize that we have reached the point of no return.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Anyone who says this push to get us all to believe in man made global warming isn't a money making scheme .. seriously ... ya'll need to take a long hard look at the dollar figures involved and who is making a ton of money off it.

Yes, and let's ignore the unambiguous science - I'm not talking computer models or hockey-stick graphs - I'm talking proven, fundamental physics that predicted over 100 years ago rising CO2 would cause global warming.

History of the greenhouse effect and global warming




Let's ignore all the piles and piles of direct, empirical evidence that show our industrial emissions are indeed responsible for the current climate change we see today.

The human fingerprint in global warming



Let's ignore the fact that 97% of the world's top climate scientists agree on this.

Expert credibility in climate change

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

No, let's just blow around a bunch of useless rhetoric over "follow the money" instead, and not actually bother following it - because if we did that we would see our current paradigm is already a giant scam completely dependent on the relentless exploitation of our finite resources - and that the entities making all the money off this Ponzi scheme have a HUGE vested interest in denying they are responsible for any catastrophic consequences that may come out of it.

You have all gotten in bed with the enemy.

Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF

Factsheet: Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax

Fakery 2: More Funny Finances, Free Of Tax



Let's also ignore the fact that virtually every single "skeptic" counter-claim on man-made global warming - from climategate to "it's just a natural cycle" - has been demonstrated to be a manufactured and dishonest campaign of ignorance, confusion, paranoia and fear planted by the very same people you encounter at the end of the REAL "follow the money" trail.

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

The denial industry






So yeah - let's ignore all the facts, and science, and logic and arithmetic, and just believe a bunch of brainwashed FOX News-friendly rhetoric - because it fits better with our ideology, and it makes us feel good in the brain.


Just like Nate Silver's "gobbly-dee-gook science" was biased and Romney was gonna win in a landslide, right?

Anyone who is still living in the anti-science, reality-challenged, right-wing bubble of paranoia-imposed ignorance...seriously..."y'all" need to take a long hard look at the convenient bull# you're being fed everyday, who is making tons of money off that, and wake the hell up.

The global ecosystem is the only thing that changes slower than the global economy.

That's why it's too late,too late.

reply to post by mc_squared


ah don't worry so much about global warming, when there are a huge list of other things that will kill us off long before excessive c02 bubbly will. GMO's, radiation, antibiotic resistance are the real thing's to watch if you care about the environment or humanity, they will act much more swiftly than c02.

You're makinga case, OP, that there are those in power who are politicizing the issue for money, and yet you're politicizing the issue for another reason.

There is scientific fact behind the link and relationship between carbon emissions and the Earth warming. To deny it any longer is akin to believing the Earth is 9k years old and that Jonah lived in a whale.

Just stop, and try to educate yourself.
If this is some huge conspiracy, why is it that a major consensus of scientific peoples all agree that burning massive amounts of fossil fuels leads to greenhouse effect?
Many of these scientists are privately funded too.

Show me just 3 peer reviewed scientists who refute the human induced climate change idea.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Science has shown what will happen to the earth with the data that was plugged in many years ago,
and so far they have been rather accurate.The trending upwards in C02 gassing is undeniable, and
even though the earth has had a cyclic history of warming and cooling,, the human HAS contributed
to its increase,.

We are having 100 year storms and flooding every year now, the drastic swings in temps, tornadoes in
places that never had them. Anyone that still doesnt see what is going on by now wont get it till they them
selves are affected.

Something else that Im sure most dont realize,. is earth is not alone here,. ALL the planets are warming up
and doing things that science is still trying to understand,. Hmmm... Sun maybe or the solar system feeling
an outside force? read up on that one..

I dont believe there is Anything we are gonna do now to stop what is coming..
Cut back on emissions for Cleaner air? thats a healthy choice,. but actually stop what has been happening
since the earth was created? thats funny.

As for AL Gore? what human hasnt tried to make money? He at least forced us to pay attention.

reply to post by mc_squared


You again with all your lies?... You must work for "skepticalscience", Mann, Jones, Al Gore, et al...

Skeptical science has been discredited long ago, and it's full of lies...

In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments, Rob Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. He fails to use quotes when searching for phrases, is unable to count past 1000 and fails to remove erroneous results. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.
...

www.populartechnology.net...

All your lies about "97% of scientists agree with us" have been debunked time and again many times...

There Is No ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming

A clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition

...
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the infamous “summary for policy makers” reported ambiguously that “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument — e.g., we can’t think of an alternative — to support human attribution. But the “summary for policy makers” claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that “The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.” This was sufficient for CNN’s Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a “unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.” Well, no.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
...

www.globalresearch.ca...


Your idols have got it so wrong, and they are so few that they had to use over 2,400 non-scientists, who know nothing about Climate Change for the IPCC report...

..."The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."

How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"

First and foremost, Prof. Reiter believes, the IPCC is a creature of government that meets governmental needs and abides by governmental strictures, and does so without public scrutiny. In contrast, studies conducted under the more open auspices of the U.S. government's Global Climate Change Research program, for example, are entirely in the public domain.

Even the peer-review process -- ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science -- has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.

"The IPCC turns this on its head," Prof. Reiter explains. "The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential." In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.

"The Intergovernmental Panel is precisely that -- it is a panel among governments. Any scientist who participates in this process expecting the strictures of science to reign must beware, lest he be stung."
...

www.canada.com...

In fact, your idols, or what you call scientists, have been caught lying again, and again, and again, and again, and again...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............

www.theage.com.au...

In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes saying...:

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."

www.cbsnews.com...

Not to mention the fact that CRU, and Jones had deleted their raw temperature data.

We Lost the Original Data

Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
...
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues.[b/ We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...


In fact, your idols have got it so wrong that they have had to LIE, and MANIPULATE the data with falsehoods to try to sell the lie that is AGW...

Your idols have had to LIE, time and again because there is not one shred of truth in your RELIGION...

AGW is nothing but a religion of religious fanatics who BELIEVE nothing but LIES...

Originally posted by spinalremain
You're makinga case, OP, that there are those in power who are politicizing the issue for money, and yet you're politicizing the issue for another reason.

I politicized NOTHING. I'm exposing politicians and powerful world entities for their money making schemes. They should be ashamed of themselves ... trying to frighten people around the world with their psuedo-science gloom and doom predictions .. all to try to fatten their own wallets. Shame on them.

Just stop, and try to educate yourself.

Right back atchya. Read the thread.
The facts speak for themselves. "hide the decline" .. sound familiar?

Shock the world?

Yes well I've been shocked for ages, with them nuking under the oceans in the Gulf and the Jefferson fault line and creating a horrendous kill off and poisoning of the ocean and foodline, and even of earth's mantle and crust, and in the Pacific, and their fossil fuel extraction.

Shocked out of my tree at the amount of poisons and radiation and leaks a small evil doing potion of those training to become demons, corporations are allowed to do to our planet and ground waters.

And the worst part is, THEY ALREADY HAVE ALL THE SOLUTIONS TO FEEDING EVERYONE AND TO FREE ABUNDANT ENERGIES, CLEAN/FREE.

We're not going to jump throught these madmen's hoops except implement the real sciences, and either the venus project, no money, or Make Them, the wealthiest 1% pay for everyone to have earthship homes and heriatge seeds and clean energy. In other words, time they pay up, they have a lot of work to do to avoid massive prison sentences IMO.

These gnostic, madmen have been deliberately destroying the world, to try and force a cycle that wakes up their Dragon in a huge Harvest. This is the crapola they've been working for. They're really INTO their mystery schools and very misled by negative entities.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by spinalremain
You're makinga case, OP, that there are those in power who are politicizing the issue for money, and yet you're politicizing the issue for another reason.

I politicized NOTHING. I'm exposing politicians and powerful world entities for their money making schemes. They should be ashamed of themselves ... trying to frighten people around the world with their psuedo-science gloom and doom predictions .. all to try to fatten their own wallets. Shame on them.

Just stop, and try to educate yourself.

Right back atchya. Read the thread.
The facts speak for themselves. "hide the decline" .. sound familiar?

Great thread.

I'll buy into "global warming" when they include the effects of aluminum and barium aerosols and 1.21 jigawatts (flux capacitors anyone?) being pumped out by every HAARP installation around the world.

TPTB are using overt, in-our-face fraud as one of their standard operating procedures. It appears that they are trying to bring down governments worldwide so they can gain "global governance" thru the UN. This is just one more pathetic attempt for the UN to gain taxing ability.

If they were serious about global warming and human effects, they would make a massive push for alternative fuels and technology worldwide and quit using oil. A good start would be releasing Washington's black-project technology. All of it. After all -- the citizens of the US (and Washington's many victims) paid for this technology.

reply to post by Unity_99


Talk about being loco...as in CRAZYYY!!!...

You make claims, and statements which really have NOTHING to do with CLIMATE CHANGE...

Have many men, and women caused devastation LOCALLY to the environment?... Yes, but the environment doesn't make the climate... the climate makes the environment...

The nuclear tests caused HEALTH problems, but they didn't change the GLOBAL CLIMATE...

There are indeed corporations which make money by releasing toxic waste, which again cause HEALTH problems, but it doesn't change the GLOBAL CLIMATE... Just like many of those corporations, alongside many RICH people are using AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) to make money from the ignorant masses...

You are trying to get people to side with you not through real science, but through EMOTIONS...

And you want "the 1% to pay for everything"?... That will only happen when a "SOCIALIST/FASCIST global government" controls not only the global economy, but the money and lives of EVERYONE...

You think the "1%" control you and the world now?... Just wait until your beloved One World SOCIALIST/FASCIST Government takes control...

Originally posted by spinalremain

Just stop, and try to educate yourself.
...
Show me just 3 peer reviewed scientists who refute the human induced climate change idea.

There are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree... BTW, claiming that the op should educate himself when you are making such disparate, and illogical claims is just hilarious...

Not to mention that scientists CAN'T be peer-reviewed... Only their published papers CAN be peer-reviewed...

BTW, here are SOME of the MANY scientists who disagree with your RELIGION...

...
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UNs claims and its scientific methods. (Presumably, these skeptical UN scientists did not get Trenberths memo on how to avoid being "poorly informed.")

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism' - September 30, 2009 - 'We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority' - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart -- Heads will roll!' -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 - Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. - Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” - declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: 'We're not scientifically there yet' - July 16, 2009

Trenberth's claim that the UN IPCC is an "very open" also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's alleged global warming "consensus," according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn't it?

Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. 'Peer review' developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean's research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." McLean's study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years." The analysis by McLean states: "The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

...

Link

Here is another SMALL list of the MANY scientists who disagree with your RELIGION...

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.

www.globalresearch.ca...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I repeat what I just wrote, and underscore it to infinity and beyond. That is the real world. And its really scarey that we're living in that one.

Even more odd is this used to be online. Scrubbed? Ron Paul's website had 9 underwater nukes arctic ocean, and it was up for a few years, can't find it now. This is so obvious and it should be all over the net.

Well here is something to chew on:

truth11.com... cted-golden-age-is-about-to-begin-%E2%80%9D/

Ben goes into some details.

Oh isn't it odd that so man nuclear plants are on fault lines? I was looking for some links and my eyes fell on the words, who would be stupid enough to put nuclear plants there, and this odd thought came, it was like, they think nuclear plants are just owned and operated and put out by common folk, not the most "elite" of all. Its the ones with the harvard, yale and oxford educations who have most of the worlds wealth in their pockets, and most of the worlds scientists at their beck and call who are doing this!!!!!

Since the good articles disappear, will resort to the lesser reputable ones because, they're right!

paranoiamagazine.com...

Testing on nukes in ocean:

www.higherpraise.com...

(mind you they are putting them down fault lines so they dont create a huge mushroom, they actually create a slip in the plate)


US/Canada's Nuclear Reactors on Fault Lines - Video Blog # 8


Warning!!! WHY Would FEMA hire 50K Security Officers for a Harmless Exercise in Madrid Fault Line???

Basically all the major problems are being done by them. From depleted uranium and strewing the nuclear waste that takes billions of years to go away, to underwater nukes, atmospheric ionization from past tests, Haarp and their Fossil Fuels, they've destroyed our planet, BY INTENT. They want to

They keep us distracted with everything else. Well they know that their games don't create Karma as they wish, and don't feed us to the dark side, because it has to do with intent of heart. But there IS CONSEQUENCE to destroying another planet. So that is what they're doing behind our back.

That seems to be the big picture and these dark hats main goal.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by mc_squared

 

ah don't worry so much about global warming, when there are a huge list of other things that will kill us off long before excessive c02 bubbly will. GMO's, radiation, antibiotic resistance are the real thing's to watch if you care about the environment or humanity, they will act much more swiftly than c02.

all those things are bad too but they won't kill us off faster. the environment will change too fast for us to adapt to. we aren't prepared.

Originally posted by pasiphae

all those things are bad too but they won't kill us off faster. the environment will change too fast for us to adapt to. we aren't prepared.

Do you have any idea how many times the environment/climate has changed in the past and humans, and animals have had to adapt to it?...

Atmospheric CO2 is NOWHERE even close to hurting either humans, animals or even green biomass (trees, plants, etc)...

As a matter of fact, I have demonstrated time and again that HIGHER atmospheric CO2 content than we have now are essential for all life on the planet.

Right now the atmospheric CO2 content is 380ppm-390ppm, which is very low...

As it is, if you are living with the AC, or a heater on inside your house/building the atmospheric CO2 content inside your house/building is 1,000ppm and neither you, nor your family are dead are you?...

It has been proven that most plants, and trees BENEFIT from having 1,200ppm-1,500ppm atmospheric CO2 content which makes them grow faster, stronger and taller... Not to mention that at these levels of atmospheric CO2 plants, and trees INCREASE THEIR PRODUCTION of harvests from 25% -60%...

...
Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.
.......

www.planetnatural.com...

In order for CO2 to be HARMFUL to humans it would have to reach 5,000 ppm... In order for CO2 to be LETHAL to humans and animals it would have to reach levels between 30,000 ppm- 100,000 ppm.

Carbon dioxide effects on humans, at increasing levels.

1000ppm - 0.1% - Prolonged exposure can affect powers of concentration


5000 ppm - 0.5% - The normal international Safety Limit


10,000ppm - 1% - Your rate of breathing increases very slightly but you probably will not notice it.


15,000ppm - 1.5% - The normal Short Term Exposure Limit.


20,000ppm - 2% - You start to breathe at about 50% above your normal rate. If you are exposed to this level over several hours you may feel tired and get a headache.


30,000ppm - 3% - You will be breathing at twice your normal rate. You may feel a bit dizzy at times, your heart rate and blood pressure increase and headaches are more frequent. Even your hearing can be impaired.


40,000-50,000ppm - 4-5% - Now the effects of CO2 really start to take over. Breathing is much faster – about four times the normal rate and after only 30 minutes exposure to this level you will show signs of poisoning and feel a choking sensation.


50,000-100,000ppm - 5-10% - You will start to smell carbon dioxide, a pungent but stimulating smell like fresh, carbonated water. You will become tired quickly with labored breathing, headaches, tinnitus as well as impaired vision. You are likely to become confused in a few minutes, followed by unconsciousness.


100,000ppm-1,000,000ppm - 10-100% - Unconsciousness occurs more quickly, the higher the concentration. The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide, the quicker suffocation occurs.


50,000-100,000ppm - 5-10% - You will start to smell carbon dioxide, a pungent but stimulating smell like fresh, carbonated water. You will become tired quickly with labored breathing, headaches, tinnitus as well as impaired vision. You are likely to become confused in a few minutes, followed by unconsciousness.


100,000ppm-1,000,000ppm - 10-100% - Unconsciousness occurs more quickly, the higher the concentration. The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide, the quicker suffocation occurs.

globalripening.com...


This means HIGHER levels of atmospheric CO2 gives us MORE FOOD for everyone on the planet... Also, at those levels of atmospheric CO2 all plants and trees make better use of water, which means they use LESS water, leaving more water for humans and animals...

You know the 'left' really should fight against Carbon taxes and the world governing body they want to establish it as it supports the Bible's prediction of a world governing body established bearing 666.


C-12 (carbon 12) has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons

I mean really they are just fulfilling prophecy and giving the religious crowd more reason to have faith in their Holy book.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

GMO's, radiation, antibiotic resistance are the real thing's to watch if you care about the environment or humanity, they will act much more swiftly than c02.

Heads up. They're all acting together to change the biological basis of life on this planet. Microbial mutation is just the tip of the iceberg.