Have "Global Warming" ideologues caused the tarnishing of the once-proud title of "Scientist" - with fact-faked data? Has an prominent science to human welfare - Climatology - become only a propaganda tool for liberal extremists to force the Us and other advanced countries to experience technological "greening" restrictions and pay exorbitant emission reparations for "destroying the planet"? Is this global-warming movement rooted less in unemotional science than in the uneasy consciences of liberals about market development and capitalism? Is there solid scientific proof of both: atmosphere turn and man-causation? What is the scientific base for this near-universal accepted wisdom?
The improve in science and technology - which has advanced humanity from hunter-gatherer cave-dwelling to space travel and imaginable plentifulness for practically everyone - is now under threat of reversal by guilt-obsessed liberal ideologues, dictating a collective conscience of culpability for claimed depletion of Arctic ice packs. Their agenda, with zealot sincerity, seems to be a forcing function for market countries, primarily the Us, to place limits and restraints on power usage, and to force payments of huge financial emission-penalties - purely on the basis of a law of global warming and atmosphere change. By subtle and progressive inducements - straight through prestigious United Nations acclamation and publication of supportive analyses - climatology "scientists" during the past few decades have seemingly been gradually seduced and induced to first overlook, then to manipulate atmosphere data. This apparently was done in the trust that global warming and manufactured atmosphere turn were factual - and so political leaders in the Us and the Un could claim that it was proven science (An Inconvenient Truth - says the Al Gore Nobel Prize-winning film).
It began plainly - Rachel Carson wrote a book in 1962, "Silent Spring" - credited with launching environmental concerns - going well beyond "Endangered Species" movements by establishing the trust that humans were despoiling planet Earth (e.g. Ddt poisoning). The slightest apparent indication by interpretation of climatology data, that technology was adversely impacting our planet - was seized upon politically: objective to restrain the causative technology (that had achieved so much for the universal benefits of civilization itself). To a fair-minded public, if "Science" said so (Science being thought about infallible), then our responsibility should not be shirked. Once the United Nations was established, with its universal prestige, the process was unstoppable. An Ipcc - Intergovernmental Panel on atmosphere turn - was established in 1988 (the title itself makes clear - the purpose was not scientific inquiry, but validation and confirmation of an established conclusion) - every year scientific papers sought, published and honored in the most prestigious of journals. No climatologist could resist.
The first international conference, the Kyoto Protocol was convened in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, the stated goal being to combat global warming - the words were clear, "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere [to] prevent perilous anthropogenic interference with the atmosphere system". The prevailing international understanding dominating Kyoto was that human activities have resulted in astronomical global warming since the mid-20th century, and that prolonged growth in greenhouse gas concentrations - caused by human-induced emissions - would create high risks of perilous atmosphere changes to planet Earth. Under the Protocol provisions, thirty-seven advanced countries would commit themselves to a allowance of four greenhouse gases, together with carbon dioxide, and two groups of gases produced by advanced nations, the benchmark being emission levels of 1990. Incorporated in the Protocol were complexity factors of "flexible mechanisms", permitting emission trading and due straight through financial exchanges. The major countries (Annex I) were required to submit every year reports of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Great under the Protocol (with a "designated national authority"), a degree of sovereignty is clearly being transferred from personel countries to the Un club - in areas of valuable import to national productivity and finance. The objective of the Kyoto and Copenhagen conferences was clearly to develop a legally binding Protocol, an international agreement, whereby all the participating nations committed themselves to tackling the issue of global warming. The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that advanced countries have to pay billions of dollars in emission reparations.
As of November 2009, 186 countries have ratified the agreement, the most famous irregularity being the Us (deemed responsible for 36.1% of the 1990 emission levels of Annex I countries). Although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the Us has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The atmosphere operate Act of 2007, more commonly referred to in the U.S. As the "Cap and Trade Bill" was proposed for greater U.S. Alignment with the Kyoto standards and goals; it has been passed by the House - resistance is by Republicans and growing in the Senate among some Democrats. At the end of 2008, China had surpassed the United States as the biggest emitter of Co2 from power generation.
On 25 July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed (by 95-0 vote) that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing, as well as for advanced nations - noting that its duct "could corollary in serious harm to the cheaper of the United States". President George W. Bush withheld the treaty from Senate ratification because of the strain he believed the treaty would place on the Us economy; he also emphasized the scientific uncertainties which he believed existed in the technical evidence.
In 2007, the Nobel Prize committee awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace jointly to the United Nation's Ipcc (International Panel for atmosphere Change) and to Ex-Vice President Al Gore, for his film "The Inconvenient Truth". The words justifying the award were: "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about manufactured atmosphere change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."
Newly elected President Obama, in his speech at the Copenhagen argument - to the assembled leaders from nations colse to the world - gave a ringing endorsement to the atmosphere turn theory: "We come together here in Copenhagen because atmosphere turn poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you - like me - were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, atmosphere turn will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know. As the world's largest cheaper and the world's second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing atmosphere change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international atmosphere negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home - pursuing farranging legislation to transform to a clean power economy." He also committed: "I'm sure that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050." In the area of financial commitments, "America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to billion in 2012. And we will engage in a global effort to mobilize 0 billion in financing by 2020."
Thus, all the world leaders seem to be strong believers in global warming, and atmosphere turn caused by market emissions - however, what are the true scientific facts?
The leaked emails from one of the Un's data-gathering sites drew attentiveness to the possibility of climatology data being doctored or omitted (initially articles merely noted that the trust of "proven" science was being seriously challenged). Although the mainstream media and politicians denounced the hackers rather than assess the revelations of the disclosures; subsequently more facts was made ready from previously involved climatologists, divulging more and more damaging revelations - it now appears strongly that "With so much smoke, how can there not be fire?"
Rising sea level - atmosphere turn advocates like Al Gore or Ipcc members have warned that the melting ice packs are causing sea levels across the globe to rise - at a rate that will at last doom us all. But this is disputed by Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who has been learning sea level data for four decades - claiming that scientists working for the Ipcc have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their political viewpoint. Mörner was recently interviewed by Gregory Murphy of executive brain Review, stating that the sea level claims made by the Ipcc are nonsense: "[W]e can see that the sea level was no ifs ands or buts rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year - not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can go to satellite altimetry."
Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers, 2035 in place of 2350 - A paragraph in the 2007 Working Group Ii record ("Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"), included a projection, "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035, and perhaps sooner, is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
The "hockey stick" graph - The Un's Third Asessment record prominently featured a graph labeled "Millennial Northern Hemisphere climatic characteristic Reconstruction" from a paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes, often referred to as the "Hockey Stick Graph". This graph differed from a schematic in the first evaluation record which depicted larger global climatic characteristic variations over the past 1000 years, and higher temperatures during the Medieval Warm duration than the present day. (The schematic was not an actual plot of data.) The appearance in the Tar was widely construed as demonstrating that the current warming duration is exceptional in comparison to temperatures between 1000 and 1900. The methodology used to yield this graph was criticized in an record by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. In a 2006 letter to Nature, Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed out that their original record had said that "more farranging high-resolution data are needed before more sure conclusions can be reached" and that the uncertainties were "the point of the article." In his 2009 book The Real Global Warming Disaster, Christopher Booker provides a detailed inventory of how the graph came to being prominently featured in the Ipcc's Third evaluation Report.
Climategate-U-turn, hockey-stick data lost - Colleagues say that the speculate Professor Phil Jones has refused relaxation of facts requests is that his record keeping is "not as good as it should be". The data is crucial to the famous hockey stick graph used by atmosphere turn advocates to keep the theory. Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations colse to the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on atmosphere turn to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Dr Benny Pieser, director of the skeptical Global Warming policy Foundation, said Professor Jones's 'excuses' for his failure to share data were hollow, as he had shared it with colleagues and 'mates'.
Climategate-U-turn, admissions - Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a manufactured phenomenon. He also said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.
Obama's Epa Emission Control - Coinciding with the first day of the international atmosphere summit in Copenhagen, the Obama Environmental security Agency's actions were seemingly to reassure delegates that the United States is committed to reducing its emissions; the Epa said that six gases, together with carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment and the condition of Americans and that the agency would start drawing up regulations to sacrifice those emissions. The Epa's decision paves the way for the agency to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from sources such as power plants and factories. The Epa's finding stems from a 2007 supreme Court ruling that said the government could restrict heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act if it found them a danger to the collective condition and welfare. A realistic question is whether Co2 should be included as a danger to collective health, since more Co2 means lusher plant growth. The whole of businesses requiring an Epa permit would jump from the current 12,000-13,000 to more than a million; not only schools and hospitals, but offices, apartment buildings, even bakeries. Estimates of cost to the Us cheaper are trillion when fully implemented in 2029.
Obama's Epa Emission Control, reactions - Reacting to Epa, the U.S. Accommodation of Commerce, Usa's largest business-lobbying group, is request a federal court to spin the Obama administration's decision to assert greenhouse gases a condition risk under the Clean Air Act. The Chamber's petition, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, challenges the Environmental security Agency's ruling made in December. Senator Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, is also prominent an effort in Congress to stop the Epa from regulating greenhouse gases; three Democrats are joining his cause.
As the foundation of the claimed scientific data (purportedly proving global warming) begins to crumble, as the detailed tapestry (which painted a picture of man-caused atmosphere change) begins to unravel - with steady and progressive new disclosures: more emails, Un climatologist resignations, admissions of flawed information, claims of data lost, etc. (and as the evidence of mum Nature's extreme wintry weather in the 2009-10 season makes a mockery of global warming fears) - it appears that many world-renowned personalities and organizations have painted themselves into an ideological corner: the Nobel Prize Committee, the United Nations International Panel on atmosphere Change, Al Gore, plus the (mostly Democrat) liberals in Congress - and also President Obama.
However the situation will at last play out, the consequences will be enormous: whether exorbitant costs in lost Us jobs straight through reduced market efficiencies (due to emission penalties of Obama's Epa and/or Cap-and-Trade Bill), plus (for the Us, paying most of) 0 billion per year as renovation payments to 3rd world countries (Kyoto and Copenhagen Conferences) - or instead, mass admission to having been wrong on global warming, with embarrassing political egg-on-their-faces re shameful concessions of believing punk-science and taking the Us to the-near-brink of economic disaster! Many voices are even now being heard calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to revoke the awards given to Al Gore and the Un Ipcc. Will Climategate mushroom into a "Waterloo" type-event for President Obama and maybe even the United Nations? The stakes are high - how will it play out?
Scientist Alfred Nobel is Spinning in His Grave - His Prize Awarded For Fact-Faked Ideology!