The UNâ��s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was â��only a few dozen experts" . .
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 … c-insider/
... are you still ready and willing to pay your carbon taxes now?
The whole thing is a farce. After quite thoroughly reviewing the UN/FAO report entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, it was clear to me that if the United Nations could author a report with data so clearly skewed and manipulated in the interests of global control of farm lands -- and the conversion of as many Americans and other world citizens to a vegetarian diet as possible in the future -- then not one thing coming from the IPCC was worth the paper it was written on.
I firmly believe that the passage of the cap and trade bill and the empowerment of the EPA will mark the beginning of the end of the small farms in America, as well as put this country on the road to one of new extremes in the gap between the rich and the poor, and the end of the 'middle class' in America. I could get fairly paranoid and say - that that is the intent of the United Nations.
Factcheck - FALSE.
I quote the 'insider' who is upset about being misquoted and has a rebuttal to the false - deceptive and grossley misleading reports. Bottomline - the wingnuts are deliberatly twisting the words of the scientist to spread a lie.
"Various newspaper and internet blogs are reporting me as saying that the IPCC has ‘misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming’ whereas in fact only ‘a few dozen experts’ did so. This story emanates from an article, ...
Three things should be clear from this. First, I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead. ..."
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads … -paper.pdf
Good find. However, his comments, and the intent of his comments, well support the fact of bogus public posturing of the United Nations in their attempts to influence public opinion and acceptance by manufacturing a "consensus" that does not exist. To this day you can hear liberals defending their 'belief' in global warming saying X numbers of scientists can't be wrong. The X number of scientists is clearly wrong -- but made for good marketing in support of the UN's agenda.
It is that very "consensus" that the UN has so successfully, yet fraudulently, pitched, that is leading us down the road to cap and trade legislation and has already resulted in EPA interference with other State regulatory bodies. Our liberal Congress considers anything the EPA says as gospel, as does the media. The grossly false indictment of the cow as the greatest contributor to global warming being a most excellent example of their talents at public relations fraud.
"The point of this bit of our article was to draw attention to the need for a more nuanced understanding of what an IPCC ‘consensus’ is – as I say: “Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
The IPCC consensus does not mean – clearly cannot possibly mean – that every scientist involved in the IPCC process agrees with every single statement in the IPCC! Some scientists involved in the IPCC did not agree with the IPCC’s projections of future sea-level. Giving the impression that the IPCC consensus means everyone agrees with everyone else – as I think some well-meaning but uninformed commentaries do (or have a tendency to do) – is unhelpful; it doesn’t reflect the uncertain, exploratory and sometimes contested nature of scientific knowledge."
Mike Hulme, Norwich
15 June 2010
Wingnut to concrete mind, wingnut to concrete mind, do you read me?
What Hulme says in his "clarification" still amounts to the same thing. The IPCC, and Al Gore have repeatedly told the world that there is a concensus of over 2500 scientists that global warming is manmade and that catastrophic consequences await us unless we act now. This is simply not true.
The IPCC was founded as, and is, a political not scientific organisation whose mandate is to prove that global warming is manmade, and they cherry pick their data and manufacture "facts" to corroborate their desired outcome.
There are many, many, independent scientists (not funded to prove AGW) who say that global warming is not man-made and that CO2 in any case plays an insignificant role. Therefore CO2 reductions and carbon taxes will no nothing to save the planet, but everything to make a few rich elite, even more rich.
BFD. There is not complete consensus among several thousand scientists in any academic discipline. Which proves nothing.
There is overwhelming agreement among the scientific community - backed by scientific evidence - the earth is gettng warmer. Polar Ice caps are melting.
Speculation backwards in time about the cause of global warming is going to be inexact. Speculation forward abut the future consequences of global warming are going to be inexact. That we don't know the EXACT cause or exact consequences is NOT an excuse to do NOTHING until we have exact certainty about the future and past. Then it may be too late to mitigate the disaster.
It is quite the BFD. It is a flat out lie, as is much of their editorial spin, all with the intention of fooling the world, particularly the dum dums in the US who can't read a chart of tic tac toe, much less review and analyze their multitudes of supporting cow belch charts, etc......... as we Americans are in a rich country and need to set the world example by forking over billions of dollars and spreading it to developing countries to help them change their ways to save their environment, so we must lie a little, spin a little... BFD? You bet it is.
All cap and trade is is a money-making scheme that is NOW, under this administration, going to fund our BFD deficit, AND send money overseas as well, and endless reparation and giveaway provisions, all the while making huge sums of money for major rich corporations across the entire world. That's a BFD. And it has nothing to do with Climate Change.
If you lie that you really like that beef liver, no BFD, if you lie that all liver is going to kill someone, that is a BFD.
It's kind of funny how his report specifically states that while the IPCC is meant to bring a consensus viewpoint on climate change, first the consensus viewpoint is made by only a few dozen people based on their decisions on which scientific studies (Done by the 2500 scientists) It is no secret that the people who decide what goes in the annual report can pick and choose, and tend to ignore any report which contradicts global warming.
I also have a real problem with placing so much un-objective work in the hands of people who will lose their jobs if they decide climate change is not a problem, it inserts a natural bias in to the findings.
While I think the temperature changes are happening (We are leaving an ice age after all, overall temperature is bound to go up) I think it is important to remember that one of the main issues to do with climate change, carbon, has pretty much been dismissed now by the entire scientific community, especially since carbon is clearly shown in temperature graphs as a RESULT of global warming, not the cause. It does also help to remember that human based carbon emissions generally settle to earth in the space of a few years, compared to many natural carbon emissions which are often carried higher in to the atmosphere.
I'm going to stop before I get too carried away with this all over again, but I get really annoyed by political pawns such as global warming which are used to raise funds by governments who simply don't want to admit to the public that they need more money from them. Instead they stealth tax through business, without making a single dent in world pollution.
Besides, even China is investing more in clean emissions technology than America, I would be much happier if the US and UK worked towards developing more clean air technology rather than just ripping everyone off in the name of 'green'.
by Judy Specht 4 years ago
How do we know the climate is changing?If the earth is millions of years old what evidence do we have to substantiate man made climate change is indeed man made instead of part of an extended climate cycle?
by SparklingJewel 22 months ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth's absorption of carbon dioxide...
by Sychophantastic 3 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
by emievil 9 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
by My Esoteric 21 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
by SportsBetter 3 years ago
Is global warming and climate change an important issue, or is it a hoax?I know there is much talk about climate change issues. I also know that various people profit off of these concerns, and the media certainly promotes theses issues as well. So a question needs to be asked, is...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|