Dovetailing with this post from yesterday, where Pope Benedict’s thoughts that the global warming hysteria is based more on ideology than science, and which the media is ignoring, there are now scientists telling the UN that their ‘science’ is rather imperfect. And like the Pope’s admonition, this letter is not being repeated at all in the mainstream media either.
The notion that man is the cause of climate change, and that man can change or reverse climate trends is simply not based in reality or science. Some highlights include . . .
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
- Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
- The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
- Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
Look for news of this letter in the media in the coming days, weeks. You will most likely notice that it will be or has already been tabled.
h/t to Noel Sheppard @ NewsBusters for the info
So is the consensus on the speed of light political? Is the consensus on gravity political? Science is science and it holds no ideology or political affiliation. But if done correctly and with thorough checks and double checks, it is inescapable. It’s not a matter of 6000 scientists looking at a Dali painting and trying to come to a consensus on what it means and represents. It’s a matter of 6000 scientists looking at all the evidence from different areas, putting it together, performing experiments to validate when possible, etc. and all seeing quite plainly the same results. Climate change is real and it is being affected by human activity. If you know anything about scientists, most are very individualistic type people, the old addage about herding cats comes to mind. Getting 6000 to agree on anything is nigh impossible, except when the evidence is quite plainly obvious. You should really get past this denial of reality of yours, it makes you appear unintelligent and uneducated, kinda like the folks who still try and push Intelligent Design.
Rest assured Jeff, that I’m not into conspiracy theories. The issue here is that what is driving this movement is more ideology than science. A point I’ve made many times before on this subject. Science is science, consensus is political.
I saw your comment on Del Stone’s blog about the same thing. I hope you’ve been following the news because it’s been uncovered that this new report is a sham. It’s from a bunch of economists, not scientists. Just another lie from Inhofe and his ilk. If you honestly and truly believe that the 6000 scientists that worked on the IPCC report are involved in some secret, evil cabal bent on tricking the world, then you probably need to seek some professional help.