THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
There Is No Consenus
On Global Warming
By John Coleman
If you tell a lie often enough, everyone will believe it. That's an old saving. But I fear that it’s essentially true. And, it is theheart of the problem I face opposing the Global Warming frenzy.
Thousands of news reports on radio and television and in newspapers and posted on the internet have included the phrase "there is a consensus among the 2,500 scientists that make up the UN's IPCC on Global Warming that Global Warming is unequivocal." Al Gore says the debate is over. And pollsters tell us that about 80% of Americans accept that man-made Global Warming is a significant problem.
Well, that’s my challenge. How do I combat all that media hype and generally accepted view? This brief is my attempt to do just that.
I know that man-made global warming is not happening. I know that the research behind the Global Warming scare is flawed. I know that warming has ceased and cooling may have begun in 1999 (That's almost ten years). And, I know THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference in Bali in December 2007
Yes, I know that the United Nation's IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) met in Bali in December. The assembled panel issued the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report entitled 'The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers' which concludes that global average temperature will rise between 1.1°C to 6.4°C by 2100, and that it is 'very likely' (90% certainty) that human activities and emissions are causing global warming. News reports told us that there was a consensus among 2,500 scientists there.
India’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri Chairman of the IPCC
Former Vice President Al Gore Global Warming Guru And there was a huge orchestrated celebration in Bali; the IPPC and the leader of the Global Warming movement, former Vice President Al Gore, had just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. All of that gives a strong boast to their dire predictions of climatic calamity. And, to most people it certainly looks like a consensus.
But I know there is not a consensus... not even close.
John McLean
Tom Harris
John McLean, a climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia and Tom Harris, the Ottawa, Canada based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, researched the inside story of the IPCC and wrote about it in the Canada Free Press.
They tell us the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is actually divided into three working groups. Only one of those groups, Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future projections. Within that group they determined how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I. According to them, in total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Dr. John W. Zillman That is a very long way from the "consensus of 2,500 scientists" that is constantly reported. Another insider tells us that while several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting the report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors." He then ads, "Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..."The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process."
And, consider all of these items that refute the idea of a consensus about Global Warming: A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation. Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%.
A petition compiled by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences has attracted the signatures of more than 19,000 American scientists. All agree the science of climate change, and man’s role in it, is uncertain. The Petition reads in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
An independent organization, The European Science and Environmental Forum, has published two monographs, in which a few dozens of scientists present studies contradicting the conclusions of the IPCC.
Richard Lindzen MIT professor Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., one of 11 scientists who prepared the National Academy of Sciences 2001 report on global warming, has stated repeatedly that there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in that report, and that the full report made clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.
The working groups preparing for the IPCC meeting in December 2007 were told to not consider any new research papers after those that had been accepted by the IPCC in 2005. Therefore, a entire body of later peer-reviewed scientific work that countered the claims before the IPCC could not be considered. This prompted a long list of scientists to write a letter of protest to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali. Here is the list of the 100 plus who signed the letter:
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
