Skip to main content

IPCC and the Politics of Global Warming


The findings of the 1996 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that man has made significant contribution to global warming. Ironically, these were not the original findings of the scientists who contributed to the report. Unfortunately, politics has so far gotten the best of the global warming debate.

Fairly recently, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson was a guest host for the Bob Lonsberry show on KNRS AM 570. He spent a significant portion of the show discussing global warming and the unassailable 'facts' of the findings of the Intergorvernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cover me, I'm about to assail them!

There are some things that I agree with Mayor Anderson about, and there are some things I don't. The mayor seems to be a reasonable guy, so I hope at some point he can admit to the politicized 'findings' of the IPCC.

The final report of the IPCC in 1996 stated that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." The problem is, that statement is at best ambiguous and does not express the sentiment of the scientists who participated in the project.

Dr. Frederick Seitz, who had been very unjustly caricatured in the American press, said of the IPCC process

I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

Climate scientist, S. Fred Singer, co-author of the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, points out that the statement that there was a "human fingerprint" with regard to global warming

was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific, reasons. Then the "science volume" was edited to take out five different statements--all of which had been approved by the panel's scientific consultants--specifically saying no such "human fingerprint" had been found.

The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so. (page 10)

This is me just speculating here, but...Al Gore was vice president of the United States in 1996.

There is a great deal to the warming of the globe that can be answered by science. Global warming is a fact. But so is global cooling. It all happens on a cyclical basis, and it can be attributed to natural variations in solar activity, and it can be measured in naturally occurring phenomena, as Unstoppable Global Warming points out with clarity but in great detail.

What is not a fact (although mankind should do everything it can to be stewards of its environment) is that man is a significant cause of global warming.

Science is a fascinating study. But not when it gets overtaken and stifled by politics.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

Why Do Liberals Coddle the Radical Islamic Monster?

Many liberals and progressives in the United States and elsewhere support a radical Islamic fundamentalist movement which, if it came to power, would quickly wipe out their liberal progressive ideology. Why then, do so many liberals coddle the monster that would destroy them? The Answer lies in their long-stemmed hatred of Western liberty and free markets. Dick Morris' new revelation of Hillary Clinton's ties to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism provides an excellent backdrop for me to ask the question that Greg Allen of The Right Balance has been asking for quite some time, to wit: If many liberals stand for free sexuality, homosexuality, the use of drugs, binge drinking, and other mindless expressions of individuality, why do so many of them also look the other way when it comes to Islamic fundamentalism? Don't they know that Iran has put to death as many as 4,000 homosexuals? Don't they know that if Islamists come to power they will not only make sexual perversi...
52 comments
Read more

The Inhumanity of Bob Lonsberry: Waterboarding, Concentration Camps, and the the Bataan Death March

KNRS 570 radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry advocated waterboarding and other forms of torture during his show on April 21, 2009. More grotesquely, he was beaming with pride about his advocacy campaign. It's difficult to imagine then, that, by the same rationale, had Lonsberry been a German at the time of Hitler, or a Japanese during the Bataan Death March, that he would not have advocated torture of Jews in the concentration camps or the bayoneting and shooting of American soldiers on the Bataan trail. Torture, Torture, Everywhere! Nearly 80,000 American soldiers were captured by the Japanese in the To contemplate a discussion about whether or not torture is legal or whether it even works, it is first required to come to the conclusion that 'I am a child of God, but my adversary is a monkey'. Phillipines in 1942 and forced to march with no food and very little water for six days. If a man stumbled, if he didn't respond quickly to a command, or if he tried to get wat...
50 comments
Read more