The IPCC rewrites the work of contributors, some of whom have resigned in protest while their names were used anyway, in order to promote the conclusion that man-made changes are responsible for a looming apocalypse that requires a world government to regulate the energy use of every human being on the planet. Their peer review system is designed to filter out evidence to the contrary and to silence dissent. They have been caught discarding later data from their own sources in order to publish charts that show a dramatic temperature rise as part of a push to get countries to sign a treaty that would surrender sovereignty to their new world order.
When evidence contrary to their pre-ordained conclusion is presented, they trot out the old 'consensus' argument. There is not an overwhelming consensus, as evidenced by the signatures of over 17,000 scientists who have publicly signed a statement in opposition, demonstrating that their success in keeping dissenting scientists out of the media has failed to completely silence them, despite a policy that denies funding to those who dare to question the orthodoxy. As if consensus were somehow a substitute for truth anyway.
Their data is used to support computer models that cannot predict the present, when fed information from the past. Therefore the models are not predictive of the future, even though all of our money is paid to collect only evidence that will support the political conclusion.
The above is why they cannot be trusted, especially with the kind of power they seek.
On the specifics, water vapor as a greenhouse gas is many times more influential than CO2, therefore my 'infinitesimal' comment. The IPCC models ignore it. And the evidence is stacking up that it is cloudiness that is driving the greenhouse effect, and that the cloudiness is affected by energetic particles that are moderated by solar activity. (Edit: My previous post mis-stated this.) This explains the politically inconvenient correlation of temperature with solar activity.
Further, if you look into the data a little further yourself, you will see that it appears that historically, temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, and you might consider that the oceans give up some dissolved CO2 as they warm. Also, the present major warming trend began before the industrial revolution, and included several significant cooling periods (enough to bring calls for global government to combat the coming ice age) which should not have happened if the rising CO2 is a major determinant of temperature.
The IPCC has been publishing these warnings for awhile now. They pick and choose data to fit their theory and their political agenda, and their predictions from the past have not materialized. They appear to understand that none of this matters if the public relations machine can inundate all media with the message, giving common idiots confidence in spouting the commonly accepted 'truth that everybody knows'.
The man-made CO2 driven global warming hypothesis does not fit the data and is therefore invalidated. Climate change is a fact of history, and warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels have happened before. All the evidence shows that life prospers under these conditions, much better than during an ice age. The next ice age will certainly be blamed on mankind as well, if he has not yet immolated himself on the altar of his own ignorance.
I will not willingly hand them a gun and a whip to rule me with.
There is incontrovertible evidence that the main threat to human life on this planet is unrestrained government power. The death toll is there in plain view for anyone who wishes to consider the option of surrendering their freedom along with their ability to resist.
I ask you to consider what they will do with this power if you give it to them.
--97T--  |