Will Conroy
The Chimes online
March 5, 2010

The concept of manmade global warming – the idea that global temperature is increasing as a result of the green house effect from pollutants like CO2 that come from the industrialization of society – has become widely known. But the basis for such conclusions is yet to be proven and the claim of a scientific consensus by those like Al Gore and Prime Minster Gordon Brown, is unequivocally wrong. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe and Lawrence Solomon of the National Post say the opinion is hardly unanimous, noting thousands of scientists that dissent from such a consensus.

The recent scandal, being dubbed “climategate,” is an indicator of the manner in which the climate change subject is being approached by many. After e-mails surfaced between scientists at the University of East Anglia, a leading climate change research institution, conspiring efforts to manipulate public opinion regardless of reality became clear.

The e-mails were between scientists that were behind much of the climate change alarmism that revealed the manner in which data was presented to the public – and in some cases, data that wasn’t. According to Daily Mail, if it wasn’t for a legal loop-hole, climate scientists could be prosecuted for cherry-picking data, which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mainly based their 2007 report, and ignoring Freedom of Information Requests. The IPCC subsequently had to apologize for their claim that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 25 years.

According to the Daily Mail, on March 1 Professor Phil Jones, the head of the University’s “prestigious” climate research unit, admitted that he wasn’t forthright with data because “it was not ‘standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.”

Apart from “climategate,” data has continually been deliberately misrepresented or manufactured. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner – Swedish geologist, physicist and former Chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change – dealt a blow to the manmade global warming argument in a Telegraph article by Christopher Booker. Mörner said the sea level is not rising and hasn’t risen for the past 50 years, and if there is a rise in the next 50 years, it won’t be more than 10 cm. But that didn’t stop Al Gore from winning an Oscar for his ironically titled film, “An Inconvenient Truth” that depicted San Francisco and Shanghai half underwater. Mörner expressed his dismay over the continued hypothetical propaganda surrounding the issue, of which the media has excessively covered.

Booker commented on the manipulation of data further in an article published in November of 2008 titled “The world has never seen such freezing heat.” NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), ran by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally Dr. James Hansen, whose testimony in ’88 to a committee chaired by Al Gore set the whole scare in motion, carried over readings from September and used them in October. In an attempt to divert unwanted attention to the unusual cold temperatures that they didn’t report, they then reported that they had found a hot spot over the Arctic. At the same time, satellite images were showing “Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.” Booker also cited the fact that in 2007, Hansen was forced to revise published figures for surface temperatures to show that the hottest decade of the twentieth century was not in the 90s, as he claimed, but in the 30s.

For those who can’t see facts for what they are and would like to think that these scientists are bankrolled by the oil companies, apart from the sheer amount of scientists that dissent from the “unanimous” conclusion about climate change, the fact that big oil and auto execs are avid supporters of global warming alarmism, and the agenda that coincides with it, should be enough to refute such claims.

According to the Wall Street Journal on Oct. 1, 2009 Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of the oil industry titan Exxon, which has continually posted record profits, said, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.” This is the same Exxon that has yet to clean up the historical oil spill off the coast of Alaska 20 years later and is uncooperative in “restoration” efforts.

Others argue the global warming that we have seen develop in the latter half of the twentieth century is the result of the cycles of the sun and earth – an argument that notes the fact that ice has been melting for thousands of years, well before any “unsustainable” industrial activity, and has given us the Great Lakes. Geologist Bob Carter of the Telegraph cites that over the past 11 years there has, in fact, been a cooling. He also notes that a period of warming similar to that of 1970-1998 occurred between 1918-1940, well before the greatest phase of industrialization, which was then also followed by a cooling period.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Meteorology Dr. Richard S. Lindzen provided the icing on the cake for global warming dissenters this past summer. In a paper, he published what many are calling the “nail in the coffin” for the global warming debate. Data he’s collected by satellite over a 15-year period from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, concerning heat radiated out into space, confirms that the effect of CO2 and all greenhouse gases on temperature is less than one sixth of what the U.N. says it is – debunking much of their models. “We now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate,” he wrote in his peer-reviewed paper.

An overview of the information is provided in an Examiner article by Diane Cotter titled Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT scientist, which is accompanied by other data.

The intention for the climate change agenda might have a far more sinister connotation that extends beyond just a new pyramid, tax scheme.

Read the original story here.