(February 19, 2011) The U.S. House of Representatives today voted by a wide margin — 244-179 — to defund the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The $13-million cut, which garnered support from some Democrats, is part of the House’s budget for 2011. It now goes to the U.S. Senate.
The Climategate scandal played a role in the passage of the amendment, introduced by Republican Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer, who successfully made the case that the Climategate emails discredit the UN’s claims to scientific integrity: “emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals,” he stated. “Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.”
Luetkemeyer’s hard-hitting attack on the UN panel is described here.
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.
Energy Probe 
Pingback: Tweets that mention Lawrence Solomon: US House votes to defund IPCC in Climategate fallout | Energy Probe -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Qohel - Australia's Leading Independent Conservative Blog
It’s tragic that such human frailties are allowed to determine the future of the planet. A few of the academics involved seem to have been less than completely honest. You will find that in any academic field. Gregor Mendel is supposed to have fudged his results to make his conclusions come out more cleanly. Should we therefore believe nothing about genetics?
And why are we so concerned about economic growth that we are prepared to risk the future of the planet in an effort to produce more, more, more? Would it kill us to drive a smaller car and live in a smaller house?
I’ve never eaten a mammoth steak, as did my ancestors. So I accept that the earth has gotten quite a bit warmer over time. That human activity is a contributor seems all too possible. But that changing our errant ways will halt or reverse any warming has been proved to my satisfaction. I realize if the doomsayers are correct, mostly correct or partially correct, some coastal dwellers may have to seek their beachfront property higher up the shoreline. But I still don’t understand why the concept of a warmer earth is so repugnant. I would think a warmer climate would, in the long run, benefit mankind, fauna and flora. Eventually, it might lead to a whole new continent for life (and humans) to exploit.
Nor do I see the disadvantage of greater oceans.
Sorry about the typo: fourth sentence should read — has NOT been proved…
Most reputable scientists in the field say that you are right about the effect of stopping emissions now – the effects of what is already up there will go on building for a century or more. But we have no idea where this could lead if we go on like this. The rate of change is vastly faster than the rate of change at the end of the ice age. We are running a huge and very radical experiment with us and the rest of the planet right in the middle of it. There is the possibility of triggering catastrophic change through positive feed back. For example, some suggest that melting arctic permafrost could result in the decay of huge amounts of organic matter, releasing more CO2 and methane.
And what are we gaining? Possibly a little bit of GDP growth. Ending emissions now would not kill off our economy. We might need to live in smaller houses than otherwise. We might need to drive electric cars a bit more slowly and perhaps with a bit less range. We might need to learn to live with wind turbines and solar panels messing up the view.
To me, there is just no contest. I don’t pretend to know for sure all the effects of our carbon releases, but the dangers of going on with it far outweigh the small cost of stopping.
Gentlemen:
The fossil record has repeatedly shown that there is absolutely NO relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Furthermore, there exists a host of peer reviewed studies that show that the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2 makes it incapable of being a GHG at any concentration that has ever existed on earth. In fact, both average CO2 concentrations AND average global temperature have been significantly HIGHER than today for fully 80% of the last 1 BILLION years.
I wouldn’t be relocating my oceanfront property any time soon.
As for mammoth steaks, oddly enough it was global COOLING, a mini ice age, that spelled the end of these great beasts along with the Clovis People who hunted them. New research indicates these poor souls likely fell victim to the fallout from the impact of a comet or asteroid approximately 1 mile in size that apparently impacted the eastern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet about 13,000 years ago.
Unfortunately, this foolish fixation on a harmless gas necessary for most life on this planet to even exist, has taken our eyes from the real banes of human existence.
One need only view the toxin screens taken from our own bodies to identify what those are.
Again unfortunately, as industry now governs the earth, any action that in any way impairs their ability to profit will be met with stiff opposition. The inaction on pollution reduction, resource depletion and conservation to date are simply proof of that assertion.
If knowledge is power; why do those in power demonstrate such an abysmal absence of knowledge? Is this actual, voluntary or coersed as the price paid for power?
Vigilance gentlemen. If you want the truth, follow the money!
Sean Holt.