! FILE: ipcc.html <! <! DESCRIPTION: Climategate in Review: <! * Conclusions Concerning the IPCC Report <! <! NOTES: * File must have .shtml extension or else have <! permissions of 755 to execute SSI directives. <! <! UPDATED: 01-01-20 <! <! AUTHOR: C. Jeffery Small (firstname.lastname@example.org) <! <! Copyright 2009-2020 by C. Jeffery Small <! FILE: header.html <! <! DESCRIPTION: Climategate in Review: page header <! <! NOTES: * Filename must either have .shtml extension or else have file <! permissions of 755 to allow SSI directives to be processed. <! <! UPDATED: 01-15-23 CJS <! <! AUTHOR: C. Jeffery Small (email@example.com) <! <! Copyright 2009-2023 by C. Jeffery Small
Climategate in Review
In a June 29, 1998 AP News Report, Peter James Spielman reported on a number of short term predictions made by Noel Brown, a senior U.N. environmental official. These included:
These claims have not stood the test of time, along with all the many other catastrophic predictions made by others before and since then.
So what is left of the UN's IPCC advisory report? Absolutely nothing. Every conclusion that it draws rests upon global temperature data that has been shown to be useless in its native form, even before being artificially manipulated by pseudo-scientists in order to manufacture false apocalyptic projections. And why would these "scientists" do such a thing? As is often the case, the answer is money. It is estimated that in America alone, since 1989, the U.S. government has spent over $79 billion on climate science. As the single significant source of funding for this research, it doesn't take much imagination to realize that the dollars only continue to flow so long as there is a "problem" that needs to be addressed. Not even Congress is going to spend $79 billion just to be told that everything is fine. So it is imperative that the funding mechanism continue to be well greased with doom and gloom scenarios. And the same is true for other countries. This is the tragic, but predictable consequence of government subsidization of scientific research, which inevitably results in replacing the search for truth as embodied by the facts of nature, with the generation of political propaganda in support of man-made policy agendas.
And what is the UN's overall response in light of these revelations? Have they decided to reevaluate their conclusions in response to all this new information? The answer is no. And the reason is that concern over preserving the environment is merely a smokescreen intended to hide the real agenda. As FOX news reported on September 8, 2010, the UN's Secretary General and his staff met to discuss ways of reasserting the UN's influence on the world stage, including:
"how to restore 'climate change' as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year's Copenhagen summit"
"how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth
the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen
the discussion further to encompass the idea of 'global public goods'"
So "climate change" is simply seen as a convenient tool to be used to extract wealth from producer countries and redistribute it to the non-producers. And since that goal remains unaffected by any revelations of the anti-scientific foundations underlying climate research, there is no need to change course.
Back in 2016, to drive this home visually, Christopher Monckton pulled together the IPCC global warming predictions from their reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 and represented them on a Global Warming Speedometer, along with the actual measured warming from January, 2001 through April, 2016.
As is clearly seen, even the lowest range of the various predictions was far in excess of the actual results, proving that the climate models were fabrications that did not come close to representing reality. For more details on the sources behind this data, see the report here.
|Back up to:||Index|
|Next Section:||When Science Isn't Working, Try Intimidation or Brainwashing or Outright Lying|