If you have been reading my blog, I told you that. The CRU emails told me so. So what’s new? Now the IPCC, the UN’s climate people… say what the CRU emails already told us, and were right.
That’s what truth does … So Obama’s failed green companies were destined for failure from day one. That’s what you call government investments, failures. The private sector didn’t do that, you, government did that. All failures, see how easy it is Mr President. Your Marxist ankle is showing under your skirt.
On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”
Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world’s most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as “proof” that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.
If the IPCC’s reports were flawed, as a many global warming “skeptics” have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement’s “mother of all environmental scares” — is undermined. The Obama administration’s war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to “fix” a problem that didn’t really exist.
You don’t expect they will actually admit that now would you?
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
Yep Al Gore’s warm swaddling blanket, it’s still mising and none of the computer models can explain why. Such is the trouble with fabricating hypothesis and not being able to prove they are true. Obviously, they are not, and that fact can no longer be hidden from the people.
Did you know that there is even a scientific method to determine how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man made CO2. Yes, that method is the same as carbon dating. And it shows that less than 3% of the world’s CO2 is man made. That is clearly not enough to change anything with our global climate. And much of that is due to burning the woods in third world countries. Yep wood burning, not oil. Isn’t that the cats meow, unexpectedly.