NIPCC report states there is no anthropogenic global warming (Update)

May 24, 2:08 PMPortland Civil Rights ExaminerDianna Cotter

Previous Next

16 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Portland Civil Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

NASA 10th Earth Day

In May 2006 we were told, with the most alarming language possible, that humans were causing the planet to warm with their use of Carbon based fuels. We must follow all of the recommendations of the IPCC report coming out in 2007 or humanity's existence on earth would end.

We were told that we must do something now, in order to prevent the deaths of untold millions, and the loss of humanity’s very ability to survive on earth. We must start taxing "Global warming Gasses" in order to stop their production, no matter the human cost!

It’s a complete lie.

The IPCC – the International Panel on Climate Change is a committee with an agenda, and one it was pre-programmed to execute. It was designed from the outset, from its very beginnings to come up with a specific result. This is in direct contradiction to every principle of real science, the aim of which is to describe reality as it is, not reality as one wishes it to be.

To illustrate this, in 1995 the IPCC completely ignored Satellite evidence, very clear evidence, that there was no warming according to a report from the Heartland Institute Released in 2008. The full pdf. is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate The institute claims, and is backed by anecdotal reports that the IPCC changed portions of the text of its report to make it appear that humans were the cause of the warming they artificially detected, or in other words, manufactured. Also attributed to the Heartland Institute’s report, the IPCC ignored further data confirming the lack of warming – if not showing a slight cooling – that became available after the May 2006 deadline.

The report the column speaks of is the NIPCC. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. A completely independent examination of all the evidence available in published peer-reviewed literature. They included every single piece or evidence available to them, positive and negative, they did not select research that proved their predetermined result as the IPCC did. They went through everything. Their conclusion, there is no human caused global warming.

“The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence”

For anyone who has any sort of intellectual honesty at all, the report from the Heartland Institute is a MUST read. Dr. Fred S. Singer who conceived and directed the NIPCC project is an honored and decorated scientist. His Raison d'être is truth, not political machinations, or power. He is deeply concerned by the absolute mis-use of science in what has now become a multi-billion dollar business, that is based on what amounts to a hoax.

"The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [IPCC-AR4 200 "When new errors and outright falsehoods were observed in the initial drafts of AR4(The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [IPCC-AR4 2007]), SEPP [Science and Environmental Policy Project] set up a ‘Team B’ to produce an independent evaluation of the available scientific evidence. While the initial organization took place at a meeting in Milan in 2003, ‘Team B’ was activated only after the AR4 SPM appeared in February 2007. It changed its name to NIPCC and organized an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007."
 

This group of scientists, who have looked at all available evidence, from satellite to very unreliable ground temperature readings to historical records, concludes correctly; if Human governments are going to be institution policies that will drastically affect the lives of its citizens, and the Waxman-Markley Cap and trade energy bill is without a doubt just that, then it must be utterly certain of the science that backs the supporting reasons for the existence of the legislation.

This report states unequivocally that there is zero evidence of man-made global warming. We are about to kill a Nation, literally for hot air that does not exist.

But wait, there more:

In an article titled Proved: there is No Climate Crisis written by Robert Ferguson July 15th 2008, he reports on mathematical proof “that there is no “climate crisis”.

“Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.”

"Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes – “… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.” "

Considering the likely ramifications of Waxman-Markley Cap and trade energy bill, indeed, we must have the fortitude to re-examine honestly all of the information available to us.

For those of you who believe whole heartedly in Man-made Global warming, then these reports are a must read for you. They are peer reviewed documents based in fact. If you are supporting legislation that will wreck such economic devastation not only on your fellow Americans but also on yourself, it should be read so that you can counter those who do not believe in global warming caused by man. Because you will have some explaining to do. Be cautioned however, upon reading them, you will find yourself starting to realize that you have been had.

On a Global scale.

Human caused Legislation like the Waxman-Markley Cap and trade energy bill will do more harm to more people in a year, than human caused Global Warming will in the next century. It is nothing short of a massive money stealing scheme made by our Governement to pay for the whorish excesses of the last 6 months.

Now that is an inconvenient truth.

UPDATE:

For anyone supporting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions: kudos to you. A suggestion; support legislation capable of actually reducing emissions instead just taxing them. A significant idea, offer tax incentives to businesses that create alternative fuels, currently there is no alternative to the fuels we use today. There is nothing to switch over to. The fuels we use today will be needed until there is an alternative. The only thing that will change at all is a 50 to 90% higher cost. Another unintended consequence; the fresh flooding of American business going overseas, and the jobs that go along with them.

Until there is an alternative fuel source, the only thing that can be done to reduce emmissions is to price them out of your affordablity range, to make it so unafordable, you can not heat your home in winter. That will surely reduce emissions. However, no one has proved that doing so will change the Earth's climate in the slightest. Infact leading evidence suggests that reducing Emissions in the United States will have little to no effect at all on global temperatures.

This is the point, draconian legislation is seriously being considered that stands a very significant chance of failing to meet any of it's stated goals, the height of insanity. 

Creating a tax on industry does not help reduce emissions; it is poor reasoning to think that it will. It makes industry just that much more expensive, and that cost is passed on to you.

The government wants the revenue, that’s why they are creating the tax to begin with, to gain revenue from every American regardless of income, economic status, employment status or immigration status. It is a carte blanch tax on nearly every product, service, commodity, and fuel in the United States of America.

Supporting the Waxman-Markley Cap and trade Energy Bill is the height of stupidity surpassed only by its existence. It can not achieve its stated goals, it is not designed to. It is a Tax.

Cap and Trade has not worked in Europe, it has however cost them a 5 to 10% loss in Standard of Living. In other words, it has made every citizen poorer.

Emissions? They have not changed at all.

EUROPE'S "CAP AND TRADE" PROBLEMS

As U.S. lawmakers work on the details of "cap and trade" carbon dioxide legislation, they need to know what Europeans already know: When trying to slow down global warming, beware of unintended consequences, says Steven Mufson in the Washington Post.

Consider Kollo Holding's (a silicon carbide maker) factory in the Netherlands:
• Managers at the factory say their plant as an ecological standout: They use waste gases to generate energy and have installed the latest pollution-control equipment.
• But Europe's emissions program has driven electricity prices so high that the facility routinely shuts down for part of the day to save money on power, which, contrary to environmental goals, reduces energy efficiency.
• Although demand for its products is strong, the plant has laid off 40 of its 130 employees and trimmed production.
• Two customers have turned to cheaper imports from China, which is not covered by Europe's costly regulations.

They aren't the only ones suffering, says Mufson. French cement workers fear they're going to lose jobs to Morocco, which doesn't have to meet the European guidelines; and German homeowners pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did before the caps.

Making matters worse, the rationing hasn't proved successful, says Mufson:
• Because of lobbying by well-connected companies, the EU's limits on emissions ended up being higher than the actual emissions.
• As a result, fewer companies than expected had to buy emissions this year, and the price of carbon allowances, which had topped $30 per ton of carbon about a year ago, crashed to about $1 a ton.
• Germany boasts that it has cut emissions to 18.4 percent below 1990 levels, but nearly half the reduction was because of sagging industrial output in the former East Germany after reunification.
• For the 2008-2012 period, European Union officials sliced 5 percent off Germany's emissions proposal.

Source: Steven Mufson, "Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases," Washington Post, April 9, 2007.