Who - what - is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
You claim respected people on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are lying!
At least some of those IPCC members are scientists. Scientists don't lie to us!
Show me where the IPCC has lied to us!
Ok
Scientists don't lie to us. The corollary of that is that people who lie to us aren't scientists! If I demonstrate to you that the IPCC lied to us, will you agree that they aren't scientists?
In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, issued their Third Assessment Report (TAR). The report asserted it was "likely" (with 90% certainty) that humankind was responsible for global warming. Their major piece of evidence was a chart, produced by a team at the University of Virginia, that purported to show there had been only very minor (less than 1 degree C) changes of temperature from 1000 AD to 1900 AD, Then, beginning in 1900, temperature supposedly increased rapidly, culminating in the decade of the 1990's - described by Albert Gore Jr. as the "hottest decade in the last 1000 years." The chart was known by most persons familiar with global warming as the "hockey stick." Since the "hockey stick" graph contradicted literally hundreds of previous climate studies, as well as commonly-known history, several investigations were done. A study by the National Research Council decided the "hockey stick" graph was invalid, both in the very selective data used and the incorrect mathematical techniques used. A study by an expert panel of statisticians also verified that both data and mathematics were incorrect, and went on to point out that no proper "peer review" had taken place. Dozens of individual climatologists repudiated the "hockey stick" on the basis of their own studies of particular periods of history. (You can learn much more about the "hockey stick" graph and the duplicity involved in the book "Shattered Consensus" by Patrick Michaels. See the
references page.)
They pointed out that a thousand years ago the Norsemen settled Greenland, warmer then than it is now.
A thousand years ago, the Norsemen settled a land called "Vinland," for the wild grapevines growing there. There are no grapevines on Newfoundland now, because it's too cold.
Nine hundred years ago, William the Conquerer itemized the vinyards in his English conquest in Domesday Book.
Seven hundred years ago, Geoffrey Chaucer praised English wine. Only now are vinyards returning to English soil.
Then the climate changed - as it does naturally every few hundred years, into the "Little Ice Age." The Norsemen abandoned Vinland, and Greenland. The English vinyards froze. The glaciers advanced, crushing many small towns on the edge of the Alps. Bishops and priests were called to exorcize the demons of the glacial cold. Year after year the Thames River froze, and there were "Ice Fairs" on the River.
In the 1500 and 1600's crop failures were so common people blamed them on witchcraft. Hundreds of elderly women were executed - cruelly - as witches, due to the deteriorating climate, both in Europe and America.
During our Revolutionary War, British troops hauled cannons across frozen New York Harbor. General Washington's Winter Quarters at Valley Forge was actually one of the warmer Winters in the "Little Ice Age."
None of these changes of climate - warming, freezing - would have been possible, according to what the IPCC told us.
Since 1850, we have been emerging from the "Little Ice Age." The IPCC tells us this is bad. The IPCC based their whole story, and their credibility, on something they wanted to believe, something they wanted US to believe, and something that skeptical scientists would have examined very carefully - and rejected. Instead, the "hockey stick" graph has been replicated in thousands of talks by by politicians, by the media, and by government bureaucrats. As I said, the IPCC are NOT scientists.
Now, six years later, the IPCC is back. In spite of being proven liars, the IPCC is even more sure humans are responsible for global warming. They now say in their Fourth Assessment Review it's "very likely" (95% certainty). And the media continue to tell US the IPCC is right.
In 2001, they claimed they represented a "consensus" of climate scientists. Instead, they took one study most climatologists knew was false, and tried to tell the rest of us it was the truth.
They still say they represent a consensus. Al Gore and the Denver Post hype man-made global warming as the greatest crisis facing humanity. Good grief!
Should we believe them now? "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." I don't intend to be fooled twice by the IPCC, and Al Gore, and the media. How about you?
For real science on global warming, see the
references page.
I'm sorry to say the media are credulous to an extreme degree - or maybe they just like to exaggerate in order to sell papers and advertising. For examples of media lies about man-made global warming, see media
I knew that "hockey stick" stuff wasn't right. We Norse - my father Red Eric, my brothers - we settled Greenland and Vinland. It was easy sailing across the North Atlantic. We were all 5 feet, 10 inches tall, or more. We were the Vikings.
Over time, as the Little Ice Age came on, there was too much sea ice. Greenland was cut off for months by the ice. When we Norse abandoned Greenland, it was hard times. Grown men were only 5 feet, 5 inches tall. The glaciers took our farms, our town, our cathedral.
And you're afraid it will get TOO WARM? Lucky Leif