The problem they have is that if more than 50% of people don’t believe them, then it’s harder for them to lie, because there is always someone who can provide the truth. They like to talk about ‘tipping points’ without understanding that they’ve passed one themselves. The irony of seeing intellectuals fall into a trap they are always warning us about is quite amusing.

Real issues about toxic waste and harming the environment are being lost as they pick on the most harmless pollutant of all. No one has mentioned the Baltic Sea or cleaning it up at any IPCC Conference, but there’s no money to be made doing that.

Scientists should be ashamed of themselves, or I mean, the few who actually support the IPCC.

It Didn’t Start With Climategate
Share Post Print
January 1, 2010 Posted by John at 7:34 PM
The whistleblower at the University of East Anglia who leaked emails and other documents that reveal the fraud that is being perpetrated by the world’s leading global warming alarmists did us all a great service. But it is important to realize that the deception didn’t just begin: rather, the global warming hysteria movement has been shot through with fraud from the start.
The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Second Assessment Report, which was published under the auspices of the United Nations in 1996. This report was the principal basis for the Kyoto Accord which was signed in 1997, and for the nonsense that has been inflicted on the world’s elementary school students ever since.
But the Second Assessment Report was hijacked by an AGW activist who re-wrote key conclusions and injected a level of alarmism that had not been present in the consensus document. You can get the whole story here, along with a great deal more information about the global warming controversy. The Science and Environmental Project summarized what happened as follows:
IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers (SPM), are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Perhaps the most blatant example is IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR), completed in 1995 and published in 1996. Its SPM contains the memorable phrase “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” You may recall that this 1996 IPCC report played a key role in the political deliberations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. Nothing of the sort has ever happened. The IPCC has consistently ignored the major natural influences on climate change and has focused almost entirely on human causes, especially on GH gases and more especially on carbon dioxide, which is linked to industrial activities and therefore ‘bad’ almost by definition.
How then did the IPCC-SAR arrive at “balance of evidence”? It was the work of a then-relatively-junior scientist, Dr Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), who has recently re-emerged as a major actor in ClimateGate. As a Convening Lead Author of a crucial IPCC chapter, Santer carefully removed any verbiage denying that human influences might be the major or almost exclusive cause of warming and substituted new language. There is no evidence that he ever consulted any of his fellow IPCC authors, nor do we know who instructed him to make these changes and later approved the text deletions and insertions that fundamentally transformed IPCC-SAR.

Shooting down various individual claims had been successful in raising doubts about the report, but supporters come up with the argument that the report is full of many other claims supported by a majority of scientists.

As I have shown previously, a much larger portion of the report contains ‘grey’ literature than they would like to admit. The grey literature is unverifibale and even much of the research didn’t include the raw date to enable any effective affirmation.

Mclean then shows that the 4,00 scientists who put their name to the report is also a myth. The number isn’t that large, and few of the much smaller number gave any real affirmation, in fact, those who submitted contrary opinions were ignored, contrary to normal practice, and yet they are still counted as being supporters.

The very nature of the report is nothing more than a fraud. It cannot be resurrected. That would be like trying to turn a ‘clunker’ into a limousine. The IPCC cannot let go of it, because they could never pull the same trick twice.

The argument over ‘methodology’ and the fiction of scientific consensus support, along with the proliferation of grey literature and ‘science without data’ may not grab the attention of the general public, but that’s what finally kills this report as anything related to science. It throws shame on the UK scientific establishment that they have the nerve to support such piffling trash in front of the TV cameras.

Sinning was evil, but could be paid off if you have the money to do so. Just to add mockery to the sham our governments are handing out free ‘indulgences’ which can then be traded, so that ‘the chosen ones’ are credited with immoral behaviour in advance. It’s the equivalent of multiple ‘get out of jail free’ cards, but with a cash in surrender value.

If Henry VIII had been so smart he wouldn’t have had to execute all those wives and could have made a fortune out of infedility.

This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this email. IPCC,
me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

It’s shameful that any respectable scientist should want to stand anywhere near it, and the fact that some do should cause their dismissal from future scientific projects.

It’s the ‘smoking gun’ evidence of ‘scientists behaving badly’ (to parody a UK TV show) and there’s no way to redeem the report with that evidence lying at the very core of it.