Christopher Monckton lays the smack down on the global warming nuts in a letter to Congress. In it, he enumerates 50 issues (or Red Flags) that raise serious questions about testimony heard by Congress on this most important issue. It is lengthy, but worth a read. Here is the link and some highlights (emphasis is mine):
From the intro...
However, my notes of the hearing indicate that certain national and international executive agencies may have materially, serially, seriously, and successfully misled your Congress for several years about the imagined extent, anthropogenic component, and effects of “global warming”.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his farewell address to the nation in 1961, gave a warning “that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
He said –“Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. ... The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
Nearly all of your nation’s scholars and scientists owe their primary livelihood to the involuntary generosity of the taxpayer. Some of your rent-seeking, scientific-technological elite, taking willful and shameless advantage of the taxpayer’s largesse and of the scientific illiteracy that is now widespread, are mightily enriching themselves by misleading your Congress into appropriating disproportionately large sums to permit them to address the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming".
1. Global temperature has been falling rapidly for seven full years: however, this fact appears to have been kept from the Committee, and the director of an agency whose own global-temperature dataset clearly shows the seven-year decline repeatedly failed to admit when questioned by the Committee that there have indeed been seven full years of global cooling, raising the question why, on the central issue of the rate at which “global warming” is or is not occurring, the official was reluctant to admit the seven-year cooling that his own agency’s global-temperature dataset plainly shows.
10. In one of nine serious “errors” identified by a UK High Court Judge in Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, it is suggested that in the palaeoclimate it was CO2 concentration that changed before global temperature, when in fact it was temperature that changed before CO2 concentration, raising the question why Congress (and Her Majesty’s Government) still treats Gore as though he were a ranking expert on “global warming”.
34. The senior official who testified before the Committee said in his testimony that “global warming” would cause various catastrophes, including sea-level rise, ocean acidification, changes in rainfall, increased frequency and intensity of extreme-weather events such as heatwaves, coastal storms, droughts and heavy downpours, coastal erosion and inundation, changes in crop yields and ocean productivity and in climate-related diseases and pests, raising the question why he did not cite Schulte (2008), who found that of 539 papers containing the search phrase “global climate change” and published since the beginning of 2004 not one had offered any evidence for any catastrophe arising from “global warming”.
35. Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, who has published 520 papers on sea-level rise, concluded in a 2004 study of the Maldives that there had been no sea-level rise there for 1250 years, and that global sea level in the 21st century would rise by 8 inches, as it did in the 20th century, raising the question how the chairman of the Committee had been misled – perhaps by officials – into the belief that sea-level rise, particularly in the Maldives, would be likely to occur in a dangerous degree as a result of “global warming”.
50. Carbon dioxide concentration has been up to 20 times today’s levels in the palaeoclimate, and yet the creatures of the ocean survived and flourished, which they could not have done if the higher carbon dioxide concentration had appreciably acidified the oceans, raising the question how a member of the Committee had been misled into believing that current geologically-low concentrations of carbon dioxide could cause any appreciable or dangerous acidification of the oceans, which remain pronouncedly alkaline and contain 70 times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere.
And my favorite nugget...
37. In 2005, in An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore predicted that sea level would rise imminently by 20 feet, inundating coastlines worldwide, leading a UK High Court Judge to find that “the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view”, raising the question why in 2005 he spent $4m on a condo in the St. Regis Tower, San Francisco, just feet from the ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Al Gore. Although almost any liberal could share the title.
Monckton covers almost every issue pertaining to this debate. As you know, literally everything has been blamed on global warming from more storms to more tropical diseases. He touches on most of these and refutes some of the nonsense being pushed by the left.
There are many reasons I dismissed the whole "global warming" crap. Having lived through the 70s ice age scare, taught me a valuable lesson on how bad science can be used to push public policy. But even more important is my understanding of how significantly large and intricate the earth, its oceans and atmosphere are, coupled with the influence of that great big yellow ball in the sky, make it laughable to think that mankind could even change the climate if he tried!
It boggles my mind that ANYONE can take someone like Al Gore seriously on such an important issue. While he is preaching fear, he is completely ignoring his own warnings of coming doom by investing in waterfront property. And while enriching himself from these scare tactics, he does nothing to change his own behavior or reduce his own "carbon footprint".
The final straw was the race to impose draconian taxes to "stop global warming". This religion is not about saving the planet. It is simply a power play. Through new confiscatory taxation, liberals intend to control energy and therefore control mankind.
They have gone way past their 15 minutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment