Scientists Expose Falsified, Corrupted Science and Intimidation Used by Global Warming Pushers

Share With Your Friends On Facebook, Twitter, Everywhere
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

001-richard-tol-610

Discredit and public reevaluation is coming to the “scientific” foundation for the UN and other climate change propagandists just as they are swinging into full “shoving it down our throats” mode. The target of the renewed scrutiny is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its questionable methods.

The House Science Committee held hearing on Thursday which included testimony as to how politics too often influences what might otherwise be good science at the IPCC as well as research conducted by the U.S. government.

The witnesses exposed a policy of intimidation, with climate scientists and researchers who deviate even slightly from the official narrative being ostracized, asserting that politics trumps science in the global warming documentation process.

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex said, “Academics who research climate change out of curiosity but find less than alarming things are ignored, unless they rise to prominence, in which case they are harassed and smeared.”

He testified, “Governments nominate academics to the IPCC – but we should be clear that it is often the environment agencies that do the nominating.” He said it is “rare that a government agency with a purely scientific agenda takes the lead on IPCC matters.”

A foundation for flawed, predetermined outcomes was exposed by Tol, who said, “As a result, certain researchers are promoted at the expense of more qualified colleagues. Other competent people are excluded because their views do not match those of their government. Some authors do not have the right skills or expertise, and are nominated on the strength of their connections only.”

Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University expressed similar views, saying his decades of participation in IPCC assessments has shown a lack of transparency and openness in the process.

He also pointed out that the IPCC reports’ “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM) sections are basically subject to government approval and are an opportunity for the distortion of scientific findings.

Oppenheimer said, “In the end, the SPM is approved by governments. There have been occasions where government interventions, by causing omissions, have diluted IPCC findings.”

Tol also related political influences, describing how “Not all IPCC authors are equal. Some hold positions of power in key chapters, others subordinate positions in irrelevant chapters. The IPCC leadership has in the past been very adept at putting troublesome authors in positions where they cannot harm the cause.”

He described the ostracizing of a colleague, Swedish meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson, because his conclusions didn’t match the desired political narrative and how those who challenge the official position often have their credibility and reputations disparaged.

He spoke of how “Other eminent meteorologists have been treated like Bengtsson was… merely for sticking to the academic literature, as reflected by the IPCC, that there is no statistical evidence that the impact of natural disaster has increased because of climate change.”

University of California, Santa Barbara’s Daniel Botkin, professor emeritus in biology, revealed that while the U.N. panel’s 2014 report and the White House National Climate Assessment are “scientific-sounding,” they also present “speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve.”

Rep Lamar Smith (R-TX) responded saying the Obama adminsitration “should stop trying to scare Americans and then impose costly, unnecessary regulations on them. The President says there is no debate. Actually the debate has only just begun. When assessing climate change, we need to make sure that findings are driven by science, not an alarmist, partisan agenda.”

Finally, the disinfectant of sunlight may be shining on the deception of mitigating global warming.

Rick Wells is a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us


Share With Your Friends On Facebook, Twitter, Everywhere
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*