the world's final authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change's findings and recommendations have formed the bedrock
of literally every climate-related initiative worldwide for more than a
decade. Likewise, virtually all such future endeavors -- be they Kyoto II,
domestic cap-and-tax, or EPA carbon regulation, would inexorably be built
upon the credibility of the same U.N. panel's "expert" counsel.
But a glut of ongoing recent discoveries of systemic fraud has rocked that
foundation, and the entire man-made global warming house of cards is now
teetering on the verge of complete collapse.
stated, we've been swindled. We've been set up as marks by a gang of opportunistic
hucksters who have exploited the naïvely altruistic intentions of the
environmental movement in an effort to control international energy consumption
while redistributing global wealth and (in many cases) greedily lining their
own pockets in the process. Perhaps now, more people will finally understand
what many have known for years: Man-made climate change was never really
a problem -- but rather, a solution.
just as the science of the IPCC has been exposed as fraudulent, so have
its apparent motives. The true ones became strikingly evident when the negotiating
text for the "last chance to save the planet" International Climate
put forth in Copenhagen in December, was found to contain as many paragraphs
outlining the payment of "climate debt" reparations by Western
nations under the watchful eye of a U.N.-controlled global government as
it did emission reduction schemes.
again, neither stratagem should come as any real surprise to those who've
paid attention. Here's a recap for those who have, and a long-overdue wake-up
call for those who haven't. [See also The
CFC Ban: Global Warming's Pilot Episode]
Perfect Problem to the Imperfect Solution
U.N. signaled its intent to politicize science as far back as 1972 at its
Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm, Sweden. There,
an unlikely mélange of legitimate environmental activists, dyed-in-the-wool
Marxists, and assorted anti-establishment '60s leftovers were delighted
to hear not only the usual complaints about "industrialized" environmental
problems, but also a long list of international inequities. Among the many
human responsibilities condemned were overpopulation, misuse of resources
and technology, unbalanced development, and the worldwide dilemma of urbanization.
And from that marriage of global, environmental, and social justice concerns
was born the IPCC's parent organization -- the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) -- and the fortune-cookie like prose of its socialist-environmentalist
manifesto, the Stockholm
seven years later that UNEP was handed the ideal villain to fuel its counterfeit
crusade. That was the year (1979) in which NASA's James Hansen's team of
climate modelers convinced a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel to
that doubling atmospheric CO2 -- which had risen from 280 ppmv in the pre-industrial
1800s to over 335 ppmv -- would cause nearly 3°C of global warming.
And although the figure was wildly speculative, many funding-minded scientists
-- including some previously predicting that aerosols and orbital shifts
would lead to catastrophic global cooling -- suddenly embraced greenhouse
gas theory and the inevitability of global warming.
It was at that
moment that it became clear that the long-held scientific position that
the Earth's ecosystem has always and will always maintain CO2 equilibrium
could be easily swayed toward a more exploitable belief system. And the
UNEP now had the perfect problem to its solution: anthropogenic global warming
After all, both
its abatement and adaptation require huge expansion of government controls
and taxation. Furthermore, it makes industry and capitalism look bad while
affording endless visuals of animals and third-world humans suffering at
the hands of wealthy Westerners. And most importantly, by fomenting accusations
that "rich" countries have effectively violated the human rights
of hundreds of millions of the world's poorest people by selfishly causing
climate-based global suffering, it helps promote the promise of international
wealth redistribution to help less fortunate nations adapt to its consequences.
Best of all,
being driven by junk-science that easily metamorphoses as required, it appeared
to be endlessly self-sustaining.
But it needed
to be packaged for widespread consumption. And packaged it they surely have.
Here's an early classic.
year was 1988, and Colorado Senator Tim Wirth had arranged for Hansen to
testify on the subject before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
to help sell the dire need to enact national environmental legislation.
As Wirth has since admitted,
he intentionally scheduled Hansen's appearance on what was forecasted to
be the hottest day of the hearings. And in a brilliantly underhanded marketing
ploy, he and his cohorts actually snuck into the hearing room the night
before and opened the windows, rendering the air conditioning all but useless.
the devious beauty of the scene that unfolded in front of the cameras the
next day -- a NASA scientist preaching fire and brimstone, warning of "unprecedented
global warming" and a potential "runaway greenhouse effect,"
all the while wiping the dripping sweat off his brow. No wonder the resultant
NY Times headline screamed, "Global
Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate."
that, ladies and gentlemen, is how climate hysteria and not one, but two
of its shining stars were born. For coincidentally, that was the same year
the IPCC was established by the U.N. Its mandate: to
assess "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information
relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change."
an organization formed not to prove or disprove AGW, but merely to assess
its risks and recommend an appropriate response.
Now it was time
to really get to work.
the "Global Warming as Social Injustice" Waters
1990, the IPCC issued its First Assessment Report, warning of a natural
greenhouse effect being enhanced by human emission activities. Apparently
not quite ready to show its cards, the IPCC even admitted that the still-little-understood
effects of such factors as carbon sinks, ocean currents, and clouds left
many uncertainties as to timing and magnitude.
politics pushed forward in earnest. At the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment
and Development (aka Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, the event's Secretary-General,
Maurice Strong, told the opening session that industrialized countries had
"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production
and consumption which have produced our present dilemma." The veteran
U.N. puppeteer blamed the "lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class," which included "high meat consumption
and large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels,
appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing"
for the world's environment ills. The solution: "[A] vast strengthening
of the multilateral system, including the United Nations."
that meeting sprouted the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
treaty. Absent specific numbers, the highly-touted Kyoto precursor nonetheless
promised to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere
to prevent "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
But much less fanfare accompanied the essentially concurrent adoption of
Agenda 21: a global contract
that bound governments around the world to a U.N. plan to change the way
people "live, eat, learn and communicate," all in the name of
"saving the earth" from mankind’s mistakes, particularly
Again we saw
a U.N.-crafted convergence of climate "science" and social "justice."
While the signing of the UNFCCC would be a gradual process, 178 governments
voted to adopt the Agenda 21 on the spot. This was quite a victory, especially
in light of the IPCC's complete control over just exactly how such planetary
salvation was best realized.
And in 1995,
its Second Assessment Report (SAR) upped that ante a bit, stating that "the
balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."
Oddly, SAR slightly toned down previous projections for future warming and
sea level rise based on the newly-considered cooling effects of anthropogenic
atmospheric aerosols -- a move the U.N. brass likely regretted two years
In 1997, a protocol
was added to UNFCCC that attempted to enact national commitments to emission
reductions based on SAR recommendations. Fully 160 countries agreed to the
legally binding Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized countries would
reduce their collective emissions by 5.2%. However, although a signatory,
the United States made ratification all but impossible when its Senate unanimously
passed a resolution that year prohibiting U.S involvement in "any protocol
that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations
as well as industrialized nations."
It appeared time
to ratchet up the rhetoric -- truth be damned.
Dawn of Outright Climate Fraud
in 1989, future Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Working Group 2 (WG2) lead
author Stephen Schneider disclosed several tricks of the trade to Discover
To capture the
public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified
dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each
of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being
according to MIT's Richard Lindzen's 2001 Senate subcommittee testimony,
that's precisely what he witnessed as a Third Assessment Report (TAR) lead
author. Among the atmospheric physicist's revelations was the fact that
contributing TAR scientists -- already facing the threat of disappearing
grant funds and derision as industry stooges -- were also met with ad hominem
attacks from IPCC "coordinators" if they refused to tone down
criticism of faulty climate models or otherwise questioned AGW dogma. I
suppose that's one way to achieve the "consensus" the IPCC loudly
it was in the same 2001 TAR that the IPCC suddenly and inexplicably scrapped
its long-held position that global temperatures had fluctuated drastically
over the previous millennium and replaced it with a chart depicting relatively
flat temperatures prior to a sharp rise beginning in 1900. This, of course,
removed the pesky higher-than-present-day temperatures of the Medieval Warm
Period of 900-1300 AD, the existence of which obstructed the unprecedented-warming
be told, this little bit of hocus-pocus alone should have marked the end
of the panel's scientific credibility, particularly after Steve McIntyre
and Ross McKitrick uncovered
the corruption behind it. But thanks to a hugely successful campaign to
demonize all critics as big-oil shills, the "Hockey Stick Graph"
(aka MBH98) not only survived, but -- after receiving a prominent role in
Al Gore's 2006 grossly exaggerated "scary scenarios" sci-fi movie
-- actually went on to become a global warming icon. Even after McIntyre
finally got his hands on one scientist's data last September and proved
that Keith Briffa had cherry-picked data to create his MBH98-supporting
series, the MSM paid McIntyre and others reporting the hoax little heed.
TAR's false declaration of the 20th as the hottest century of the millennium
was widely accepted as fact, right along with its proclamation that the
1990's were the hottest decade and 1998 the hottest year since measurements
began in 1861...as was the replacement of "discernible human influence"
described six years earlier with the claim of "new and stronger evidence
that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable
to human activities."
So by the time
AR4 rolled out in 2007, in which they significantly raised not only the
threat level, but also the degree of anthropogenic certitude (to 90%), the
IPCC's word was all but gospel to the MSM, left-leaning policymakers, and
an increasingly large portion of the population. Indeed, everywhere you
turned, you'd hear that "the IPCC said this" or "the IPCC
said that." The need to address "climate change" had quickly
become a foregone and inarguable conclusion in most public discourse.
At that moment,
Kyoto II seemed as inevitable as the next insufferable NBC Green is Universal
week, and with it, the U.N.'s place as steward of the planet, which would
surely be ratified at the pending 2009 Climate Conference in Copenhagen.
is, the mind-boggling magnitude of AR4's deception became glaringly apparent.
with their Green Thumbs on the Scale
readers are likely aware that in November of last year, a folder containing
documents, source code, data, and e-mails was somehow misappropriated from
the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU). The so-called
emails disclosed an arrogant mockery of the peer review process as well
a widespread complicity in and acceptance among climate researchers to hiding
and manipulating data unfriendly to the global warming agenda. The modelling
source code -- as I reported here
-- contained routines which employed a number of "fudge factors"
to modify the results of data series -- again, to bias results to the desired
outcome. And this, coupled with the disclosure of the Jones "hide
the decline" e-mail, provided more evidence that MBH98 -- and ergo
unprecedented 20th-century warming -- is a fraud.
following month, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued
claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered
with Russian climate data. Apparently, Hadley ignored data submitted by
75% of Russian stations, effectively omitting over 40% of Russian territory
from global temperature calculations -- not coincidentally, areas that didn’t
"show any substantial warming in the late 20th-century and the early
Climategate was only the tip of the iceberg. An AR4 warning that unchecked
climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was found
to be lifted from an erroneous World Wildlife Federation (WWF) report and
misrepresented as peer-reviewed science. IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri
attempted to parry this "mistake" by accusing the accusers at
the Indian environment ministry of "arrogance" and practicing
"voodoo science" in issuing a report [PDF]
disputing the IPCC. But one in his own ranks, Dr Murari Lal, the coordinating
lead author of the chapter making the claim, had the astoundingly bad manners
that he knew all along that it "did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific
so had Pachauri, who continued to lie about it for months so as not to sully
the exalted AR4 immediately prior to Copenhagen.
"Glaciergate" opened the floodgates to other serious misrepresentations
in AR4, including a boatload
of additional non-peer-reviewed projections pulled directly from WWF reports.
These included discussions on the effects of melting glaciers on mudflows
and avalanches, the significant damages climate change will have on selected
marine fish and shellfish, and even assessing global-average per-capita
"ecological footprints." It should be noted here that IPCC rules
specifically disqualify all non-peer-reviewed primary sources.
Chapter 13 of the WG2 report stated that forty percent of Amazonian forests
are threatened by climate change. And it also cited
a WWF piece as its source -- this one by two so-called "experts,"
who incidentally are actually environmental activists. What's more, the
WWF study dealt with anthropogenic forest fires, not global warming, and
barely made mention of Amazonian forests at all. Additionally, the WWF's
figures were themselves based on a Nature paper [PDF]
studying neither global warming nor forest fires, but rather the effects
of logging on rain forests. So the IPCC predicted climate change-caused
40% forest destruction based on a report two steps upstream which concluded
that "[l]ogging companies in Amazonia kill or damage 10-40% of the
living biomass of forests through the harvest process."
to the glacial egg on the AR4 authors' faces was the statement that observed
reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa were being caused
by global warming. It turns
out that one of the two source papers cited was actually a mountain-climbers'
magazine. Actually, this is a relatively authoritative source compared to
the other: a dissertation from a Swiss college student based on his interviews
with mountain guides in the Alps.
The 2007 green
bible also contained a gross exaggeration in its citation of Muir-Wood et
al., 2006's study on global warming and natural disasters. The original
stated that "a small statistically significant trend was found for
an increase in annual catastrophe loss since 1970 of 2% per year."
But the AR4 synthesis report stated that more "heavy precipitation"
is "very likely" and that an "increase in tropical cyclone
intensity" is "likely" as temperatures rise.
the most dumbfounding AR4 citation (so far) was recently discovered by Climatequotes.com.
It appears that a WG2 warning that "[t]he multiple stresses of climate
change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent
a clear vulnerability and have necessitated the implementation of stringent
clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic
Peninsula" originated from and was attributed to a guide for Antarctica
tour operators on decontaminating boots and clothing. Really.
here's one you may not have heard yet. A paper
published last December by Lockart, Kavetski, and Franks rebuts the AR4
WG1 assertion that CO2-driven higher temperatures drive higher evaporation
and thereby cause droughts. The study claims they got it backwards, as higher
air temperatures are in fact driven by the lack of evaporation (as occurs
during drought). I smell another "-gate" in the works.
yet, perhaps the greatest undermining of IPCC integrity comes from a recent
study, which I’ve summarized here,
challenging the global temperature data reported by its two most important
American allies: NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). As these represent the readings used by most climate analysis agencies,
including the IPCC, the discovery by meteorologist Joe D'Aleo and computer
expert E.M. Smith that they've been intentionally biased to the warm side
since 1990 puts literally every temperature-related climate report released
since then into question.
of course, any policy decisions based on their content.
Time for some Real Climate Justice
in the states, left-leaning policymakers and their cohorts in the MSM have
thus far all but ignored both the reality and implications of the fraud
unveiled by Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, and the myriad other AGW-hyping
scandals that seem to surface almost daily. Remarkably, most continue to
discuss "climate pollution" and "carbon footprints"
and the "tragedy" of Copenhagen’s failure, even as the global
warming fever of their own contagion plunges precipitously. The president
appears equally deluded, as passing a "comprehensive energy and climate
bill" (as though the climate might somehow be managed by parliamentary
edict) was one of the many goals he set forth in his State of the Union
address last week. But
their denial will be short-lived as even the last vestiges of the green
lie they so desperately cling to evaporate under the heat of the spotlight
suddenly shining upon them.
outside of the U.S., many news organizations and politicians already get
it. Some are calling for Pachauri's resignation, and others for a full investigation
into his possible financial conflicts of interest. There have also been
demands for a complete reassessment of all IPCC reports, including a suggestion
from the Financial
Times that, given the IPCC's "central role in climate science,"
an independent auditor must be commissioned to "look at all the claims
in the 2007 report and remove any that were not soundly based."
one American, AGW believer Walter Russell Mead of American Interest
"A highly publicized effort that includes serious skeptics and has
bipartisan backing is the only way to get American public opinion on board
the climate change train." And China's lead climate change negotiator,
Xie Zhenhua, suggested that "contrarian views" be included in
2014's AR5. But when the Australian suddenly recommended
"applying a healthy degree of scepticism to scientific claims that
drive policy," paleoclimatologist Bob Carter told me he just couldn't
help laughingly writing the editors to welcome them to the ranks of the
majority of scientists who "practice exactly the technique that [they]
belatedly recommend" -- the skeptics.
this abrupt challenge to their own "consensus" mantra that they’ve
spoon-fed the public for years rings decidedly hollow. Those "serious
skeptics" and the holders of those "contrarian views" are
the same scientists the IPCC deliberately excluded from its proceedings
with impunity. They're the same people whom the media have ignored or ridiculed
for years, along with their conventions -- like Heartland's ICCC 1,
-- and innumerable contrarian reports. In fact, a superb rebuttal to AR4,
Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) -- produced by Dr. S. Fred Singer, Dr. Craig
Idso, and thirty fellow scientists -- has received no MSM attention whatsoever,
despite its availability here
since last June.
the time for credibility makeovers has long passed. As U.K. Professor Phillip
Stott recently observed:
[A]s ever, capitalism
has read the runes, with carbon-trading posts quietly being shed, 'Green'
jobs sidelined, and even big insurance companies starting to hedge their
own bets against the future of the Global Warming Grand Narrative. These
rats are leaving the sinking ship far faster than any politician, many of
whom are going to be abandoned, left, still clinging to the masts, as the
Good Ship 'Global Warming' founders on titanic icebergs in the raging oceans
of doubt and delusion.
the IPCC's fall to that of the Berlin Wall. And he's spot-on -- for just
as the latter symbolized the doom of European communism, so does the former
signal the death knell for global socialist-environmentalism.
get real -- given the enormousness of the booty these grifters attempted
to extort from the entire developed world, not to mention the extraordinary
depth of their hubris, it isn't rehabilitation that's required here, but
swift justice. In 2006, IPCC cheerleader Grist Magazine's staff writer David
Roberts received a pass when he called
for the Nuremberg-style war-crimes trials for the "bastards"
who were members of the global warming "denial industry." Surely,
it's now clear that the members of the global warming "fraud industry"
are the true "bastards" who should be hauled before an international
tribunal for crimes against humanity...any tribunal, that is, other than
the U.N.'s own International Criminal Court in The Hague.
deal with their accessories-after-the-fact in the Congress, the White House
-- and consequently, the EPA -- in due time. And the first such judgment
is already scheduled -- for November.
Sheppard is environment editor of American Thinker and editor of the forthcoming