The Global Warming debacle- hoax or fraud?

23 March 2010

 

 

 

The words of Sir Walter Scott spring to mind.

 

 

It is clear (and recently more so) that much of the IPCC reports to Governments have been altered, massaged, and adulterated. Further it is now admitted that some of the supposed “scientific findings” are in fact unsubstantiated opinion with no basis what so ever.

 

Many people seem surprised at this phenomenon, and are inclined to still believe that the authors would not stoop to try and deceive the populace.

 

However it is not a new occurrence.

 

One classic example is the pre-historic “Piltdown Man”

 

 

So it took 45 years before the world at large finally accepted that they had been mislead, and intentionally so. The hoax had been swallowed uncritically.

 

 

So how do the IPCC reports fit into this? Have a read of the following:

 

Much has been revealed in respect of the false claims, shoddy science, corruption of data, and outright deceptions contained in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

 

Professor Phil Jones, the lead UK scientist for IPCC has been forced to resign and has admitted:

“There has been no global warming since 1995”.

“Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes.”

 

The following is a very brief summary of just a few of the failings of the IPCC report.

 

1.      There has been no rise in sea levels. Dr Nil-Axel Morner of Sweden has carried out the most authoritative research, and has proven this, as detailed in the article attached as an addendum.

 

2.      There has been no retreat (other than normal seasonal variations) in the Arctic ice cap – see actual current figures enclosed as an addendum.

 

3.      The report regarding the Amazon rain forests which proclaimed “40% of the Amazon rain forest will become savannah” is not scientifically based, but is merely an opinion by an activist.

 

4.      The Himalayan glaciers are not melting (IPCC says likelihood > 90%) and the author of this claim Syed Hasnian has now admitted it was pure speculation on his part. In other words the claim by IPCC “50% of the world’s population will be starved for water in 25 years” is just fantasy.

 

5.      Our own NIWA temperature data has been changed and manipulated.

 

6.      Temperature data from a number of global weather reporting stations used by IPCC has been ignored, in some cases stations have been closed and other shifted so that the data now presented by IPCC is corrupted. I enclose the latest global temperature chart as an addendum to this letter.

 

7.      Claims of glacial retreat in the Andes was based on one anecdotal report from a climber. No scientific basis at all.

 

8.      Claims of increased hurricane activity were based on the Atlantic Ocean only and ignored the lessened activity in the Pacific Ocean. When the Pacific is included the result shows no global increase in hurricane activity or impact.

 

9.      And it is now confirmed from a (reluctantly agreed to) peer review that the tree ring data used in creating the ‘hockey stick’ was not a random selection, as sound science would require and that a majority of samples were discarded. What is more much of the data ‘has been lost.’

 

Despite the above, despite the almost total discrediting of the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, and despite a large majority of New Zealanders (according to recent polls) agreeing that the IPCC reports are false, we have a government that continues with an ETS based around the IPCC findings, and one that will grossly disadvantage the whole New Zealand economy for absolutely no gain.

 

The cost impost on all New Zealand citizens will involve price increases in energy, transport, travel, and food. What is more with carbon at just $25 per tonne the annual cost to our farmers has been calculated at $62 for every dairy cow, $43 for every head of beef cattle, $17 for every deer, and $8 for every sheep.

 

It makes no sense to penalize every citizen based on a discredited global political agenda. Hopefully the government will have the courage and fortitude to scrap the ETS. If not the ETS should at the very minimum be delayed until 2012 so that international responses, especially in Australia and the USA can be studied to ensure any New Zealand scheme can be aligned with our major trading partners.

 

Yours

 

Kevyn D Moore QSM