It’s the SCIENCE, Stupid!

[Tony W. Smith]

It’s the SCIENCE, Stupid!
By Cathie Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum, 12-13-08
[Cathie is also a brand new member of "We the People]“

Yes we can!” former VP Al Gore bellowed as the crowd went wild during
his closing day speech at the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change in Poznan, Poland on December 12. But it was not Barak
Obama’s meaningless campaign motto they were excited about; instead,
it was the prospect of using the UN’s global warming propaganda to
spread American wealth.

In reality, the hit on the U.S. economy by the UN’s legally binding
1997 Kyoto Protocol and the planned 2009 Copenhagen treaty would
drastically reduce America’s ability to make wealth, much less to
increase its foreign aid and technology transfers, the essence of both
treaties.

Most astonishing is that the global warming treaty is not based on
sound science. The UN created its own political entity, the
International Panel on Climate Change, to produce its own global
warming conclusions. The UN’s IPCC conveniently ignores data and has
made significant alterations to scientific documents after scientists
approved them in order to convey human influence on climate.

It was because of politics, not science, that the IPCC and Gore were
jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Indian geologist Dr. Arun D.
Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet puts it this way: "The IPCC has
actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It
doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize
has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who
are not geologists.”

The UN ignores the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s petition
(www.oism.org/pproject/) signed by more than 31,000 scientists that
states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release
of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or
will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” And they
ignore the new U.S. Senate report in which more than 650 international
scientists dispute manmade global warming.

Even so, three groups brought science to the forefront in Poland.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Greener Horizon Films, Ltd. and
Eagle Forum showed a sneak preview of a new documentary film entitled,
“Not Evil, Just Wrong.” (http://noteviljustwrong.com/) The responses
were edifying:

· One attendee said that climate change is real, he was “making
money” from it, and he could not believe that anyone would dare speak
against it, especially at a UN meeting.

· Another complained that the film was not relevant because it
addressed the impact of increased energy prices and limited energy
availability for Americans. He said that climate change was a matter
of “survival” for the rest of the world and that the developed world
must “take the lead,” a UN euphemism for “spread their wealth.”
· Others defended renewable energy, regardless the excessive
cost and acute unreliability.

A devout believer in global warming, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon,
called for a “Green New Deal” and told delegates that “We all know the
science judging from the evidence presented over the past few years
and days; we know the problem is growing worse.” But such “evidence”
does not exist in peer-reviewed science.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was created
to counter the IPCC’s propaganda with peer-reviewed science. The
NIPCC’s new book, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate:
Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change,” was published by the Heartland
Institute (www.heartland.org) and edited by Fred Singer, atmospheric
physicist and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

The book presents three central problems for policymakers and offers
peer-reviewed scientific answers:
· Is the reported warming trend real and how significant is it?
o The only truly global observations come from weather satellites
and they have shown no warming trend over the past decade.
o Computer climate models are unreliable, as they are unable to
accurately factor sun activity, ocean currents and winds.
· How much of the warming trend is due to natural causes and how
much is due to human-generated greenhouse gases?
o The 20th century is in no way unusual and warming periods of
greater magnitude have occurred in the historic past—without any
catastrophic consequences.
o Human greenhouse gas contributions to current warming are
insignificant; rather, it is primarily of natural origin.
· Would the effects of continued warming be harmful or beneficial
to plant and wildlife and to human civilization?
o Science refutes the threat of rising sea levels and reasons that
rising carbon dioxide levels are likely to be benign, promoting not
only the growth of crops and forests but also benefiting human health.

The report concludes, “Any control efforts currently contemplated
would give only feeble results…. The Kyoto Protocol would decrease
calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an
undetectable amount.”

Science does not warrant the UN’s call for a “Green New Deal” to
supposedly produce a utopian “more equitable and prosperous future.”
The UN has failed miserably to live up to its promises for world
peace, is anyone so naïve to think that it can produce global
prosperity?



Welcome aboard Cathie!