IPCC and the REAL Inconvenient Truth

What is the IPCC anyway? We see it in the news about the catastrophe of global warming, and unless we reduce our 'carbon footprint' the world as we know it will end. I've uncovered a chart from the IPCC which makes me especially suspicious of what we are being told. Don't take my word for it, look at the chart. The IPCC has a plan for taking excess CO2 out of the environment and pumping it into the ground. This will apply pressure to previously trapped fossil fuels and methane gas that will be squeezed out and used as (surprise, surprise) an energy source that adds to 'greenhouse gases'.

It's been a long time since my high school biology and chemistry classes, but I do recall something about the environment being cyclical. With the exception of what we launch into space and what falls into the atmosphere from space, we have a relatively finite amount of every element that exists on earth. We can change forms, we can use chemical reactions to release energy, but we cannot change the basic elements. In other words, the world is in a constant state of 'recycling'. Another thing I recall vividly, is that CO2 is a deadly exhaust of ALL animal life, not just power stations and automobiles. But that deadly exhaust is the LIFEBLOOD of all plant life. That's the cycle I was taught. Photosynthesis takes the deadly CO2 out of the atmosphere and replaces it with oxygen and water. None of this is new, its simply the natural process of recycling that predates mankind, and, if the world survives longer than mankind, will supersede mankind as well.

Back to the original question: What is the IPCC? We are told it is the end of debate on global warming. 2500 scientist have agreed that mankind will destroy the Earth if we don't change the way we live. Or have they? The IPCC is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, not the International Independent Research Results on Climate Change. When governments have agendas and then provide scientist to back up the pre-determined conclusions, I raise my eyebrows. My first question is, are there only 2500 scientists with expertise in the fields of the environment, energy and climate? If the answer is no, then the next obvious question is, what do the others think? If the answer is yes, the next question is, have they REALLY signed off in unison to iron-clad scientific fact in a field that has been completely unravelled and fully understood? The fact is that there are many scientist who disagree with the IPCC report. That is not particularly surprising. What is surprising is that many of these scientists' names appear on the final document. They provided evidence contrary to the desired result, were ignored and then used to lend credibility to the final report. Just to name two such instances, Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT and Professor Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris were primary contributors to the IPCC, in contradiction to the final conclusions. Their contributions were ignored, but their names appeared on the list of authors. Prof. Reiter's name has since been removed from the list of authors, but only after he threatened legal action to have it removed on the grounds that his contribution was ignored because it did not fit the desired conclusion.

The media representation of the IPCC report is also less than forthright. The IPCC Press Release states: " The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report." So this accounts for 1220 experts, so who are the rest? the government reviewers! These are politicians, not scientist. In fact the press release also states, "...adopted the Summary for Policymakers of the first volume of “Climate Change 2007”, also known as the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)(emphasis mine)." What has been portrayed as the great scientific report is actually a political policy recommendation. The actual scientific report isn't as clear cut as the recommendations. In fact, I found an interesting assessment of how climate predictions actually stack up against audited data. Out of 32 forecasts, 1 was right, 27 wrong and 4 were inconclusive. This certainly doesn't bode well for the 'unanimous' consensus that we are destroying the Earth. In fact, I actually think it is rather arrogant to think that ordinary individuals have that much impact. The biggest threat to our environment comes from the danger of nuclear technology, which is almost exclusively controlled by the very governments who tell us we need to change our ways to save the world.