Washington, DC – Sen. James Inhofe, (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, today commented on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Summary for Policymakers.
“This is a political document, not a scientific report, and it is a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain. The media has failed to report that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers was not approved by scientists but by UN political delegates and bureaucrats,” Senator Inhofe said. The IPCC is only releasing the Summary for Policymakers today, not the actual scientific report which is not due out until May 2007.
“This is nothing new. On November 15th, 2005, I addressed my colleagues in the United States Senate to express the importance of returning integrity to the processes that govern the work of the IPCC. I outlined several concrete proposals to reform the IPCC process during this Senate Floor address and in a subsequent follow-up letter to the IPCC chairman,” Senator Inhofe said. (Link) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=21CC88EC-CCA6-4A61-8C2E-78FA8DE4850D
“On December 7, 2005, I followed up my speech with a letter to the IPCC Chairman noting that the ‘science had been manipulated in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.’ Sadly, the IPCC has refused to make any of the reforms necessary to ensure scientific integrity,” Senator Inhofe added. (Link) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=B5B423AC-B42C-4879-91CE-348E78AAE64B
“The UN guidelines themselves mandate that the science be altered to conform to the Summary for Policymakers which is not approved by the scientists, but by political delegates of the UN,” Senator Inhofe said.
The IPCC concedes it alters the underlying scientific conclusions on page 4 of “Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work”:
“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.” (Link – PDF http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf )
“You don’t need to look any farther than yesterday’s AP article about the UN IPCC meeting in Paris where political delegates are arguing about the final wording of the Summary for Policymakers. Riibeta Abeta of the island nation Kiribati, openly admitted to the AP that the Summary for Policymakers is designed to convince world leaders to take action. ‘The purpose is to get [policymakers] moving,’ Abeta said, according to the AP,” Senator Inhofe explained. (Link to AP article) http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/01/D8N10JFG0.html
Related Link:
Media Covering Up UN Global Warming Report’s Political Agenda, Senator Inhofe Charges http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=79c41a1e-802a-23ad-40c1-210d91ac6afe&Region_id=&Issue_id
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Er der nogen, der har hørt nogen medier fortælle, at den ‘videnskabelige’ rapport først kommer til maj? Nej vel. Læs for eksempel DR, som skriver “Det sker uanset FN’s seneste klimarapport som slår fast, at videnskaben aldrig har været så overbevist som nu om, at klodens stigende temperaturer skyldes drivhusgasserne og altså er menneskeskabte.”
de må jo være synske, hvis de har resultaterne fra en rapport, der først kommer på gaden til maj? (Selvom resultatet jo er givet på forhånd).
eller dette her – også fra DR:
“Det er over 500 ledende klimaforskere blevet enige om i Paris, hvor de hele ugen har været samlet for at blåstemple den nye, omfattende rapport fra FN’s Klimapanel, IPCC. Rapporten, der er ventet med spænding, fremlægges officielt her til formiddag.”
På engelsk har man et udtryk, der er meget passende: ‘You’ve been had’. Du bliver taget ved næsen.
tip: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6326277.stm
jeg skal ikke krediteres
Hvad blev der af Saddams oliekildeafbrændninger?
Tidligere hævdedes det, at disse ville have synlig og mærkbar effekt på miljøet.
Han tømte tidligere oliekilderne i el arab, et område beliggende imellem Iran og Irak på samme vis.
Desuden kan man ikke se helt bort fra kinesernes smogbidrag.
Wall Street Journal har i dag en leder, som også meget sobert afmonterer en del af det hysteri, danske medier selvfølgelig bugnede af i ugen, der gik.
Den “rigtige” rapport foreligger ikke, og blandt de uventede nye oplysninger er, at klodens gennemsnitstemperatur faktisk ikke er steget de sidste fem år. (De varme vintre i Danmark er altså ikke hele verdens termometer…)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009625
I går var der dejlig blå himmel derhjemme, bortset fra ca. 8 helt tydelige kondensstriber.
Hurtig hovedregning viste, at disse striber betyder mere for drivhuset end hele CO2’en.
Og så på DR den her med: “Der er 90% sikkerhed for, at opvarmningen skyldes menneskeskabt CO2”.
Almindelig DR idioti.
Hvornår hører vi mon om faren ved overbefolkning? Mit gæt: Aldrig!
Mvh. Børge.
Nyeste bog om emnet:
http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7020
Global Warming: why it is the Left’s last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy
— and how we can fight back
Exclusive hardcover edition — not available in stores!
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism
by Christopher Horner
For decades, environmentalism has been the Left’s best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It’s for Mother Earth! It’s for the children! It’s for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they’ve trumped up haven’t been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.
Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left’s manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes – and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that “global warming” is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It’s the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could “solve” it. According to the logic of the greens’ own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.
Horner (an attorney and Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) reveals the full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today’s environmentalists, dubbing them “green on the outside, red to the core.” He details how they use strong-arm legal tactics – and worse – against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examines the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it. He exposes the lies that the environmental lobby routinely tells to make its case; the ways in which it is trying to impose initiatives such as the Kyoto Accords on an unwilling American public; and much more – including the green lobby’s favorite politicians (an often surprising rogue’s gallery including John Kerry, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and others).
It’s time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism gives you the facts you need to do so.
No, the sky is not falling, despite the Green Left’s best efforts:
Proof: media hype and deceptive Al Gore slide shows notwithstanding, greenhouse gas concentrations demonstrably do not determine temperatures
The mainstream media’s routinely sloppy, inaccurate reporting about evidence of global warming and other environmental matters
More proof: The hole in the ozone layer – the 1980s manmade environmental crisis – was caused by the Antarctic atmosphere being too cold
How environmentalists throughout modern history have instilled fear over one looming “crisis” or another with the aim of increasing government control over things big and small
Why the environmental alarmists do whatever they can to avoid actual debate
The environmentalist movement: not a grassroots phenomenon driven by scruffy idealists but an elite-driven movement that lards the coffers of pressure campaigns with wealth – commonly inherited, often corporate, and far too-frequently looted from the taxpayer
Recent studies that have shown that the environment is actually flourishing – and how the greens have turned even these into evidence of our imminent doom
“To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem”: the environmentalists’ openly anti-human agenda
How real pollution problems can be addressed through the technological improvements that the Left is doing all it can to obstruct
Al Gore’s global warming jihad: how it will lead to massively higher costs and direct or indirect energy rationing – and probably many measures that are even worse
How much of the budget for environmental pressure groups comes directly from taxpayers — through grants for public “education” and congressional schemes designed to subsidize the greens’ lawyers
Green lunacy run amok: how even respectable political figures (and Slick Willie) say that the environmental damage caused by American industry is a greater threat than terrorism
Why, as with other political crusades that fail in the arena of representative democracy, the greens now see the courts and supranational bodies as their best hopes
How environmental policies come with a cost, often to the society as a whole, decreasing wealth, and so harming health – dangers the average environmentalist ignores
How greens worship primitive lifestyles from afar, while those mired in them would kill to escape them
How, almost without fail, global warming skeptics are charged with being stooges of industry – a charge that neither addresses the skeptic’s criticism or question, nor reflects the fact that most of “industry” now actually supports the alarmists’ agenda
Ethanol: sobering evidence that it might not be good for the environment – and how the damage to soil from single-crop farming is probably more real than global warming
How the risks of climate change policy far outweigh the risks that might realistically be expected as climate continues to change.
Lyder som en interessant bog. Ja næste skridt – FN skat – det kunne de tænke sig.
En interessant ting er, at grøn er farven for både ‘environmentalisterne’ og islam!
Ja, “Grøn er vårens hæk- kåben kastes væk…”.
Resten ses f. eks. på:
http://www.ugle.dk/groen_er_vaarens_haek.html