Comments: 18
'Warming' science collapsing
By DEROY MURDOCK
Last Updated: 2:32 AM, December 9, 2009
Posted: 1:35 AM, December 9, 2009
President Obama flies to Copenhagen next week for a fresh round of taxes and spending. To slay an imaginary beast called "global warming," Obama and other leaders will discuss a treaty that forces industrialized nations to shake themselves down and enrich the developing world. Even worse, Copenhagen occurs as fresh evidence emerges that core scientific findings on global warming are not really scientific.
The official draft Copenhagen treaty establishes its own oversight body that will execute "public policies . . . to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate."
The treaty arranges the "transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries" via "a multilateral climate-change fund" and other schemes. By 2020, these disbursements should "meet the full costs incurred by developing-country parties" -- some $50 billion to $140 billion
a year.
The draft's many revenue options (a menu from which Copenhagen negotiators will choose) include penalties and fines, a 2 percent tax on international financial-market transactions, a global carbon tax from which developing nations "shall be exempt" and "mandatory contributions" of 0.5 to 1 percent of GDP. Today, this tax alone would equal $72.2 billion to $144.4 billion in brand-new, compulsory, annual US foreign-aid payments.
More maddening, this tax-and-spend treaty is a costly solution to an imaginary problem. So-called "global warming" threatens Earth about as much as the Loch Ness Monster. Yes, computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the Vatican of "global warming") issue frightful visions of a boiling planet come 2100. Too bad they so inaccurately foresaw Earth's conditions just before
2010.
The IPCC predicted in 1998 that between January 2001 and September 2009, temperatures would increase by one-third of a degree Fahrenheit. In 2007, it forecast a
warmingof 6 degrees F from 2000 to 2100. Meanwhile, the Science & Public Policy Institute analyzed actual climate measurements for September 2009. They indicated a global
coolingof 0.2 degrees F, equivalent to a cooling of 2.2 degrees F per century.
Of course, UN computers are no better than the data on which they dine. These data look quite dodgy -- considering e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. These hacked messages show influential British climatologists and their US counterparts distorting and concealing facts that contradict their faith in so-called "global warming." Read on:
* "We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage."
* "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series . . . to hide the decline [in temperatures]," Professor Philip Jones, CRU's chief, wrote in a Nov. 16, 1999, e-mail to Penn State's Professor Michael Mann.
* As Jones e-mailed Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." Jones also wrote: "I did get an e-mail from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting e-mails."
* "We need to cover our behinds on what was done here."
CRU still wants scientists to trust its conclusions, although it now admits that during an office move, it discarded years of original weather-station observations. This is like telling an IRS auditor, "Just read my tax return; I chucked my receipts."
Indeed, with the raw data now likely in a landfill, the CRU's work -- on which the IPCC relies -- can't be reproduced. And if results can't be reproduced, this stops being science.
Meanwhile, as officials investigate, Professor Jones has stepped aside. Also, Penn State is probing Professor Mann.
The Copenhagen treaty codifies world government fueled by fraud, justified by faulty data and financed with massive new global taxes. President Obama would be far better off staying home and focusing on resuscitating America's economy.
deroy.murdock@gmail.com
PRINT EMAIL SHARE
Yahoo! BuzzDiggRedditFark ItNewsvineStumbleUponTwitterFacebook RSSPresident Obama flies to Copenhagen next week for a fresh round of taxes and spending. To slay an imaginary beast called "global warming," Obama and other leaders will discuss a treaty that forces industrialized nations to shake themselves down and enrich the developing world. Even worse, Copenhagen occurs as fresh evidence emerges that core scientific findings on global warming are not really scientific.
The official draft Copenhagen treaty establishes its own oversight body that will execute "public policies . . . to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate."
Jones: Top "warming" scientist embroiled in scandal.
The treaty arranges the "transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries" via "a multilateral climate-change fund" and other schemes. By 2020, these disbursements should "meet the full costs incurred by developing-country parties" -- some $50 billion to $140 billion a year.
The draft's many revenue options (a menu from which Copenhagen negotiators will choose) include penalties and fines, a 2 percent tax on international financial-market transactions, a global carbon tax from which developing nations "shall be exempt" and "mandatory contributions" of 0.5 to 1 percent of GDP. Today, this tax alone would equal $72.2 billion to $144.4 billion in brand-new, compulsory, annual US foreign-aid payments.
More maddening, this tax-and-spend treaty is a costly solution to an imaginary problem. So-called "global warming" threatens Earth about as much as the Loch Ness Monster. Yes, computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the Vatican of "global warming") issue frightful visions of a boiling planet come 2100. Too bad they so inaccurately foresaw Earth's conditions just before 2010.
The IPCC predicted in 1998 that between January 2001 and September 2009, temperatures would increase by one-third of a degree Fahrenheit. In 2007, it forecast a warming of 6 degrees F from 2000 to 2100. Meanwhile, the Science & Public Policy Institute analyzed actual climate measurements for September 2009. They indicated a global cooling of 0.2 degrees F, equivalent to a cooling of 2.2 degrees F per century.
Of course, UN computers are no better than the data on which they dine. These data look quite dodgy -- considering e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. These hacked messages show influential British climatologists and their US counterparts distorting and concealing facts that contradict their faith in so-called "global warming." Read on:
* "We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage."
* "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series . . . to hide the decline [in temperatures]," Professor Philip Jones, CRU's chief, wrote in a Nov. 16, 1999, e-mail to Penn State's Professor Michael Mann.
* As Jones e-mailed Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." Jones also wrote: "I did get an e-mail from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting e-mails."
* "We need to cover our behinds on what was done here."
CRU still wants scientists to trust its conclusions, although it now admits that during an office move, it discarded years of original weather-station observations. This is like telling an IRS auditor, "Just read my tax return; I chucked my receipts."
Indeed, with the raw data now likely in a landfill, the CRU's work -- on which the IPCC relies -- can't be reproduced. And if results can't be reproduced, this stops being science.
Meanwhile, as officials investigate, Professor Jones has stepped aside. Also, Penn State is probing Professor Mann.
The Copenhagen treaty codifies world government fueled by fraud, justified by faulty data and financed with massive new global taxes. President Obama would be far better off staying home and focusing on resuscitating America's economy.
deroy.murdock@gmail.com
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/it_global_con_job_lvjug0b8yjIHBEMyrVI9mI#ixzz0ZUty7IAb
No comments:
Post a Comment