Re: [asa] The fact of Global warming, 2007

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Fri Feb 02 2007 - 12:10:34 EST

At 11:27 AM 2/2/2007, PvM wrote:
>The IPCC is getting closer to its release of the
>2007 report on Global warming. According to CNN ~ Pim

@ The final document of the new United Nations
global warming Summary for Policymakers, due out
Friday, was not approved by scientists but by
political delegates. The UN’s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) own guidelines
explicitly state that the scientific reports have
to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with”
the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

What you're going to get on Friday is not the
fourth assessment of the IPCC. You're going to
get the summary for policymakers. Now, you won't
get the report from scientists probably until May or June.

An excerpt directly from the IPCC
guidelines: The “Principles Governing IPCC Work”
clearly states in its Appendix A that the
scientific work will be altered to conform to the
media-hyped Summary for Policymakers:

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 -

The UK’s Lord Nigel Lawson – former Chancellor of
the Exchequer and a Member of the House of Lords
Committee that reviewed the IPCC process has
called for the abolishment of the UN’s IPCC:

“I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the
institution, it has to be said, so closed to
reason, that it would be far better to thank it
for the work it has done, close it down, and
transfer all future international collaboration
on the issue of climate change…” Lawson said in
2005. Link

Other critics of the IPCC process like Steve
McIntyre (one of the individuals responsible for
debunking the Hockey Stick temperature graph)
..have already pointed out the serious problems
with the UN mandating that the scientific work be
altered to fit its political agenda.

“So the purpose of the three-month delay between
the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for
Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1
(Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any
‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report
to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can
you imagine what securities commissions would say
if business promoters issued a big promotion and
then the promoters made the ‘necessary’
adjustments to the qualifying reports and
financial statements so that they matched the
promotion. Words fail me,” McIntyre explained.

Harvard University Physicists Lubos Motl also slammed the UN.

"These people are openly declaring that they are
going to commit scientific misconduct that will
be paid for by the United Nations. If they find
an error in the summary, they won't fix it.
Instead, they will "adjust" the technical report
so that it looks consistent," Motl said. Link:

Motl also cited climate science Fred Singer
claims that IPCC lead author Ben Santer was told
to revise Chapter 8 of 1996 IPCC-SAR (Second
Assessment Report) to "conform" to the
politically adopted Summary for Policy Makers.
See Motlís website link:

In addition, French President Jacques Chirac
provided a key political motive as to why the
IPCC process, and in particular the Kyoto
Protocol, are being promoted by so many. [Note:
Despite Kyoto having virtually no measurable
temperature impact, even if it were fully
complied with by ratifying nations, which is not
close to happening – 13 of the EU-15 nations are
failing to meet emissions reduction targets.]
Chirac said in 2000 that Kyoto represents “the
first component of an authentic global governance."

"...James Hansen is paid $250,000 by the Heinz
Foundation. I think he'd say almost anything you ask him to say.

Of all the people who were on the side of saying
manmade gas caused global warming was a socialist
in France. He's a geophysicist named Claude Allegre (ph).

He's a member of both the French and American
Academy of Sciences. He says, "The cause of
global warming is unknown. The proponents of
manmade catastrophic global warming are being motivated by "money."

Now, who do you think these guys are in corporate
America? I would direct anyone who thinks that
this is coming from their heart to read last
Friday's "Wall Street Journal," where they take
each of the corporations .. and talked about how
they can make money if we have to do away with coal gasification.

Coal is responsible for over 50 percent of our
energy in America. These companies have nuclear,
they have hydroelectric, they have wind, they
have -- and it's to their financial advantage to
do away with it. Now who is paying for this?

If you go that route -- if you do away with 50
percent of our electricity in America, then those
individuals who are generating less electricity
by using some other means are going to jump in
there and try to do it. The cost to the American
people, according to the Wharton School of
Economics, the Wharton econometrics survey, would
be astronomical. And these people all have money that they can make.

Sure, if I were on the board of directors of GE,
that's making solar equipment and wind turbines,
I'd probably say, let's jump on this bandwagon
and do away with coal-generated electricity. We'll make a fortune."


>In the mean time, the Government Accountability
>Project and the Union of Concerned Scientists
>have released a shocking report about government
>interference in climate science. ~ Pim

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 Union of Junk Scientists

We're going to hear a lot about the new Union of
Concerned Scientists' report on the so-called
R*public*n War on Science that was unveiled at
today's hearing chaired by Henry Waxman. What
you won't hear is that the UCS report is
undeniably Junk Science, a term I try to avoid
but completely apposite in this case.

The UCS mailed out over 1600 survey forms to
climate scientists and based their assertions of
political interference on the 297 that got returned.

That's a response rate of just 19 percent.

OMB guidelines clearly state that a response rate
of less than 80 percent requires an investigation
of potential biases and an even closer
investigation for a response rate lower than 70 percent.

A response rate of lower than twenty percent is
clearly vulnerable to the charge of a
self-selecting sample, perhaps those with an axe
to grind against their bosses, the politically motivated, and so on.

In short, it proivides all sorts of legitimate
reasons to dismiss the survey as utterly unrepresentative.

The fact that these so-called scientists went
ahead regardless exposes them for the partisan
media manipulators they are. ......


Comment #
: The "Union of Concerned Scientists" org is a FRAUD.

Of all their
NOT ONE has any degree even CLOSE to what would
qualify them as experts on climate. ...they aren't even 'scientists'.

For instance, the President, Kevin Knobloch,
whose 'expertise' is "global warming" (among
other junk) has a BA in English and journalism
and an MA in Public Administration. Oh, Kevin is
also and 'expert' on .. ARMS CONTROL (like I said, 'other junk').

Now how does one get to be an 'expert' on "global
warming" and "arms control" with a English & JOURNALISM Degree?!?! .."

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 2 12:11:37 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 02 2007 - 12:11:37 EST