Debunking the Global Warming “Consensus”

Recently the United States caved-in to a climate-change pact at the U.N. climate conference in Bali, Indonesia. Although the agreement only establishes the initial “road map” to setting timetables and other negotiation guidance parameters, the U.S. submission moves the nation closer to global accountability. Fortunately, the accord stopped short of requiring the developing (or developed) world to make binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The heart of U.S. concerns were the requirements for industrialized nations to finance clean-up efforts of developing nations and to help them acquire technology to reduce their dependence on heavily polluting energy sources, like coal. Under the Kyoto Treaty (that this new accord is supposed to replace), developing nations aren’t required to cut emissions at all, which is why the U.S. and China never signed it.

The climate conference was convened due to the U.N.’s “consensus” that global-warming is a man-made phenomenon is an illusion. However, according to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works:

In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed “Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory.”

“Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus,’” according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

Some consensus, eh? If that’s not enough, more than 100 prominent scientists from around the world signed their name to a letter to the UN climate conference in Bali, stating that “attempting to control the Earth’s climate was ‘ultimately futile’.”

The letter explained,

“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables.”

Furthermore,

“In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ’settled,’ significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

Finally,

“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.”

The scientists debunked U.N. assertions by simply stating,

“The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.”

This is what happens when you mix politics and science. The facts don’t matter, only the bottom line. In this case, the bottom line is control. The U.N. can exert an enormous amount of control over the industrialized nations through environmental accountability. They accomplish this by manipulating science. Ayn Rand warned of scientific capitulation to political expediency stating,

Men are not open to the truth or reason. … If [scientists] want to accomplish anything, we have to deceive [politicians] into letting us accomplish it. Or force them. They understand nothing else. We cannot expect their support for any endeavor of the intellect, for any goal of the spirit. They are nothing but vicious animals. They are greedy, self-indulgent, predatory dollar chasers…”

The U.N.’s thirst for power and global leadership is paved with environmental accords, pacts and treaties. In this, they are the wolf in sheep’s clothing and we should be weary. Any granting of authority to the U.N. threatens our sovereignty and places the U.S. at risk.

The United States caved-in by even attending the U.N. climate conference.

MORE: Wake up America has some excellent commentary on global warming misconceptions.