Originally Published on June 12, 1996
Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth's climate, released "The Science of Climate Change 1995," its first new report in five years. The report will surely be hailed as the latest and most authoritative statement on global warming. Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy that would have an enormous impact on U.S. oil and gas prices and on the international economy.
This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line.
But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.
The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.
If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.
Dr. Seitz is president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute.
Excerpts from a transcript of The Great Global Warming Swindle:
[ Nigel Calder ] In the Weather Machine we reported the mainstream opinion of the time, which was Global Cooling and the threat of a new Ice Age.
Two things happened to change that. First, temperatures started to rise. And second, the miners went on strike. To Margaret Thatcher energy was a political problem. In the early 70s the oil crisis had plunged the world into recession, and the miners had brought down Ted Heath's Conservative government. Mrs Thatcher was determined the same would not happen to her. She set out to break their power.
[ Margaret Thatcher says, "What we have seen in this country is the emergence of an organised revolutionary minority - who are prepared to exploit industrial disputes - but whose real aim is the breakdown of law and order and the destruction of democratic parliamentary government." ]
[ Lord Lawson of Blaby ] She was very concerned always, I remember, (when I was Secretary of State for Energy), to promote Nuclear Power. Long before the issue of Climate Change came up, because she was concerned about Energy Security, and she didn't trust the Middle East, and she didn't trust the National Union of Mineworkers. So she didn't trust oil. And she didn't trust coal. So therefore she felt we really had to push ahead with Nuclear Power. And then, when the Climate Change, Global Warming, thing came up, she felt - well this is great - this is another argument - because it doesn't have any Carbon Dioxide Emissions - this is another argument why you should go for Nuclear.
And that is what she was really largely saying. It's been misrepresented since then.
[ Nigel Calder ] And so she said to the scientists - she went to the Royal Society and she said - there's money on the table for you to prove this stuff. So of course they went away and did that.
[ Professor Philip Stott ] Inevitably, the moment politicians put their weight behind something, and attach their name to it in some ways of course, money will flow. That's the way it goes. And inevitably research, development, institutions started to bubble up, if you can put it that way, which were going to be researching climate but with a particular emphasis on the relationship between Carbon Dioxide and temperature.
[ Narrator ] At the request of Mrs Thatcher, the UK Met Office set up a climate-modelling unit which provided the basis for a new international committee, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
[ Nigel Calder ] They came out with the first big report which predicted climatic disaster as a result of Global Warming. I remember going to the scientific press conference and being amazed by two things. First, the simplicity and eloquence of the message (and the vigour with which it was delivered). And, secondly, the total disregard of all climate science up till that time. Including, incidentally the role of the Sun, which have been the subject of a major meeting at the Royal Society just a few months earlier.
[ Narrator ] But the new emphasis on Man-Made Carbon Dioxide as a possible environmental problem, didn't just appeal to Mrs Thatcher.
[ Nigel Calder ] It was certainly something very favourable to the environmental idea, what I call the Medieval Environmentalism, of let's get back to the way things were in Medieval times, and get rid of all these dreadful cars and machines. They loved it, because Carbon Dioxide was for them an emblem of industrialisation.
[ Professor Frederick Singer, Former Director, US National Weather Service ] Well, Carbon Dioxide clearly is an industrial gas. So it's tied in with economic growth, with transportation in cars, with what we call civilisation. And there are forces in the environmental movement that are simply against economic growth. They think that's bad.
[ Patrick Moore ] The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two very distinct reasons. The first reason was because by the mid 80s the majority of people now agreed with all of the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now when a majority of people agree with you, it's pretty hard to remain confrontational with them. And so the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions. When I left Greenpeace it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban Chlorine worldwide. Like, I said, "You guys, this is one of the elements in the Periodic Table, you know. I mean, I'm not sure if that's in our jurisdiction to be banning a whole element."
The other reason that environmental extremism emerged, was because world Communism failed, the Wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them, and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-Capitalism, and anti-globalisation, than they do anything with ecology or science.
[ Lord Lawson ] The Left have been slightly disoriented by the manifest failure of socialism and indeed even more so of Communism, as it was tried out - and therefore they still remain as anti-Capitalist as they were, but they had to find a new guise for their anti-Capitalism.
[ Nigel Calder ] And it was a kind of amazing alliance from Margaret Thatcher on the Right, through to very Left-Wing anti-Capitalist environmentalists that created this kind of momentum behind a loony idea.
[ Narrator ] By the early 1990s Man-Made Global Warming was no longer a slightly eccentric theory about Climate - it was a full-blown political campaign. It was attracting media attention and as a result, more government funding.
Originally Published on March 29, 2007
Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. In spite of its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists, including me; An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician.
The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:
- There is no proof at all that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activities, such as the generation of energy from the burning of fuels. Observations in ice cores show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2, by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2, yet not well handled by climate models—and, in any case, not within our control. Greenhouse models also cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.
But the best evidence we have supports natural causes—changes in cloudiness linked to regular variations in solar activity. Thus the current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings were able to settle Greenland and grow crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery.
Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual”; a spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings; but this so–called “hockey–stick” result, that earth temperatures have been constant until recent decades, has now been thoroughly discredited.
- If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot influence the inconstant Sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes of mitigation currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:
- Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or by elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
- Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
- Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
- Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
- Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. All agree that a colder climate would be bad. So why would the present climate be the optimum? Surely, the chances for this must be vanishingly small, and the history of past climate warmings bear this out.
Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to toy with and devote our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real ones. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Britain’s Labour Party tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100***, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!
I imagine that in the not-too-distant future, all of the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.
S. Fred Singer, is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and currently serves as Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University. He is also President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy-research group he founded in 1990.
June 5, 2009
The Club of Rome was clearly the most active think tank in the 1970s pushing the agenda for a reduced ‘standard of living’ in the West. These elites have insisted in their key publication, "The Limits of Growth," that Americans and Europeans must embrace drastic population reduction quotas, and that its people use and consume less in the name of its carefully-framed sustainability crisis. The fact that the group fearmongered then about global cooling, and now fearmongers about global warming, should be an indicator that its environmental concerns are phony. The green cover is a ruse disguising the elite’s push for severe eugenics policies.
Volcker’s policy of de-industrialization in the 70s and 80s hinged on bringing America’s standard down.
We have all been told by the elites that our standard of living will be brought down. There’s little speculating that it has been an intentional plan; they’ve announced it all throughout the 1970s. The Club of Rome and top economists like Paul Volcker alike have both made clear that the ‘limits of growth’ have been reached, and that first-world westerners must be put back in balance—with cold scientific calculating—to the world’s mean (average).
In 1979, Paul Volcker, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve during the Carter Administration, openly stated:
"The standard of living of the American worker has to decline. I don’t think you can escape that."Volcker was at the helm of the Trilateral Commission’s alarming Project 1980s’ plan for the “controlled disintegration” of the U.S. economy.
"A controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s… it was not by chance that starting the week of Oct. 6-12, 1979, Volcker began raising interest rates by raising the federal funds rate and increasing certain categories of reserve requirements for commercial banks. He kept pushing rates upward until, by December 1980, the prime lending rate of U.S. commercial banks reached 21.5%."Mike Duke, Wal-Mart Chief Executive, sounded an alarm signaling America’s shift to the world mean: "The economic crisis has brought a fundamental shift in consumer attitudes and behavior." Wal-mart emphasizes that its ‘new normal’ customer experience would center around remodeling, continued low prices, as well as focus "on reducing waste and other sustainability efforts."
What is good for the economic goose is good for the environmental gander; and what is good for the environment must be good for green entrepreneurs as well.
The double-speak of the phony environmental agenda for a reduced standard of living in the Western world is used to mutually reinforce any dictates coming from the financial sector or any calls for sacrifice under environmental pretexts. Because westerners use and consume too much, and therefore endanger the environment, carbon cuts or other measures must be accepted by all.
The industrial base has been destroyed by the globalization model in which jobs are shipped out the back door and transferred to underdeveloped, autocratic 'slave wage' nations. It’s no coincidence that the de-industrialization benefits firms with the Wal-Mart model the most. Today, in the name of the global warming crisis, the remaining factories are to be choked by cap and trade laws, while the profits of the cap and trade are transferred to an Al Gore owned and operated chain of interlocking for-profit green derivatives scheme firms that specialize in carbon credits trading.
What is green must first be profitable for green business and green jobs.
SEE VIDEO: Gore Denies that Ken Lay, Goldman Sachs CEO, Helped Develop C02 Trading ‘Scheme’
SEE VIDEO: Global Warming or Global Governance?
De-industrialist Volcker has now been brought back in to the Obama-Federal Reserve Administration and serves on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Volcker has long headed firms representing both the Rothschild family and the Rockefeller family, and he is equally dedicated to their schemes in both banking and the green movement.
Now, after Wall Street looters have been given extensive bailouts, collapsing car giants are required to shift major production to specialized green cars that have been little embraced by the public and show little hope of producing growth.
Volcker’s gloomy calls for austerity have demonstrated that the policies of former Federal Reserve chairmen, such as himself, Alan Greenspan and little Timmy Geithner, will not pull us out of this crisis under any easy terms. Volcker spent the opening weeks of the Obama Administration warning that this could be "worse than the Great Depression." Wonder why the Federal Reserve greenback continues to lose value?
The agenda for mandatory servitude (or strongly-encouraged ‘volunteerism’) isn’t just the ‘red jackets’ of City Year. Obama has made clear in speeches that he wants to form an energy corps to enforce emissions limitations on vehicles and to enforce power and lighting modifications in homes. All Americans will be asked to do more to use less.
Top presidential advisor David Gergen has helped push a coalition of more than 70 ‘more-than-profit’ service groups—that cover the gamut of environmentalism, energy, green initiatives, education, business ventures, emergency corps, and more. Gergen has led the initiative for the service movement to seize upon the September 11th anniversary activities; now City Year and other groups are preparing to mobilize on 9/11/2009.
During the 2008 election season, both candidates Obama and McCain attended a 9/11 ServiceNation forum which David Gergen helped put on. Obama used that platform to fully push the national service program he developed with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "Everyone will have skin in the game," Obama told the nation’s viewers, as he called for young and old alike to sacrifice and serve their government.
Obama elaborated on a "desperately needed" civilian expeditionary force to supplement military maneuvers in Afghanistan and other interventions. When asked about his motivation for service by fellow service-advocate, host and editor of TIME, Richard Stengel, Obama told us that it was 9/11 that gave him a vision for widespread national service. Politicians should have exploited the nation’s sentiment to help out, Obama assured us, instead of President Bush’s call for Americans ‘to go shopping.’
Curiously, David Gergen exploited the same expression at a Harvard lecture on service, blasting the Bush administration for wasting the 9/11 crisis on ‘shopping’ when it could have been used to stimulate widespread service. Again, the ploy of using the terminology crisis against cash is surely not emphasized by accident.
Green corps have already been organized in many varieties and similar groups. Once it was clear that Obama had the election momentum, CNN continuously covered the "O Generation" and its amorphous social movement.
Footage in The Obama Deception shows two such girls wearing green shirts going door to door. Obama ‘door-knockers’ have already been used in conjunction with the President’s private-parallel usaservice.org/service.gov, and his administration has only started.
Mandatory national service is now being introduced into Congress, after it was stripped from the GIVE Act already passed earlier in his term.
National Service: David Gergen, City Year and the Social Change Agenda
Former Presidential Advisor David Gergen pushes more than 70 service organizations into a ‘new order’ of shared sacrifice.
Nature, not mankind, is responsible for recent climate change
Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites
World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-made Climate Fears
US military and intelligence agencies identify climate change as “national security” threat
Scientific Siege Against UN-IPCC Farce Revealed
More than half of the UK population doesn’t accept climate change is man-made
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
Climate Science Panel Apologizes for Himalayan Glacier Melt ‘Error’
Climate change: Minority report
Ecologist says while a real phenomenon, global warming is largely due to natural cycles.
Man-made or earthly phenomenon?
Climate sceptics 'increasing hardship'
Senior UN climate change official hopes to forge rapid accord
Obama’s "Green Jobs" Go to Prison Slaves
The greatest threat of the 21st century: not AGW but Eco-Fascism
After Climategate, some insurers now doubt climate science?
C.I.A. Is Sharing Data With Climate Scientists
C.I.A. Sharing Secret Spy Satellite Data With Climate Scientists
You and your carbon footprint
How Cows (Grass-Fed Only) Could Save the Planet
Bin Laden goes green, blames America for ‘global warming’
Updated 2/4/10 (Newest Additions at End of List)