Global Warming Skeptics

In 1988, the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). At that time there was no scientific evidence, nor is there now, of any significant anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The first chairman of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, stated: “Unless we announce disaster, no one will listen.”

In 1992, the UN set up the Rio de Janeiro conference called “The Earth Summit”, which was attended by Vice President Al Gore. A UN advisor by the name of Maurice Strong made the following statement: “The Earth Summit will play an important role in reforming and strengthening the UN as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic governance."

In 1995, a summary draft report was issued by UN scientists. In that report scientists concluded:

1. 1. None of the studies have shown any clear evidence of climate changes due to greenhouses gases.

2. 2. No study has positively attributed any climate change to anthropogenic causes.

3. 3. Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate are reduced.

Shortly after this draft was presented to the IPCC, they removed the above three conclusions. In the final text, these conclusions were replaced with: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Shortly after the 1995 Summary Report was published, many of the IPCC scientists quit and some threatened the UN with lawsuits in order to have their names removed from the report.

What has to be understood is that the UN’s method of preparing IPCC reports is backwards. First they publish a “Summary Report for Policy Makers”, and then months later they publish the Scientific Report in order to ensure its consistency with the Summary Report. This also was done with the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports.

In 1997 the Kyoto conference was created by Sir Maurice Strong of the UN. During this conference all countries were urged to sign on to the treaty in order to reduce their CO2 output to save the planet. China, India and the United States refused. On September 1, 1997, the National Review magazine quoted Strong stating: “The only way of saving the world may be for industrial civilization to collapse, deliberately seek poverty and set levels of mortality.”

Pretty bold statement coming from someone who wants to "save" the planet. I wonder if his own beliefs apply to him as well?

Quotable quotes from Al Gore's pals. Remember, they are trying to "save" the planet:

The former president of the United Nations Foundation, Tim Wirth stated: “We have to ride the theory of global warming, even if it is wrong.”

Richard Benedict, former advisor to Kofi Annan was quoted saying: “A global warming treaty must be implemented, even if there is no evidence of global warming.”

David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club stated: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

With people like this, who needs anthropogenic global warming to destroy mankind on the Earth?

A quote to remember when reading this prose:

H.L. Mencken: “The urge to save humanity is often a false front for the urge to rule.”

The Debate

Green

Richard, in layman’s terminology, make the case for the IPCC human-induced climate change position.

Littlemore

I’ll give you the brief spiel. After a long peace and period of climate stability, the Earth’s climate has started to change, and change quickly. In an effort to answer why, the Earth’s great scientists have gathered all the best research in a report by the IPCC -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s last report says that there is a 90-plus percent certainty that humans are causing the problem, mostly by burning fossil fuels.

The governments of Stephen Harper in Canada, George Bush in the United States, the governments of Britain, France, Germany, China, India, and 137 other countries all signed off on that report. It’s not some like weird socialist thing. Everybody signed it.

Are there still scientific uncertainties? You bet. Real scientists are arguing all the time in labs and in peer-reviewed scientific journals, not in newsletters. Are we going to argue serious science today in 22 minutes in a debate between two guys, neither of whom has a degree in any scientific field or is doing any scientific research? I don’t think so.

The public debate about climate change is not about science, it’s about public relations. That’s what we do at DeSmog Blog, which is a climate change Web site. We do research on the credentials and the funding of people who argue that climate change isn’t happening, that it doesn’t matter, or that it can’t be stopped. Then we publish the results, and I can tell you it’s all about public relations.