By Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press

In previous parts of this series (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) I’ve shown how a political agenda took over climate science primarily through the UN and specifically the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The agenda was spread to the world at the 1992 Rio Conference. Periodic Reports from the IPCC maintained the focus on CO2 and increased the political pressure. Please understand I am not claiming a conspiracy, but rather a cabal, which is defined as a secret political clique pushing a political agenda; in this case, designed by Maurice Strong. 

The most notorious was the Hockey Stick (HS) in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR). Despite its destruction by McIntyre and McKitrick confirmed by the Wegman committee reporting to the National Academy of Sciences, Michael Mann and his associates continue to claim their work was legitimate. Its omission from the 2007 IPCC Report told the real story.

While the Hockey Stick was exposed and rejected it drew attention away from a more insidious piece of ‘human signal’ evidence in the 2001 IPCC (TAR). This was the claim by P.D. Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that the global average annual temperature increased 0.6C plus or minus 0.2C in some 130 years.  It was claimed the increase was beyond any natural increase with the strong implication it was caused by humans. The data is simply not adequate to make this conclusion. The first problem is the huge error factor of plus or minus 0.2C or 66%, which essentially makes the number meaningless. Imagine a political poll saying it was accurate plus or minus 33%. Besides, there are so many problems with the global data many consider it impossible to calculate the global temperature.

There are serious questions and proven limitations of many of the stations. Two US authorities, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) produced different global annual averages for the year 2007. GISS claimed it was the second warmest year on record while NOAA said it was the seventh warmest year, both ostensibly using the same data.

In 1999 the US National Research Council Report, expressed serious concern about the data “Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.” In response to the report Kevin Trenberth said, “It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system. This may be a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.” It has not improved. In fact, there are fewer global weather stations now than in 1960. Read much more of this in-depth coverage of the data problems we have been highlighting here.

By Jonah Goldberg, LA Times

I admit it: I’m no environmentalist. But I like to think I’m something of a conservationist. No doubt for millions of Americans this is a distinction without a difference, as the two words are usually used interchangeably. But they’re different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.

At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It’s a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. “If you look carefully,” author Michael Crichton famously observed, “you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.”

Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as “selfish, conceited creatures.” Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating through deeds an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: “The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

Plastic grocery bags are being banned all over the place, even though they require less energy to make or recycle than paper ones. The whole country is being forced to subscribe to a modern version of transubstantiation, whereby corn is miraculously transformed into sinless energy even as it does worse damage than oil.

Conservation, which shares roots and meaning with conservatism, stands athwart this mass hysteria. Yes, conservationism can have a religious element to it as well, but that element stems from the biblical injunction to be a good steward of the Earth, rather than a worshiper of it. But stewardship involves economics, not mysticism. Economics is the study of choosing between competing goods. Environmentalists view economics as the enemy because cost-benefit analysis is thoroughly unromantic. In the broadest sense, the environmental movement has won. Americans are “green” in that they are willing to spend a lot to keep their country ecologically healthy, which it is. But now it’s time to save the environment from the environmentalists. Read more here.

AccuWeather.com’s senior meteorologist Joe Bastardi sent an open letter to the 2008 presidential candidates. Excerpts from that letter follow:

Dear Sir or Madam,

The nonsense that is the global warming debate can be likened to a Don King production, where the two main antagonists, well deserved ones at that, are still hours away from the main fight. Instead, we have under-cards that leave us simply wondering if we will ever get to the real deal. I use the fight game because in boxing in past days, guys went right at it. Jake La Motta and Sugar Ray Robinson once fought each other within a few weeks of a fight. There was no dancing and ducking and big mouthing, just the fight against the guys that deserved to be in the ring.

This is exactly how this should be handled. Mr Obama, can the Al Gore as an advisor on the environment. Mr. McCain, quit succumbing to pressure because you want to look nice or moderate. Both of you, get the people that can give this debate its true merit in front of you. Hillary, if you are elected, the same thing (you got to admit, she is showing some Lady Thatcher or Golda Meir spunk these days). But stop with watching people that aren’t the main event.

Within the first 100 days of office, get the top five SCIENTISTS on both sides of the issue in front of you in the oval office and let them argue it out. No cameras, no press, just you, your closest advisors, and the people that are qualified to do this. Have trusted members of both sides of the aisles, but get the politics out of it. The polar bear situation should push Americans over the edge. The long term population has increased. In addition, the cold this winter may simply be a preview of what is coming.

This is not a matter of politics, it is not a matter of feelings. It is a matter of science and facts and educated men squaring off and displaying their knowledge. A non-conclusive answer in this matter is no answer at all, and no mandate to perhaps send us on path that could affect the chance for the very people we should have the most compassion for, to improve their lot. Read the full letter here.