Dr Rajendra Pachauri admits that there has been no global warming for 17 years. Dr Pachauri is, if you don’t know, the leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a branch of the UN. The IPCC has issued reports on climate change which conclude—- burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 causing a “dramatic” increase in global temperatures. The IPCC documents have had widespread influence. For example, the US EPA successfully used these reports as the technical justification to declare CO2 a hazardous pollutant that needed to be regulated. The IPCC’s belief is that natural forces are inconsequential.
For the last 17 years, CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel burning have increased. The measurement of atmospheric CO2 has climbed steadily over these 17 years and yet the global temperature has not risen. Proving that the natural forces indeed are consequential.
Probably no person alive has not heard that the IPCC reports are the work of 2500 scientists, which has been morphed into a group called the Consensus. Most folks that follow this issue know that the vast majority of the 2500 climate scientist writers of the IPCC reports never had any say about the reports findings. It is often said that only about 65 (at most) really had any influence regarding the reports conclusions. And distressing as it must be to the many author-contributors of their scientific studies to the IPCC, their comments on drafts were often ignored and non-peer reviewed material from environmental pressure groups, like WWF, were used instead.
What has become of the scientists that make up the academic and scientific societies of this and other nations? These scientific societies form a powerful bloc. Some major scientific societies have stated things like—it is “irrefutable” that CO2 is driving global temperatures and that the future of the globe hangs in the balance unless man-made CO2 emissions are brought into control. Where are the scientists that belong to these societies? Shouldn’t their society’s leaders who have this unwavering certainty of man-made global warming be called into question? Shouldn’t the membership assert that their views be represented, and if not, the cabal of warmers that run the show be replaced?
And before you say “what difference does it make what our scientific society leaders say, in time it will be apparent anyway”. Consider this. Politicians live to tax and regulate. And right now they perceive that if they don’t find new sources of monies, their honeymoon is over. They are desperate for more revenue. They never have cared what the science says, they want “carbon taxes”, “cap and trade”, etc. as ways to keep their gravy train going. Don’t kid yourselves, they are serious about getting those dollars. President Obama said in the State of the Union speech that he is going to get control of global warming. The new Secretary of State, John Kerry used his first address to repeat Obama’s goals. And the EPA, and the IPCC and the scientific societies are cover for them. So if the professional societies leadership is left in the hands of those zealots, they will continue to provide the cover for the politicians to general population that does not have the background to evaluate the validity of the claims. You and your children will pay for their excesses. And the irony is that if the temperatures show no increase or even drop they will claim the credit and say that they need to do more restricting of fossil fuel use (and incidentally get more revenue into the government) to save us.