http://calgarysun.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Ne ... 4-sun.html

Sun, February 11, 2007


Whistleblowers get kiss-off


Pro-man-made global warming crowd will do anything to 'sex-up' the threat

By LICIA CORBELLA



It's too bad the world's media doesn't hold the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the same standards that it holds large corporations.

When Enron cooked the books, there were -- rightly -- no end of indignant columns and talk shows condemning these high-paid fraudsters who massaged the numbers to fit their agenda and bolster their bank accounts.

The whistleblower who tried to get Enron to change its evil ways -- Sherron Watkins -- was named, along with two other whistleblowing women -- TIME magazine's Persons of the Year for 2002.

But when it comes to scientists who whistleblow about IPCC reports cooked by politicians to fit their politicized agendas, those whistleblowers are either ignored or dismissed as "skeptics" or quacks and are libelled as haters of this planet and nature, even though most of them have dedicated their lives to studying nature and protecting it.

Dr. Christopher Landsea, a leading expert in the field of hurricanes and tropical storms, resigned as an author of the IPCC 2007 report, released earlier this month stating the IPCC was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound."

Landsea, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory wrote a lengthy and detailed open letter to his scientific colleagues explaining why he was withdrawing from helping to author the report.

"I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.


"In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns," he wrote.

Sounds a lot like what happened at Enron, doesn't it?

Landsea said a lead author for the IPCC report, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, asked him to provide the write-up on Atlantic hurricanes in what he thought would be "a politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate."

Landsea, who was an author and reviewer for the IPCC report in 1995 and 2001, says he told Trenberth that research showed "no global warming signal found in the hurricane record."

Then Trenberth gave a Harvard lecture stating the polar opposite.

"I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today.

"To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability. ... All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."

But, science be damned.

The pro-man-made global warming crowd wanted to sex-up the threat of a warming planet, so they just made it up.

Pulled it out of a hat.

Lying is a tactic Al Gore, the man behind the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, admitted is acceptable.

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis," said Gore in a May 2006 interview with Grist Magazine.

Gore's admission he makes like Pinocchio to make a point on global warming should be an inconvenient truth, to be sure, but the mainstream media -- which positively loves the doom-and- gloom scenario of man-made global warming, has been virtually silent on this.

Two other renowned scientists said their work was misrepresented by those who wrote the 2001 IPCC summary, including MIT physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen.

Also ignored has been Dr. Frederick Seitz, past-president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, who wrote in June 1996, with regard to the 1995 IPCC report:

"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

He continued: "This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page."

So what was removed from the original 1995 IPCC report that was approved by ALL of the contributing scientists?

The following passage is just one example of what was deleted from the original scientists' report:

"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."

Dr. Seitz continued: "IPCC reports are often called the 'consensus' view."

"Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."

But the evidence doesn't say that and neither did the scientists.

That's what the actual consensus said.

That was changed.

That's fraud. Billions of dollars are being shuffled around the world to support the lie.

Much money is at stake -- much more than Enron multiplied.

So, why doesn't the media care?