House Votes To De-Fund IPCC

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
House Votes To De-Fund IPCC
8
Wed, 02-23-2011 - 6:01pm

I just saw this on Drudge

http://conservativepolicynews.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/house-votes-to-de-fund-ipcc/

In a major victory for American taxpayers, the House of Representatives today passed a budget amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) that would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.

The amendment, which is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Luetkemeyer, was passed in a direct challenge to the president’s request to fund the IPCC, which has provided information that purports to support the administration’s call for job-killing cap-and-tax legislation. Luetkemeyer’s amendment was one of 19 amendments highlighted this week by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an entity that is fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science, which is the last thing hard-working American taxpayers should be paying for at a time of out-of-control spending and historic debt, which is why I am extremely pleased that my amendment passed,” Luetkemeyer said. “It is time for Washington to combat this year’s record budget deficit and fast-growing national debt. This amendment is part of that effort.”

The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.

More than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC. These 700-plus dissenting scientists are affiliated with institutions like the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, the U.S. Air Force and Navy, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2010
Wed, 02-23-2011 - 6:55pm
"More than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC."

http://antipollutionrevolutioncampaign.blogspot.com/2010/01/senator-inhofes-list-of-700-dissenting.html

<


In 2009, Inhofe released the U.S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims, which showed how scientists continued to debunk consensus in 2008 & 2009. This report listed over 700 dissenting scientists from around the globe that challenged the conclusions of the IPCC report. In fact, Inhofe claimed: "The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

The Center for Inquiry, whose mission is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanistic values, released a press release on July 17, 2009, with the tag-line: Center for Inquiry Reveals that 80 Percent of 'dissenting scientists' in report haven't published peer-reviewed climate research. "Sen. Inhofe has used this report to support the claim that there is an ever-increasing international groundswell of scientific opposition to the position of approximately 2,000 scientists whose work is the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC) released in 2007," wrote the report.

After analyzing the 687 individuals named as "dissenting scientists" in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority Report -- a chorus of whom Inhofe claimed grew louder in 2008 and 2009 -- the Center for Inquiry Credibility Project found that slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists, 15 percent had been published in climate science literature, 80 percent had no refereed publication on climate science, and 4 percent actually favored the IPCC-2007 consensus that the Senate reported tried to debunk.

Click here for a complete breakdown of all 687 scientists listed.

Inhofe claimed that: "The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers." Dr. Ronald Lindsay, CEO of the Center for Inquiry, points out: "But those 52 U.N. scientists were in fact summarizing for policy-makers the work of over 2,000 active research scientists, all with substantially similar views on global warming and its causes. This is the kind of broadside against sound science and scientific integrity that we at CFI deplore."

The CFI estimates only 100 of the 700 men and women listed were climate scientists. Even if all 100 scientists were dissenting -- which may not be true -- the ratio of IPCC dissenters to scientists behind the IPCC report is not 13-1, but 1 to 20.

As for the 600 other dissenters listed who Inhofe referred to as scientists -- "[...] the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former U.N. IPCC scientists [...]" -- many have never contributed to science in any capacity. Inventor Ray Kurzweil was listed, for example, because he stated in the Washington Post: "Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years [...] I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far -- 1 degree f. in 100 years."

Senator Inhofe even includes meteorologists on his list, such as CBS Chicago affiliated Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville and Weather Channel Founder John Coleman. Joe Romm, one of Time Magazine's most influential climate-blogger, has a great piece about why John Coleman has no knowledge of climate change, and why meteorologists have no inherent credibility on climatology.

Inhofe has actually included scientists and "dissenters" who agree with the IPCC report. Meteorologist George Waldenberger, who was listed in the Minority Report, wrote in an email to Inhofe:

Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus."

You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific [...] yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.

You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research."

For a complete collection of links to article exposing Inhofe's list of "dissenting scientists" click here. If you would like to search through the scientific academies that accept the scientific consensus introduced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), please jump to Scientific Opinion & Consensus on Climate Change. >>
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Wed, 02-23-2011 - 9:00pm

Climate change research has been corrupted by political and economic agendas. There has been massive fraud regarding global warming science. Models have been touted as fact. Raw data has been destroyed, or is not available for peer review. Data samples were selected to remove climate warm periods from graphs. It's a mess.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2010
Wed, 02-23-2011 - 9:26pm
LOL. Interesting quotes from non-climate scientists.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Wed, 02-23-2011 - 11:53pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2010
Thu, 02-24-2011 - 8:18am
Tom Tripp, a metallurgical engineer for U.S. Magnesium, who "...helped prepare section 4.5 of the Working Group 3 volume of the IPCC report, which is about how to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from magnesium production operations. Since he is a metallurgist working for a magnesium producer, he is presumably well qualified to write about the chemistry of magnesium production. But how does this make him into an expert on climate? It doesn’t." http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/redefining-the-expert-witness/

Tom Tripp appears to be agree with the above: <
He also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying “I don’t have the expertise.”>> http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/ipcc-author-on-agw-scientifically-were-not-there-yet/

Yep, Tom Tripp gives an opinion and then notes that he's not an expert. You should take him at his word.

I just went to your "Climate Depot" website. Whew. Reminds me of Free Republic and World Net Daily. If that's the kind of place you want to get your info from, have at it. It's just not the type of unbiased place I prefer.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Depot

I won't be going through the list of your other quotes since the first one was clearly not from an expert and that person even agrees he isn't qualified to comment.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Thu, 02-24-2011 - 12:05pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2010
Thu, 02-24-2011 - 12:47pm
He's qualified to comment on what he is an expert about (which was "how to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from magnesium production operations"). That does not make him an expert on all things climate change.
Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Fri, 02-25-2011 - 5:10pm
There are no qualified people. The reports have all been flawed as much is still unknown or unexplored.

chaika