Let’s review the series of lies on global warming:
The evidence of tampering within the environmental science community continues to mount.
- We have learned that the data behind the famous hockey stick graph was altered to hide the decline.
- The researchers at the CRU used their influence to hijack the peer review process and keep scientists who’s research opposed the view of AGW from publishing in established journals.
- The Russians have accused climate researchers of cherry-picking Siberian station data which if considered in its entirety does not substantiate the AGW theory.
- The former Green Peace leader admitted to exaggerating the claims of polar ice cap melt in order to sway public opinion.
- A Nobel-prize-winning IPCC report has been found to include bogus claims about Himalayan glacier melt and, now, about dire threats to the Amazonian rain forest.
- IPCC chair Pachauri used this report to secure funding for his institute of research and could now be facing criminal charges.
I could go on about Carbon-billionaire Al Gore and his use of CGI footage from the Day After Tomorrow in his An Inconvenient Truth documentary, but that is old news.
And now another one: Amazongate,
The IPCC claimed that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests were risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by “tropical savannas” if temperatures continued to rise.
This claim is backed up by a scientific-looking reference but on closer investigation turns out to be yet another non-peer reviewed piece of work from the WWF. Indeed the two authors are not even scientists or specialists on the Amazon: one is an Australian policy analyst, the other a freelance journalist for the Guardian and a green activist.
The WWF has yet to provide any scientific evidence that 40% of the Amazon is threatened by climate change — as opposed to the relentless work of loggers and expansion of farms.
Every time I have questioned our politicians about global warming they have fallen back on the mantra that “2,500 scientists can’t be wrong”, referring to the vast numbers supposedly behind the IPCC consensus.
But it is now clear that the majority of those involved in the IPCC process are not scientists at all but politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.
May I ask why does the World Wildlife Fund have any credibility on their statements to begin with? It’s an environmental advocacy group whose income depends on scaremongering, not a scientific research institute of any kind, and their work is not peer-reviewed:
The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication.
Head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri – who, as Andrew Neil points out is often wrongly described in the media as the world’s leading climate scientist, when he’s actually a railway engineer – sticks to his guns and insists he won’t resign, while we are railroaded.
Video via EU Referendum, which has a great roundup.