New review of global climate change consensus

The Cato Institute has released a comprehensive report detailing information that wasn’t included in the 2009 report from the U.S Global Change Research Program that’s being used by the EPA as scientific support for regulating carbon dioxide emissions.

The 216-page Cato report, Addendum: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, provides extensive commentary and evidence of finding “systematic bias in the direction of alarmist findings” in the GCRP’s report. In the preface, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies Patrick J. Michaels wrote:

Of all of the “consensus” government or intergovernmental documents of this genre that I have reviewed in my 30+ years in this profession, there is no doubt that this is absolutely the worst of all. Virtually every sentence can be contested or does not repre­sent a complete survey of a relevant litera­ture…

…There is an overwhelming amount of misleading material in the CCSP’s “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” It is immediately obvious that the intent of the report is not to provide a ac­curate scientific assessment of the current and future impacts of climate change in the United States but to confuse the reader by a loose handling of normal climate events (made seemingly more frequent, intense and damaging simply by our growing popu­lation, population movements, and wealth) presented as climate change events. Addition­ally, there is absolutely no effort made by the CCSP authors to include any dissenting opinion to their declarative statements, despite the peer-reviewed scientific litera­ture being full of legitimate and applicable reports and observations that provide con­trasting findings.

…The uninformed reader (i.e., the public, reporters, and policy-makers) upon read­ing this report will be led to believe that a terrible disaster is soon to befall the United States from human-induced climate change and that almost all of the impacts will be negative and devastating. Of course, if the purpose here is not really to produce an unbiased review of the impact of climate change on the United States, but a politi­cal document that will give cover for EPA’s decision to regulate carbon dioxide, then there is really no reason to go through the ruse of gathering comments from scientists knowledgeable about the issues, as the only science that is relevant is selected work that fits the authors’ pre-existing paradigm.

8 responses to “New review of global climate change consensus

  1. The frustrating thing here is that NOBODY who should be guarding the store will pay any attention. This is a kind of mass delusion.

  2. Reblogged this on Edonurwayup's Blog and commented:
    This is like music to my ears. How much longer till we get a retraction from the EPA? What a sweet day that will be. How could they have got away with it for so long. It goes to show how closely linked the rouge scientific world and the politicians are.

  3. Yep. The predicted disaster has actually happened. And there will be another … someday… Such accuracy is commendable. Where would we be without it? I guess we have to accept that scientists are always right —(only joking chaps). Let me tell you – there will be another earthquake in New Zealand too.

  4. The Pie in the Sky is usually half-baked, with hand-picked cherries.

  5. “Climate change concensus” reminds me of a hastily thrown up lean-to on the side of some building. Constructed with scraps scavenged from the dumpster at some construction site. A sheet of corrugated iron roofing, scraps of metal siding, a few discarded shingles, pieces of plywood and comp siding. Held together with rusty nails and bailing wire.

    Take some selected tree ring data, a few coastal sediment samples, selected changes in wildlife habitat, add some cherry picked temperatures, (like the scraps of siding that come nearest covering the hole). Cobble it together with rigged computer models and have the media whitewash it. Then present it to the public as an “triumph of architecture!”

    “Po’ people has po’ ways.”

  6. If world leaders are ever stupid enough to limit available energy – both electricity and gas – how long do you think it will before mobs begin demanding an end to the lunacy ?

    A couple of weeks of downtime for Facebook or Twitter, unreliable internet and TV/Cable will work wonders on even the most evangilical believer.

    Their dream of control of energy is just that – a dream.

    Imagine your living standards plummeting whilst the Chinese and Indian Government continue with their already stated intentions and their citizens become the new Jetsetters – who is going to thank these people then ?

  7. Rosco the commercial opportunities are endless and mind-boggling. My son will be able to conduct tours in the family bi-plane for all those rich foreign tourists – mostly Indian and Chinese – but don’t forget those smart Russian millionaires, and they can visit our shacks in the wilderness where we live in pristine poverty as an example to all – to all WHO you say? – The other rich humans of course!!

  8. that artical ,the truth needs to be put in every News Paper in the US! American People need to be woke up! We need to make a Stand!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s