“Yes, we can!” former Vice President Al Gore bellowed as the crowd went wild during his closing day speech at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Poznan, Poland, Friday. But it was not Barack Obama’s meaningless campaign motto they were excited about; instead, it was the prospect of using the U.N.’s global warming propaganda to spread American wealth.
In reality, the hit on the U.S. economy by the U.N.’s legally binding 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the planned 2009 Copenhagen treaty would drastically reduce America’s ability to make wealth, much less to increase its foreign aid and technology transfers, the essence of both treaties.
Most astonishing is that the global warming treaty is not based on sound science. The U.N. created its own political entity, the International Panel on Climate Change, to produce its own global warming conclusions. The U.N.’s IPCC conveniently ignores data and has made significant alterations to scientific documents after scientists approved them in order to convey human influence on climate.
It was because of politics, not science, that the IPCC and Gore were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet puts it this way: “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”
The U.N. ignores the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s petition signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” And the U.N. ignores the new U.S. Senate report in which more than 650 international scientists dispute manmade global warming.
Even so, three groups brought science to the forefront in Poland. Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Greener Horizon Films, Ltd. and Eagle Forum showed a sneak preview of a new documentary film entitled, “Not Evil, Just Wrong.” The responses were edifying:
- One attendee said that climate change is real, he was “making money” from it, and he could not believe that anyone would dare speak against it, especially at a U.N. meeting.
- Another complained that the film was not relevant because it addressed the impact of increased energy prices and limited energy availability for Americans. He said that climate change was a matter of “survival” for the rest of the world and that the developed world must “take the lead,” a U.N. euphemism for “spread their wealth.”
- Others defended renewable energy, regardless of the excessive cost and acute unreliability.
A devout believer in global warming, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, called for a “Green New Deal” and told delegates, “We all know the science judging from the evidence presented over the past few years and days; we know the problem is growing worse.” But such “evidence” does not exist in peer-reviewed science.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was created to counter the IPCC’s propaganda with peer-reviewed science. The NIPCC’s new book, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,” was published by the Heartland Institute and edited by Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
The book presents three central problems for policymakers and offers peer-reviewed scientific answers:
- Is the reported warming trend real and how significant is it?
- The only truly global observations come from weather satellites, and they have shown no warming trend over the past decade.
- Computer climate models are unreliable, as they are unable to accurately factor sun activity, ocean currents and winds.
- How much of the warming trend is due to natural causes, and how much is due to human-generated greenhouse gases?
- The 20th century is in no way unusual, and warming periods of greater magnitude have occurred in the historic past – without any catastrophic consequences.
- Human greenhouse gas contributions to current warming are insignificant; rather, it is primarily of natural origin.
- Would the effects of continued warming be harmful or beneficial to plant and wildlife and to human civilization?
- Science refutes the threat of rising sea levels and reasons that rising carbon dioxide levels are likely to be benign, promoting not only the growth of crops and forests but also benefiting human health.
The report concludes, “Any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. … The Kyoto Protocol would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount.”
Science does not warrant the U.N.’s call for a “Green New Deal” to supposedly produce a utopian “more equitable and prosperous future.” The U.N. has failed miserably to live up to its promises for world peace – is anyone so naïve to think that it can produce global prosperity?