There are issues around AGW that are deliberately ignored by its proponents and until these issues are properly addressed the real threat if one exists will not be known.
Firstly one has to look at the people, who started it and who are the main drivers of it now.
Dr James Hansen: whilst with NASA he testified to a US senate hearing his 'beliefs' about catastrophic gw. (This senate hearing was chaired by Al Gore). This resulted in sizeable grants towards further research etc. At the time and since then it has become apparent that NASA, the organisation, were embarrassed by Hansen's representations because they they felt his data and conclusions were scientifically lacking and unproven. But hey ho they took the money.
Al Gore: he formed a very cosy mutual appreciation society with Hansen which resulted in his 'Inconvenient Truth'. If ever a title should have been viewed with more literal scrutiny this is it. Anyway fair to say that most of the scientific basis of this book has since been completely debunked but he has gone on to make a lot of money promoting AGW since that senate committee in 1988. If you thought this was his plan all along you would not be accused of cynicism.
Michael Mann: Provided the 'evidence' the warmist lobby craved for with his hockey stick chart. IPCC jumped on the bandwagon, global warming became the new orthodoxy, the 'new ice age' proponents were well and truly usurped and cast into history (which might yet prove them more accurate than the warmists). It didn't take long for the hockey stick to be debunked as a good example of curve-fitting rather than scientific fact.
Phil Jones; CRU; University of East Anglia: They're all in the same boat with Hansen, Mann and co and the other thing they all have in common is they have all been exposed for their fraudulent behaviour. Scientific data that isn't even allowed to be put to any independent scientific analysis. When demand for this heated up they lost it! But that's OK, just trust us, the fact that we admit to manipulating the data is neither here nor there.
Rajendra Pachauri: Chairman of IPCC (but has no scientific qualifications). He is a very busy man with an exceptionally wide portfolio of business interests around the globe and coincidentally most of these interests are with organisations that will benefit financially from recommendations made by IPCC. Not least TATA which recently announced the closure of Corus in UK and when you see the benefits accrued to TATA for moving this steel production to India you'll understand why. Carbon credits are mega business and India and China will be the biggest beneficiaries (outside the large traders). Remember their performance at Copenhagen??
Pretty sloppy investigation. You've missed out on major co-conspirators
National Science Academies
The national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Earth Sciences
American Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the US National Association of Geoscience Teachers.
Meteorology and oceanography
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, American Meteorological Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Royal Meteorological Society
American Meteorological Society, World Meteorological Organization.
General science
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, The American Physical Society, American Institute of Physics, European Science Foundation, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies.
All these organizations and many others assert that AGW is real and urgent remedial action is essential. In other words, they agree with Jones, Mann, Hansen etc.
So you seriously contend that all these organizations are either corrupt or incompetent?
These are the leading and most respected national and professional bodies of world science. Amongst them are the oldest scientific associations of any type.
So who should we be inclined to believe - your collection of
wholly unsubstantiated innuendo and extremely poorly articulated accusations against some prominent scientists wrapped up in some sort of NWO conspiracy theory or the most respected bodies of world science?
Gee, that's a hard choice.
