THE US REPORT

Commentary by Kay B. Day

Global warming alarmists love to post charts, graphs and scientific data on message boards and comment threads. Most of the laymen alarmists aren’t scientists and take their talking points directly from alarmist websites. They are like little parrots of science, repeating whatever dogma is drilled into their willing brains.

But ClimateGate has expanded with another revelation—actually a couple of them. And since Big Branded Media in the U.S. probably won’t tell you about it, we figured we’d share the news. For starters, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has some explaining to do about those Himalayan glaciers that are supposed to disappear by 2035. The Times (London) said, “In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.”

That news story, by the way, wasn’t peer reviewed. Recall how the alarmists love that term ‘peer reviewed.’ The glacier meltdown claim originated with an obscure Indian scientist who was giving comments to a reporter via telephone. The claim began to pop up in various places all those esteemed alarmist scientists like to cite and next thing you know, it was taken as fact by disciples of Gore, from the haughtiest alarmist expert to the fanatical political class activist. The journalist who actually did real journalism work—digging for the source—should receive an award.

Meanwhile, back at the glacier farm, Michael Mann, the professor who has received dozens of awards for his global warming warnings even after his famous hockey stick turned out to be incorrect, has received $541,184 U.S. taxpayer dollars to conduct even more climate change research. By the way, the Environmental Protection Agency switched from global warming alarmism to climate change alarmism—a manner of hedging the bets perhaps. Mann’s university, Penn State, got another $1.9 million. These grants came from the Stimulus Funds. How brazen can politics get?

All that money despite the fact Mann is also at the center of the ClimateGate scandal wherein hacked emails proved many of those associated with global warming alarmism permitted politics to govern science. They also conducted smear campaigns against experts who disagreed with their theories.

All these revelations come after another Brit newspaper revealed the head of the UN IPCC had ties to a big oil group and that group stands to make lots of money off climate change policy/politics.

The US Report had questioned Dr. R.K. Pachauri’s status based on two minutes of research before the paper ran their story. We actually took the time to read his biography, discovering his ties to India’s state-owned oil company.

Meanwhile an earthquake has devastated Haiti and all the carbon sequestration in the world would not have prevented it.  Deforestation is still occurring, over-grazing still occurs and religious conflicts wreck the landscape in many countries. In addition, global warming propaganda about industrialized countries from alarmists are a major reason for hatred of the U.S. in the developing world.

The good news: alarmists can rest a little easier now. Those Himalayan glaciers’ death is much exaggerated, just like many other claims coming from the camp of failed Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore. The website Watts Up With That questioned the Himalayan predictions in November, 2009. Turns out the skeptics were, once again, right.

You’d think someone in the Party that rules the U.S. government would have the decency to admit global warming alarmism is overblown instead of pushing Cap and Trade, legislation that will transfer American wealth to 'developing countries' like India and China. Then again, decency is in short supply in Washington these days.

 [Ed. note: We incorrectly listed the amount Mann received as "half a billion" in the initial post. We re-checked the source and realized the actual amount was approximately half a million. We located the exact figure at The Wall Street Journal and we have corrected our error. We apologize for the mistake.]