Commentary by Kay B. Day
US top shelf media refuse to investigate the numerous errors and conflicts in reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But in other countries like Australia and England, media routinely carry stories questioning IPCC claims—even newspapers who agree with manmade global warming theory do this. The latest sizzler comes from India’s Open Magazine. OM is published by RPG Enterprises, one of India’s largest publishers.
The writer, Ninad D. Sheth, does an excellent job of dissecting IPCC inaccuracies, coming from the panel originally formed to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.
The IPCC, however, by its own admission does not “conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.” The panel reviews and assesses information. Although a number of key IPCC claims were not peer reviewed, the panel declares review an “essential part” of the process.
Sheth likens the current IPCC to a “climate change mafia.”
As The US Report was among the first to point out, the head of the IPCC is not a scientist. Sheth writes: “Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits, nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course on climatology...You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.”
That’s a small slice of a big pie; Sheth’s analysis is definitely worth reading if you’re interested in global warming/climate change/formerly the Little Ice Age.
During his State of the Union Address in January, President Barack Obama urged members of both parties to work on various issues, including climate change. Obama did acknowledge there is disagreement about “the science.” Unfortunately our president did not acknowledge the fraud and deceit inherent in a process where scientists collude for the purpose of politics and grant money rather than a search for truth.
The negligence of US media in covering the global warming controversy speaks volumes about the state of well-branded publications and websites. We must accept that on this issue as well as others the media cannot be trusted, at least not the media the political class trumps as purveyors of truth. Like scientists who skew their facts, media have skewed coverage of policy that will, as Obama forecast, “make electricity rates necessarily skyrocket.”
Doesn’t this mean the Supreme Court decision giving the Environmental Protection Agency the right to control carbon emissions is based on faulty data? In the real world, it would. In a world where global warming policy is dominated by leftwing radical environmental groups, truth apparently doesn’t matter.
The Supreme Court opinion in Massachusetts et al vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al begins: “Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise inglobal temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of “greenhouse gases,” a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act…”
I’m thinking you can toss out the phrase ‘respected scientific opinion.’ Nothing like de facto legislating from the bench, is there?
Only branded media located in India and countries like Australia dare to tell the truth about the global warming hoax. Sheth appropriately calls it the “hottest hoax in the world.”