If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind’s activities are causing global warming, my guess is that a majority would say yes. In fact, a Gallup poll conducted July 23-26, 2007 found that 63% believed that global warming is caused mostly by human activities. But is this perception of global warming based on fact or just misguided opinion?
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These organizations shared the 2007 Noble Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore. These two U.N. organizations form a scientific body given the task of evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity. In 2005 the IPCC released a report saying that since the mid-twentieth century, the surface temperature of the earth has been rising steadily.
Mr. Gore and his colleagues at the IPCC maintain that there is an increase in global average temperatures, due to man-made intervention resulting in a “greenhouse effect.” They also say that natural phenomena, such as solar variation, combined with volcanoes, had little effect on global warming from pre-industrial times until 1950, and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.
These conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. However, there are many scientists, some who have served on the IPCC panel, who have voiced disagreement with many of the findings of the IPCC. One noted biologist and ecologist Dr. Michael Coffman, Executive Director of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. and CEO of Sovereignty International, said in his presentation, Global Warming or Global Governance, “The global warming climate change issue is so important that people on both sides of the issue, including policymakers should be fully informed before policy is actually formulated. Tragically, that’s not happening in the global warming issue.” Coffman further says that what is being proposed by Al Gore and his colleagues is that man is primarily causing a global warming effect, but there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary put forth by prominent scientists from around the world.
What Does the Scientific Evidence Show?
There is evidence that many parts of the globe have experienced record cold temperatures dating back over one hundred years. According to Professor Tim Patterson, of the Dept. of Earth Sciences at Carlton University, “Many things we thought we knew about the climate system just a few years ago are now proving to be uncertain or quite mistaken.” Also, Dr. Robert Balling, Former Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, “It’s become quite news worthy to go out and tell people that we are about to have an apocalyptic climate change. And the moment you make that announcement, it’s easy to go around the world and find things to support that viewpoint.” Dr. Vincent Gray, chemist and one of the original chief IPCC researchers, says “The IPCC is a political organization setup by the UN to provide evidence to support the framework convention on climate change; it’s entirely political. They made up what they were going to do beforehand and choose whatever science they (IPCC) could find to support their theory.”
According to Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) on the Foreign Relations Committee, “This cuts at the heart of national sovereignty of the U.S. We would be saying that we would allow an international body to come in and dictate to our industries, our businesses, our people, what they can do and what they can’t do; the use of what energy, the sources of energy, the cost of energy, etc.”
These concerns about the policymaking of such international organizations like the IPCC have led many to question whether this is an issue of global warming or global governance.
The major premise of “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore is that carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas that drives the temperature of the earth.” According to scientific data studied by scientists such as Dr. Ian Clark, “Carbon dioxide gas (CO2) lags behind temperature changes in history by 800 years; CO2 doesn’t cause temperature change.” And according to Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, “Based on the evidence of ice core studies at the polar ice caps, it shows that CO2 follows temperature, not the opposite. So the fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change by human intervention of CO2 emissions causing temperature changes is wrong.”
Dr. John Christy, Atmospheric Physicist at the University of Alabama and leading author of IPCC report now says “human intervention accounts for a small fraction of CO2 of the atmospheric gases in the atmosphere; that water vapor accounts for about 97% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 accounts for 1.9%. Therefore, man is responsible for less than 3% of all greenhouse effect in the atmosphere globally.”
Also highlighted in Al Gore’s “an Inconvenient Truth” presentation is a temperature study report using the MBH Report of 1998, showing significant temperatures rising in the last century like never before in history. What Mr. Gore’s presentation does not show is that the MBH report, named after the authors, Mann, Bradley, Hughes, was wrong and incomplete according to another report that was subsequently released revealing flaws in Geophysical Research Letters by Professors McIntyre and McKitrick in 2006.
In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing, and a 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th Century warming. According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.”
A Need for Clear Thinking
“My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational panic about it,” said Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at U.C. Santa Barbara. He is the author of Discordant Harmonies: ANew Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. “Many of my colleagues ask, ‘What's the problem? Hasn't it been a good thing to raise public concern?’”
According to Botkin, “The problem is that in this panic, we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will fail to do many of those things that will benefit the environment and ourselves. For example, right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction. Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about. They are endangered because of deforestation. In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct. At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science, even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to deal with our changing climate.”
Global Warming Hysteria and the Role of Al Gore
So what is behind the hysteria to promote global warming as a reality?
Matthew Vadum, Senior Editor and former CRC research fellow, veteran journalist and editor of “Organization Trends and Foundation Watch” spent seven years at the Washington bureau of “The Bond Buyer,” a daily Wall Street financial newspaper.
In a commentary on April 1, 2008, Mr. Vadum said, “Co-founder of IPCC Al Gore is trying to be a climate change profiteer. Essentially, he wants to make a fortune by creating a new market for a product that he is attempting to create by legislative fiat. If he succeeds and carbon emissions trading comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in. He's made sure of that.”
According to Vadum, “Gore himself is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). He says the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally friendly, to use green parlance. GIM appears to have considerable influence over major carbon credit trading firms: the U.S.-based Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the U.K.-based Carbon Neutral Company (CNC). CCX appears to be the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits. As a politician, Gore speaks warmly of transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming. Little is known about his shadowy firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.”
As reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch ("Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It," by Deborah Corey Barnes), with help from friends at Goldman Sachs, including U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and the investment bank’s former CEO Hank Paulson, Gore has created a web of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis. Meanwhile, Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is pushing for tougher environmental regulations on the private sector. It wants “cap-and-trade” legislation enacted so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits. Untold billions of dollars could be generated in a brand new U.S. carbon market. When Gore's potential for immense profits is factored in, the $300 million outlay for ads (some of which is likely to come from donations to the Alliance's "We Campaign") seems like a drop in the bucket. If Gore can keep up the pressure for carbon emissions restrictions, he could end up a very wealthy man.”
Why does Al Gore use this Madison Ave. means to instill fear to ratify the Kyoto Protocol of the IPCC to impose international solutions to stop global warming?
Don Young of Alaska, Former Chairman of the House Resource Committee, says that the environment is being used as a power struggle, to cause the U.S. to submit to a one world government. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md) US House of Representative says he’s troubled that there is a tendency now to submerge the sovereignty of the U.S. to the will of the United Nations Organizations.
Bill Clinton appointed a long time friend and colleague Nelson Strobridge “Strobe” Talbott, as a personal advisor on foreign policy, particularly in connection with Russian policy. Talbott also served at the Yale Center for Studies in Globalization. Talbott also wrote an article in Time magazine in July 20, 1992 called “The Birth of the Global Nation.” In this article Talbott predicted US relinquishing its authority to a single global authority. For that he received an award from the World Federalist Association, a group committed to world government, as well as a congratulatory letter from Bill Clinton.
As Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum, a conservative activist group in US since 1967, said concerning Strobe Talbott, that he knew that Americans would never vote for a world government, so instead Talbott and others like him, talk about global governance, a global village, a global economy. They talk about reforming the UN and expanding NATO. Their answer always lies in more international agencies such as the IPCC wielding more control and power over U.S. citizens. And all of these international agencies are gaining their controls and powers from the UN, an international agency with its own agenda and not always in the best interests of the U.S.
Schlafly further contends that “The consensus in Kyoto as outlined in the IPCC report will bind America to reduce energy consumption by 25%, which will have a devastating effect on the American standard of living and the U.S. economy. It will continue to drive more industries out of America for a more global economy.”
The record shows that presently $4 Billion per year is being spent on global warming research. Much of the funding for these research projects have been put together by “Public-Private-Partnerships” composed of multi-national corporations and NGO’s promoting the one world government concept. Since none of these entities are elected, there is little to no accountability to the electorate of the U.S. These partnerships then are free to impose their will on people with no punitive measures. Partnerships like this, which Al Gore is part of, have given them the platform to introduce such entities as the IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol on environmental studies as a stepping stone to control the national and local economy of the U.S., such as the carbon tax put before congress at this time.
Is Global Warming Being Used to Impose Global Governance?
This is the essence of Global Governance and strategies for a New World Order. Perhaps this is what people like Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank had in mind when he introduced the new business organization “Association of American Free Trade Agreements” before President Bush in 2006. The AAFTA is a separate “non-government” entity to develop a common market and common deregulations for the benefit of the multi-national corporations involved; all sanctioned by top government officials and all supporting and promoting the IPCC Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially nations like India and China. This has resulted in many of the business entities realizing profits as high as 45% while wages for average Americans have dropped significantly.
This information is in the public domain and begs the question; is Global Warming an established fact as some globalists promote or does the evidence indicate that globalists are using tools like the IPCC and global warming to impose global governance in the U.S.? Let the reader decide.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.