When it comes to Iraq, our media have been preoccupied with the issue of whether there was adequate intelligence to justify the invasion and if policy-makers made up evidence before the war. But on the matter of global intervention to stop global warming, there seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a global carbon tax of 35 cents a gallon of gas on the American people.
It’s difficult to figure out which is the bigger fraud-the U.N. or our media.
Incredibly, the much-publicized United Nations climate change report, which blames global warming on people, has no published science to back it up.
The front page Washington Post story about the report waited until the 20th paragraph of a 21-paragraph story to mention that the “detailed scientific documentation” for the claim is not yet available and won’t be released “for a few months.”
A New York Times account waited until the 40th paragraph of a 44-paragraph story to disclose that “thousands of pages of technical background,” supposedly the basis for the alarming conclusions, would be released later in the year.
Now how many people read until almost the end of these articles to discover that the scientific evidence is not yet available?
The odds are that many people didn’t get past the sensational New York Times headline, “Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal.'”
Clearly, we are supposed to accept all of this on faith.
In fact, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is officially sponsored by the U.N. Environmental Program, which once organized an “Environmental Sabbath” program so people could pay homage to the planet. The program included an exercise for children to sit around a tree, hold hands, and meditate.
The coverage of the IPCC report demonstrates how mainstream journalists have abandoned even a pretense of objectivity.
This reflects the influence of such figures as Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, who, at the recent so-called National Conference on Media Reform, said that the media should not cover both sides of the global warming debate.
However, some scientists are raising the alarm.
Canada’s National Post reports that astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young scientists, says the IPCC’s work is based on “speculation” and that he believes global warming is caused more by solar activity than the release of greenhouses gases like CO2.
The IPCC’s decidedly unscientific approach has come under attack from Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl, who declared, “In the past, scientists had to do their research before the implications for policymaking could have been derived from this research.”
Mocking the U.N. process, he commented, “Today, the vastly superior postmodern scientific method of the IPCC members allows them to publish the summary for policymakers first.”
A Google search of current news, however, turned up only two places where Motl’s criticism of the IPCC was mentioned-a story carried by Fox News and attributed to Brit Hume, and a CNSNews.com story. Hume cited the CNSNews.com report.
The CNSNews.com story by Kevin Mooney also quoted Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, as saying that issuing a conclusion before producing the evidence for that conclusion is completely improper and that a business which issued a report in such a fashion would be investigated by the government for fraud.
Senator James Inhofe, ranking Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, called the IPCC report “the corruption of science for political gain” and said the process is completely lacking in scientific integrity.
He notes that page 4 of “Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work” includes the following: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”
This means that the scientific data may be altered to conform with what has already been published.
Instead of highlighting the lack of scientific data to support the man-made global warming assertions, our media are trying to discredit critics of the report by trying to tie them to oil companies. Such stories never mention the billions of federal dollars being showered on advocates of the man-made global warming theory.
Pandering to the alarmists, Samuel Bodman, the Secretary of Energy in the Bush Administration, accepted the IPCC report and urged “global solutions” to the alleged problem.
One such “global solution” is a global carbon tax, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, administered and even collected by the U.N. One U.N.-sponsored report suggests a global tax amounting to 35 cents a gallon.
An international conference to promote global taxes, dubbed “solidarity levies,” is being held in Oslo, Norway, from February 6-7. An international tax on airline travel is already being implemented. One of the biggest state delegations to the conference comes from South Korea, whose foreign minister, Ban Ki-moon, took over in January as U.N. Secretary-General.
A supporter of “solidarity levies” to fund global causes before he became U.N. chief, Ban thinks the IPCC report requires an immediate response from the international community. A special climate change summit, where President Bush could be pressured to endorse a global carbon tax, may be held later this year.