Flaws in the Global Warming Debate

article top

There are many scientific problems involved with global warming issues which are routinely downplayed. Some are related to numerous uncertainties being airbrushed away and replaced by statements of unsupportable certitude. These include errors in the early CO2 measurements, phenomenally poor and biased temperature readings, poor and non-uniform data bases, poor temperature data quality, unvalidated temperature data and computer programs. Also many are ignoring the roles of aerosols, particulates, and the physics of cloud formation, and place undue reliance upon Global Climate Models (GCMs), which don’t even agree with each other, etc.

Downplaying these uncertainties has been a major deception activity of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This seems to be an effort to deceive the policy makers. For example, the Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) issued by the (IPCC) are flawed. Hundreds of comments from the authors themselves of the Scientific Assessment Report (SAR) have only recently surfaced (https://tinyurl.com/2a27nu) .These authors have expressed serious concerns for the IPCC claimed certainties in the SPMs.


The legitimization of the “Hockeystick” by the IPCC now shown to be fraudulent is but another example of the scientific corruption within the IPCC, its editors, its reviewers, and it supporters. For example, the computer algorithm used to reproduce the Hockeystick chart, according to McIntyre and McKitrick (https://tinyurl.com/awwva), could produce such a chart from a table of random numbers. This is appalling, and is deception, not science.

Nations of the world were expected to make energy policy using the IPCC chart. The IPCC quietly dropped the chart from the 4th Assessment Report, without apology to the nations of the world.

The unscientific weaknesses at the IPCC have been known for years. In the June 12, 1996 Wall Street Journal, Dr. Fred Seitz stated,