Skip navigation.
Home
get paid to blog!

Sponsor

More Fraud or Overstatement Regarding Global Plight

John Lake's picture

It seems like only yesterday I wrote that...

the American liberals were the last hope of a desperate planet. Now we see new evidence that their plans, to span several decades, or generations, and to be costly indeed, may well be the most insidious scam yet perpetrated on the American Public, and the people of the world,
I knew there was some cause for alarm when I noticed that the plight of the stranded polar bears was aimed primarily at the children of the world. The glaciers are melting they claimed. The low places on the planet would soon be uninhabitable – under water. The Polar Bear population would drown in a frozen ocean, devoid of areas of safety for them and their offspring.
The current revelation that the basis for alarm was deliberately overstated overshadows all previous inconsistencies and in our modern world where scientific principles are assumed automatic, this is unforgivable. The reference is to the melting of the Himalayan glaciers and the catastrophic catastrophes that would result.
This is a direct quote from a New York Times article dated January 20, 2010:
GENEVA (AP) -- "A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday -- an admission that could energize climate change critics.
"In a 2007 report, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the Himalayan glaciers are very likely to disappear within three decades if the present melting rate continues. But a statement from the panel now says there is not enough scientific evidence to back up those claim.
"The warning in the report 'refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers,'the IPCC said.'In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.'
This information from the New York Times is compounded by the following paragraphs which I recently brought to the attention of BP readers.
"..Gore, American Vice President under Bill Clinton, and Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2007 for his Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, produced a movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to illustrate what he felt was the catastrophic threat of climate change to life on Earth. After the movie won an Academy Award for "Best Documentary", Gore then sought to have the movie shown in Public Schools. The use of the movie in schools was ruled upon by High Court (London) Judge Justice Burton. This High Court London Judge called An Inconvenient Truth”alarmist" and "exaggerated". He said the film was “one-sided" and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a warning. Ruling that the film could be shown in schools as part of the climate change resource pack, Mr. (Judge) Justice Burton warned it must be accompanied by new guidance notes to balance Mr. Gore's partisan views. Without the warning, he said, the film would breach education rules. At that time the London Judge pointed out nine specific errors in the Oscar Winning motion picture. To elaborate:
1. Gore said the sea level could be expected to rise — owing to melting ice sheets — by 20 feet in the "near future". The Judge said this change would only take place only over millennia.
2. Gore said low lying atolls would need be, and already have been in some cases, evacuated. Burton said no such evacuations have taken place.
3. Gore: The Gulf Stream that warms the Atlantic will shut down. Burton: Unlikely that the Stream will shut down, although it may slow in coming years.
4. Graphs that Gore produced were shown irrelevant.
5. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro was the result of "Human-induced climate change." Burton: That claim can not be proved nor corroborated.
6. Al Gore: "The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of the catastrophic result of Global Warming". Burton: “No evidence to prove the contention"
7. Gore stated that Global Warming produced Hurricane Katrina. The Judge found no evidence.
8. Polar bears were drowning, swimming distances of up to 60 miles in search of ice. Judge Justice Burton indicates that a total of 4 bears had drowned, that in a storm.
9. Coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. Burton "It is not possible to separate global warming from other causes, particularly, over-fishing."

My deepest sympathies to Albert Noble, who as they say, may well be turning over in his (no disrespect intended) grave.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
china man's picture

Global plight

I see all the causes and concerns as just a money making gambit for somebody, charities are a case in point, most of them actually use tiny amounts of the money donated, the rest is for 'expenses'. Climate change has spawned a major industry, of which Gore would appear to be part of from your interesting article, even Feminism has created income through work place changes, re-writing the word him as a sexless person in trillions of documents and other rubbish creating efforts.

As I point out somewhere else that I can't remember now, unless there is money in it for someone then nothing is going to happen.

Keep up the good work John : )

huttriver10's picture

Yes John...

Gore and others overstated things for their reasons. Climate change yes, global warming no!

John Lake's picture

Fraud or Overstatement?

Your comments are always appreciated.

ms zola's picture

I don't know...John

global warming has been reported since the beginning of the industrial revolution. There are islands of floating plastic in our oceans and we can eat fish but only if we don't mind a little mercury with that. I believe there is a warming trend going on. Global warming doesn't necessarily mean hotter weather. There are many factors to consider when trying to predict the weather patterns. No doubt people will make money off of it, but we really need to wake up and take better care of the planet.....afterall.....it is our home.

John Lake's picture

ms zola and global warming.

ms zola:
As I have itemized in this current article, the argument for "global warming" is recently being called overstatement by some, fraud by others. There is of course a need for clean energy, improvements in the use of coal, and so on.
The environment has a fabulous capacity for self-regulation. Standing glaciers don't do much; but the frigid water from a melting glacier feeds the ocean, as it is spread by various currents. The resultant colder water (which also cools the air as it moves southward) serves to reverse the tendency of the climate to warm up.

I thought I caught a "sheepish grin" on the Presidents demeanor in the "State of the Union" Address, as he made a single reference to global warming. It warmed my heart.

huttriver10's picture

Collect the plastic from the oceans...

recycle it, and send it to China!

china man's picture

send it to China!

As it is a resource China would probably recycle it and sell it back to you as 'save the planet' badges!! LOL

Seriously though - I was people watching the back street from my balcony and got to thinking about the, mostly old, people who collect all the recycleable stuff from the bins and the ground. My neighbour's reaction is "isn't it disgusting how they treat their old folk" which as usual may be half true. I was more interested in the amazing recycling system it represents. Everything re-useable is collected and recycled from the plastic bottles to the wire from the finest cable - before that, if it is re-useable, then it gets fixed and put back into the system. Nothing is left except the ultra thin plastic bags that street food comes in. This works by making the stuff valuable - a litre plastic bottle is one Mao, so ten make one Yuan, one Yuan is half a packet of cheap fags, one third of a good breakfast at a roadside stall - or a half a very good breakfast if you buy the today fresh raw stuff and cook it yourself.

One of the roads into where I live is where it is all taken and the mountains of stuff that turn up there in little old ladies bags, heaped up on tricycles etc, is weighed and the price paid over and then it is sorted and dissapears every day on trucks.

Amusing aside - I visited a students family in their farming village, where they have no water or facilities in the house and a only one light bulb to save power. The first day they fed me and my student told me it would be a huge gaffe to offer them money. The second day I insisted that I take them 'out' for dinner, just roadside sit down food; as I am of course an English gentleman I found myself carrying the mothers bag - full of plastic bottles that she had picked up on the way, including those from our own table. Dinner for four of us, 24 Yuan, bottles I carried back, around 2 Yuan. It is not hard to see why mother thought it was a terrible waste of money to go and eat outside.

The serious point is that if you want recycling you have to do it, the stuff must be worth enough - and, like China, the people who collect it up not 'looked down on'. It is not unusual to see people carry their empty bottles to give to the next collector they meet.

china man's picture

John and global warming

BUT part of the problem is the conflicting information, you say there is "of course a need for clean energy . ." BUT why 'of course'? You can't argue against something and then accept that the opposite is true by throwing out an 'of course', if it is not true then 'of course' it is not.

The argument around global warming has been between a few scientists and the vested interests of business who, maybe, are causing the problem in our name. Any mis-information is counter to a solution - if one is needed; this is the real tragedy of the Gore misrepresentation, it feeds the counter argument.

I for one believe the scientists and glacier measurers that there is global warming, but I certainly KNOW there is massive global pollution and habitat destruction on a vast scale. I don't really need to listen to the argument I have seen it with my own eyes, and so has everyone else if they are looking. I have confidence that if a Bush style government and vested business interests are arguing that there is no global warming - then they are lying. If an everyday scientist tells me it is - then I am inclined to believe that.

Global warming is supposed to be caused by pollution, pollution is a major part of habitat loss and species extinction - so why are we even listening to arguments for doing nothing, Gore or not.

I like your stuff and generally agree with your points of view but I have to disagree with you on this one. Smile

I think this may be the long version of Ms Zola's reply.

John Lake's picture

The Expense of Correction

I have suspected from the onset that "Global Warming" as a threat to low lying areas, as a threat to various species, was an exaggeration, or a fraud. I still harbor these suspicions.
However I do agree with the President that general pollution should be eliminated so far as possible, and if there is some minor climate change, well maybe that should be addressed. But this is not an urgent issue with earth shaking consequences.
If all the intimations of Island Nations and coastal areas being eliminated are true, the expense of the correction will be overwhelming. If indeed these threats are exaggerated, these corrections are not warranted

huttriver10's picture

AS I said John previously...

Climate change yes, global warming no! Pollution? Hell yes!

John Lake's picture

No to Pollution

Polution...NO! I couldn't agree more.
Hi Hutt, and how are things in New Zealand?
(rhetorical question)
Have a great day!
John Lake

huttriver10's picture

Things are just liveable here...

with a conservative government, John.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.