Is this United Nations' official willing to place his personal prestige, money and freedom on the line for his beliefs?

That's exactly what he is asking the rest of the world by promoting and publishing a guide which amounts to a "pick-and-choose" scientific guide to political non-science, or should I say, nonsense.

According to the Associated Press...

"The U.N.'s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, warned policymakers and scientists trying that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be 'criminally irresponsible.'"

That said, is he willing to waive trial and go directly to jail if the "global warming" phenomenon is exposed as a scheme to allow politicians, countries and especially the United Nations to exert unprecedented control over nations, economies and individuals as well as a methodology for raising taxes and engaging in a re-distribution of wealth?

"Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating. It is the fourth and last report issued this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace prize."

This is not science, it is an exercise in political publishing to meet a specified agenda...

"Environmentalists and authors of the report expected tense discussions on what to include and leave out of the document, which is a synthesis of thousands of scientific papers. A summary of about 25 pages will be negotiated line-by-line this week, then adopted by consensus."

Science is not performed by consensus and we have seen any number of scientific theories totally destroyed or discredited by the work of others. Even when faced with overwhelming opposition and a so-called "consensus" of their peers, these brave individuals continued to pursue answers when the others claimed there were none. In science, the matter is never really decided until the next theory, mathematical manipulation or experiment agrees with the current thinking. However, should there be a discrepancy, it is up to the scientist's peers to re-evaluate the experiment and re-consider the new data.

When is a Nobel Prize not THE Nobel Prize?

"Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning panel, said scientists were determined to 'adhere to standards of quality' in the report. It was indirect barb at the government representatives, who have been accused by environmentalists of watering down and excluding vital information from the summaries of earlier reports to fit their domestic agendas."

They really like to throw that "Nobel Prize" label around as if it was something other than a bogus political prize. What it is not is the recognition of a scientist's life achievement and stellar work -- those Nobel Prizes are handed out by specialized committees to scientists who can't simply be nominated for the prize by a sitting politician. The use of the confusing appellation, Nobel Prize, is as misleading as it is fraudulent.

As for the panel's adherence to the "standards of quality" mentioned above. What standards? There are no "standards of quality" to be found in science. There is hypothesis, there is theory, there is conjecture, and there is accepted conditional facts. Just as the quantum world turned the Newtonian world completely upside down, mathematically speaking, just saying it is a fact based on a consensus vote does not make it either true or a fact. 

How do they know the unknowable?

"The document to be issued Saturday sums up the scientific consensus on how rapidly the Earth is warming and the effects already observed; the impact it could have for billions of people; and what steps can be taken to keep the planet's temperature from rising to disastrous levels."

Considering the systemic errors in terrestrial temperature measurement and historic irregularities, considering that all findings are within an extremely narrow measurement band, considering that the satellite observations differ greatly from the terrestrial measurements, the fact that the mathematical models used for predictions are woefully inadequate,  and a host of other single-location, single-theory scientific factors -- how can they claim to know the unknowable? We cannot project our local weather beyond ten days with any degree of certainty (and some even disagree about this), so we are going to look backwards and then project what may, might, could happen in fifty years?

"The IPCC already has established that the climate has begun to change because of the greenhouse gases emitted by humans, said de Boer, director of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change."

Both interesting and erroneous. According to a Gallup Poll a significant number of scientists claimed that the science was not proven and there was a major discrepancy between the powers of nature and the ability of man to affect those natural phenomenon. As for greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) lags, not leads, temperature rise by 800-1000 years. That CO2 is only about a tenth of the greenhouse effect when compared to atmospheric water vapor, and both are dwarfed by the output of the sun's solar flux. In addition, the oceanic and atmospheric CO2 levels form a self-regulating feedback loop that is dependent on vapor pressure. Most of nature is self-regulating and self-repairing and it is man's quest to divine the natural cycles of nature. For only then can we tell where we are positioned in the cycle and eliminate the possibility that the temperature cycle will reverse as it first "regresses to the mean" and then heads into a cooling cycle.

As little as 40 years ago, some of the very same scientists now promoting global warming projected global cooling and the possibility of an ice age which never appeared. Coincidently, the same mathematical models were used and the same political conclusions were posited as the "solution."

Another nonsense conclusion... What you are about to read is based on politics, not  and speculative science...

"Everyone will feel its effects, but global warming will hit the poorest countries hardest and will "threaten the very survival" of some people, he said."

"'Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less that criminally irresponsible' and a direct attack on the world's poorest people, De Boer said."

Where is the study showing that a slight rise in the temperature will actually be beneficial rather than harmful to a great number of the earth's inhabitants? Who has noted that much of the underlying projected data is erroneously based on the assumption that population growth is linear (which it is not) and that everybody will assume the energy consumptive habits of those in the United States (which they won't)? 

The big lie: "factual" it can not be...

"The report will provide the factual underpinning for a crucial meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia."

"That conference will begin exploring a new global strategy to curb greenhouse gas emissions after the 2012 expiration of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, the landmark agreement that assigned binding reduction targets to 36 countries."

36 countries? Hardly a global solution to a global problem. But a global strategy that can be summed up as political command, control and taxation. And what about the nations who sign and cheat?

40 co-authors of a pivotal report?

"According to an early draft obtained by The Associated Press, the report will be the first to include a brief chapter on 'robust findings and key uncertainties,' in which the authors pick out what they believe are the most relevant certainties and doubts about climate change."

"There was no guarantee the chapter would be accepted, however. One of the report's 40 co-authors, Bert Metz, said in an interview last week that he expected the section on uncertainties to be an issue of contention."

I'm a relatively smart guy with a background in science and I don't see either a comprehensive scientific theory that melds the multiplicity of disparate scientific observations and reports. All I know is that the more data they develop and the number of experiments increases, the more the scientific data diverges from the political representations and conclusions.

Acknowledgement that they know not of what they speak...

"Among the uncertainties cited in the early draft: the lack of data from key areas of the world, conflicting studies on the effects of cloud cover and carbon soaked up by oceans, and projections on how planners in developing countries will factor climate change into their decisions."

Politics dictating science...

The statement below is further acknowledgement that we are dealing with political appeasement and not a "chips falling where they may" scientific inquiry.

"The IPCC has already been criticized for the selectivity and language of the policy summaries, which have been softened on several points because of objections by countries including the United States, China and some big oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia."

"Without naming them, the WWF accused governments of "politically inspired trimming" of facts from the summaries, which it said diluted the urgency to make deep cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."

The United Nations is nothing more than a political shell game being run by master con-artists...

"De Boer said getting governments to sign off on the summaries is a critical element of the IPCC's value."

Without the backing of sponsor nations, the United Nations' has no value. They have not eliminated deadly and genocidal conflict, assuaged hunger brought about by madmen siphoning off aid, and the general corruption of their own organization by both leaders and the bureaucracy.

What can YOU do?

Think what you will about the global warming or cooling phenomenon, but continue to educate yourself about the matter; lest you be subject to a "dictatorship" which makes religious zealots look benign.

Look to books and scientific studies (although they are hard to read) and carefully filter what the media presents. The days of objective network science reporters is over. Mr. Wizard and his common-sense approach to science is dead.

Avoid panic! This is a trick of politicians and their special interests to force you to accept their findings and conclusions without critical analysis or applying common-sense to their exhortations. The global weather phenomenon has been occurring for millions of years -- which makes man's reign on earth a speck of sand in the vast oceans of time.

Argue with me. Present your findings and we will discuss them. We should be studying and discussing the issue instead of issuing "pronouncements."

Remember than many scientists who appear to support the politicians, do so only because their livelihood and continued project funding depends on currying favor with those who have a hidden agenda of taxation, wealth re-distribution and control over the fruits of our labor.

Demand that Al Gore defend his position as stated in his "Inconvenient Truth." Demand that Al Gore release details of his "global warming" holdings. Demand that Al Gore fly commercial as the ultimate non-judicial penalty for a charlatan.

Considering the left-leaning stance of today's liberal educational institutions with their "convenient" science makes me recall that great ecologist, Teddy Roosevelt: "To educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for personal power, prestige or profits.

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

UN official warns of ignoring warming - Yahoo! News