By Alan Caruba
The 17th United Nations conference on climate change, i.e. global warming, has concluded in Durban, South Africa, coincidently the site of UN human rights conferences that were entirely devoted to attacking the right of Israel to exist. I am sure Durban is lovely place to visit, but the city fathers should consider withdrawing the welcome mat before it becomes inexorably identified with hoaxes and hatred.
Reams have been written about the Durban conference, among which is a report by Lord Christopher Monckton that identifies its various objectives, chief of which is to ensure that billions flow into the United Nations. Suffice to say it was a by-product of World War II in the same fashion that the League of Nations was a by-product of World War I. The latter failed and the former has metastasized into a monster sucking up billions from member nations without materially contributing to world peace or much else.
The Reformation came about in Europe when Luther and others had the temerity to point out that the Roman Catholic Church had become a sinkhole of corruption and immorality. The outcome for the church was a return to its original purpose of propagating Christianity and piety. The transition, however, took a couple of hundred years. One can only hope that it does not take that long to rid the world of the United Nations, a giant bureaucracy whose hypocrisy and lust of global power over sovereign nations knows no limits.
As I am want to say - repeatedly - there is NO global warming and carbon dioxide (CO2) poses NO threat to the planet’s climate, nor plays any significant role - if any - in its natural variability. Reducing CO2 is one of the all-time idiotic ideas and it is the key to the Kyoto Protocols promulgated in 1997. In all the UN climate conferences since then, the effort has been to enrich and empower the UN bureaucracy that keeps loudly saying we’re all doomed.
Lord Christopher Monckton points out that the planet has not been warming (it goes through cycles of warming and cooling) “for two decades”, adding that there has bee “no recent “sea-level rise, no new record Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in thirty years, (and) no Pacific atolls disappearing beneath the waves.”
The many UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports have been masterpieces of obfuscation and outright lies. As Peter C. Glover, a longtime observer of the IPCC and commentator on climate change claims, recently noted, ‘“Most damaging of all, the week before the summit, it was revealed that an upcoming UN IPCC report due in February would state ‘climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability’” He defined climate variability as “We have’’t a clue what the climate will do.” And rightfully so!
Recently, my friend Dr. William Gray, an esteemed meteorologist, and his colleague, Phil Klotzbach, went public saying that their efforts over the years to predict the number of hurricanes in the year ahead since 1992 was a complete bust. That kind of academic honesty is very commendable. And, in the case of the yelping pack of so-called global warming “scientists”, very rare.
In October, the Science and Public Policy Institute published Dr. Gray’s report, “Gross Errors in the IPCC-AR4 Report Regarding Past & Future Changes in Global Tropical Cyclone Activity.” Suffice to say, it ripped the IPCC claims to shreds and is testimony to why the IPCC is an utterly corrupt generator of the global warming hoax.
At the conclusion of the recent IPCC Durban conference, Canada made it known it would no longer be a party to the Kyoto Protocols, while Russia and Japan made it known they will ignore any extension. China essentially said it intends to ignore them. The U.S. never was a party to the Protocols, the U.S. Senate having unanimously rejected them despite Al Gore’s protests. He was Vice President at the time.
The United Nations is the definition of corruption, of evil.
There are many reasons for the U.S. to stop its funding of the United Nations, but the enormous waste and harm done by its environmental program may well top the list.
_thumb.jpg)
Merry Christmas from Alan Caruba.
By Christopher Pala
ALMATY, Kazakhstan, Dec 15, 2011 (IPS) - Global warming will melt far less of the glaciers of Central Asia than of those in other mountain ranges, shielding the people who depend on them for water from the effects of climate change for several decades at least, scientists say.
The mountains in and around the Himalayas are so high, unlike in the Andes, the Alps or the Rockies, that even in summer, temperatures remain below freezing point and most of the glaciers don’t melt away at all, Richard Armstrong, a geographer at Colorado University’s National Snow and Ice Centre, tells IPS.
“It doesn’t make much difference if it gets a little warmer up there because it’s still far below zero.”
Glaciers are rivers of ice fed by snowfall at the top. As they flow downhill to warmer temperatures, they eventually melt, providing water in summer, when rainfall is usually lowest.
Since the end of the two-centuries-long Little Ice Age in 1850, the terminus point of most glaciers has been slowly retreating uphill. That retreat accelerated since gases like carbon dioxide emitted by coal burning and cars have been accumulating in the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect that has raised global temperatures on average by half a degree Celsius in the past 30 years.
How much water a glacier produces each year is mostly determined by how much snow falls on their upper part, not at what point they end. So far there is no evidence that less snow is falling on their higher parts or that they produce more or less melt water, according to Armstrong and other scientists.
In the first comprehensive study of a part of what is called High Asia, the scientists found that 96 percent of the water that flows down the mountains of Nepal into nine local river basins comes from snow and rain, and only 4 percent from summer glacier melt. Of that 4 percent, says Armstrong, the lead author, only a minuscule proportion comes from the melting away of the end points of the glaciers due to global warming.
Armstrong said there is a lot of misinformation in the public arena regarding glaciers, including reports that glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than anywhere else in the world and that if this rapid melting continues, rivers are on track to first flood and then dry up. “Those reports simply are not true,” says Armstrong. (IPS)
By Steve Milloy
December 12, 2011, JunkScience.com
The Washington Post Fact Checker gave Rick Perry four Pinocchios for his August 17 denunciation of alarmist science. Here’s what we think.
Below is the WashPost Fact Checker’s article - our comments are in bold brackets.
Few scientists would back up Rick Perry’s global warming claims
By Glenn Kessler, Published: December 11
“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.” - Rick Perry, Aug. 17
Perry has firm conservative opinions, but he tends to espouse “facts” that have bounced around in the conservative echo chamber without being vetted for accuracy. Take the question of global warming.
The notion that humans have contributed to climate change has generated increasing skepticism among the American public, especially as proposals to deal with the problem, such as reducing carbon emissions, have come with high costs. But Perry is wrong to say that such skepticism has gained strength among scientists.
To the contrary, various surveys of climate researchers suggest growing acceptance, with as many as 98 percent believing in the concept of man-made climate change. [This “98 percent” claim is not the product of a survey of scientists’ views. It was the result of a dubious analysis that we labeled the Nonsensus”>dubious analysis that we labeled the Nonsensus.] After all, it was first established in 1896 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could help create a “greenhouse effect.” [Wrong. John Tyndall proved the greenhouse effect in 1959.]
Similar studies have been done by the United States Global Change Research Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others. Although there are a few skeptics in the field, even they generally do not question that human activity is warming the climate. [No one argues that greenhouse gas emissions don’t contribute to some sort of warming - but the question is to what degree and effect.]
In response to queries, Perry spokesman Mark Miner sent a link to something called the Petition Project, which says it has collected the signatures of 31,487 “American scientists” who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence” that human release of greenhouse gases will “cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
But only 9,000 of the signers have a PhD. [How many PhDs would make the list acceptable to Fact Checker?]And few have expertise in climate research. [Not doing climate research doesn’t necessarily disqualify anyone from holding valid views. Most “climate researchers” aren’t atmospheric physicists. And Michael Mann may be a “climate researcher” but he doesn’t seem to have much credibility even with his own side. Check out this and this from the Climategate 2.0 e-mails] Judging from news reports, the number of signers has barely budged from 2008, further undercutting Perry’s claim of a groundswell of opposition. [There are more signatories but the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine hasn’t had the time or resources to update the Petition Project.]
Perry’s spokesmen did not provide any evidence to back up his claim that “a substantial number of scientists… have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” But Perry appears to be referring to hundreds of e-mails that were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain and then disseminated on the Internet in 2009. One e-mail referred to adding a “trick” to the data, leading climate-change skeptics to say that the information was manipulated. [Fact Checker apparently has yet to familiarize itself with the Climategate 2.0 e-mails. Click here for a start Fact Checker.]
Although Perry said the scientists were manipulating data, five investigations have exonerated the half a dozen or so scientists involved. [These were all whitewashes that did not delve into the substance of the e-mails. See e.g., our coverage of the Penn State investigation.]
So, in contrast to Perry’s statement, there have not been a “substantial number” of scientists who manipulated data. Instead, a handful of them were falsely accused. [There were no accusations proven false. The hockey stick was the result of manipulated data. A substantial number of scientists participated in covering it up -including the National Research Council.]
The Fact Checker awards four Pinocchios for this statement. [Back at ya.]
Sunday, December 11, 2011 - By Marc Morano - Climate Depot Exclusive
’The UN is saying to poor countries: ‘Those of you who adopt more anti-prosperity, anti- jobs, and anti-growth policies—under the pretense of environmentalism—we will enrich you’’
DURBAN, South Africa - South African development activist Leon Louw declared the UN’s “Green Climate Fund” nothing more than an attempt by wealthy nations to keep the poor nations from developing.
In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot at the Durban UN climate summit, Louw declared foreign aid or “government to government aid” is simply a way for rich countries to reward poor countries who are “best at causing poverty.” Louw is the Executive Director of South Africa’s Free Market Institute which is considered the “3rd ranked most influential think-tank in Africa.”
“What the government of rich countries are saying to poor countries is: ‘Those of you who are best at causing poverty, we will enrich you, we will give you money,’” Louw told Climate Depot while attending the UN climate summit.
“Government to government aid is a reward for being better than anyone else at causing poverty. Countries that get more government to government aide have lower economic growth rates. Countries with less aid, have higher growth rates. If you subsidize failure you get failure and foreign aid does exactly that. It rewards people for being unsuccessful,” Louw stated.
The Associated Press described the UN climate fund as a method to “distribute tens of billions of dollars a year to poor countries to help them adapt to changing climate conditions and to move toward low-carbon economic growth.”
But Louw, says the UN climate fund will wreak havoc on the developing world’s poor. Louw explained: “The money goes to government and governments spend it on of course on themselves, meaning various government projects, creating bigger departments—bigger bureaucracies, it’s called big bureaucratic capture. They build empires, they build conference centers, and they buy political support. They go and distribute the money to communities where they want support and votes.”
Louw was at the Durban summit to oppose the UN climate fund to poor nations. According to Louw, the entire UN foreign aid process is aimed at keeping the developing world’s poor - poor.
“The money goes to the people who then are better at causing poverty. They can hire more bureaucrats, pass more laws have more regulations. If you are good at causing poverty, we will give you more money to do what you do more of, which is to cause poverty. So they enrich the people who cause poverty, they compliment them on how good they are at causing poverty,” Louw said.
Louw said the entire premise for the UN’s climate fund is an admission that their goal is to keep poor nations poor.
The UN is admitting—this is implicit in the fund—that combating climate change is very costly, especially for poor people, its devastating for poor countries. What the UN is saying is: ‘We want you to indulge our opinion of climate change and if you do so it’s going to cause a great deal of poverty and unemployment in poor counties.’ You cannot, as a poor country, subscribe to the Kyoto Protocol and grow. The two are mutually exclusive,” Louw explained
Louw continued: “So What the rich counties say is ‘don’t worry, we will reward you for again causing poverty, if you adopt our climate policies that will cause poverty.’ That is why there is a UN fund, in other words, they admit it. So having environmental policies causes poverty and they say ‘we will enrich you for doing so, we will reward you for causing poverty.’”
The UN is saying to poor countries: ‘Those of you who adopt more anti-prosperity, anti- jobs, and anti-growth policies, under the pretense of environmentalism, we will enrich you. It doesn’t matter—as long as you cause poverty—we will enrich you.’”
Louw asserts that the developing world does not need the wealthy Western world to achieve riches.
“Poor countries can become rich very quickly, like China, India, and in Africa, Ghana. Ghana, which has moved more than any other country in the world from being un-free to a free economy, is having 12 percent growth. It’s now one of the highest growth counties in the world.
Africa itself, Sub-Saharan, what used to be called black Africa, is now the highest sustained growth region of the world. The highest growth country in the world over the last 30 years is Batswana. So they don’t need the rich countries to help them. All they need is for the rich counties to leave them alone.”
Louw says that if left alone, the developing world can gain wealth and freedom.
“They can actually overtake the rich countries like Hong Kong did. They become richer than the rich countries. China and India are headed that way. So now what the rich counties do is a kind of eco-imperialism. The rich nations say to the poor nations: ‘Now you have to stop growth, you have got to stay poor. If you—the government—manage to keep your country poor, undeveloped and backward, we will then compensate you.’ It is not a compensation for what the rich countries have done, it’s a compensation for the ability of the governments of the poor countries to stop them from becoming rich,” Louw concluded.
By Dr. Gordon Fulks
Having just witnessed the Climate Inquisition at work here in Oregon with their cancellation of our planned presentations to the Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society by the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) working with establishment Professors like Phil Mote of OSU, it is worth noting how they deal with skeptics at the New York Times.
Joe Bast points to an article written by the NYT’s primary climate alarmist Andrew Revkin where he interviews an author and ‘climate expert’ Naomi Klein about approaches to dealing with the ‘climate catastrophe.’ The Heartland Institute is featured as the example of those “well-funded” entities that are standing in the way of Revkin, Klein, and their political pals having an easy time of redesigning our society.
The Revkin article might be considered a reasonable discussion of the present position of the Climate Inquisition, if it were accompanied by another from the Heartland Institute where they have been given an opportunity to present their side of things. And then for good balance, the NYT should have allowed real scientists to have their say also. But that is far from the reality of today’s world where journalists like Revkin interview other journalists like Klein to ascertain scientific reality. The assumption that these people have scientific backgrounds and know what they are talking about goes unquestioned. They of course do not. And Revkin is supposed to be a journalist who presents all sides of an issue, not just those favored by the newspaper.
The larger issue is whether we have become a society where ideas can be openly presented and discussed without the heavy hand of censorship. Bast correctly points out that the only time his organization gets any ink to present their position and that of the many well-known scientists who have attended their climate conferences is when the Climate Inquisition is interested in attacking them. That is a very sad commentary.
In Oregon, the job of making sure that climate heretics are silenced has fallen to the high priests of Global Warming at our universities: Professors Phil Mote at OSU and Christina Hulbe at PSU need only contact an institution where a presentation is about to be heard and declare it to lack “the best peer-reviewed science,” and the institution like OMSI will immediately cancel the event. Then the OMSI Public Relations department goes into high gear to cover their tracks declaring that their goal is “balance” and “it appears as though the content offered by the three featured speakers at the AMS meeting will not meet OMSI’s standard for science education programs.” Of course, they never saw the material we were about to present, routinely allow alarmist material to be presented, and have not followed up their call for both sides of this issue to be heard.
OMSI like Andrew Revkin at the NYT is in the propaganda business, willingly cooperating with the Climate Inquisition to suppress opposing viewpoints.
Will a nation that allows “scientific organizations” to suppress free and open scientific discussions that are vital to science long endure?
Will a nation that allows a “free press” to suppress free and open discussions that are vital to our freedom long endure?
Clearly, we have already lost some of our freedom, including the right to practice objective science that conflicts with a political agenda.
On the brighter side, the heavy-handed approaches favored by alarmists are easily recognized by a general population that lacks the scientific background to sort out climate facts from climate fictions. The release of both batches of Climategate e-mails helped to reveal to the world what really goes on behind the scenes.
Alarmists would be much more dangerous if they could control their authoritarian tendencies.
GWPF
A new report, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, reveals that the BBC has failed in its professional duty to report accurately and objectively on the issue of climate change, one of the biggest scientific and political stories of our time.
Written by Christopher Booker, one of the UK’s most seasoned journalists, the report critically reviews the BBC’s coverage of climate change issues against its statutory obligation to report ‘with due accuracy and impartiality’.
His report, The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal, shows that the BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects:
First, it has betrayed its statutory obligation to be impartial, using the excuse that any dissent from the official orthodoxy was so insignificant that it should just be ignored or made to look ridiculous.
Second, it has betrayed the principles of responsible journalism, by allowing its coverage to become so one-sided that it has too often amounted to no more than propaganda.
Third, it has betrayed the fundamental principles of science, which relies on unrelenting scepticism towards any theory until it can be shown to provide a comprehensive explanation for the observed evidence.
“Above all, the BBC has been guilty of abusing the trust of its audience, and of all those compelled to pay for it. On one of the most important and far-reaching issues of our time, its coverage has been so tendentious that it has given its viewers a picture not just misleading but at times even fraudulent,” Christopher Booker said.
In the foreword to the GWPF report, Sir Antony Jay writes:
“The costs to Britain of trying to combat global warming are horrifying, and the BBC’s role in promoting the alarmist cause is, quite simply, shameful.”
The full report is available here
About the author
Christopher Booker is an author and journalist. He has regularly reported on scientific and political issues related to global warming in recent years in his weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph. His book The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with ‘climate change’ turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history? has been one of the three best-selling books about global warming in the last decade.
Sir Antony Jay
Antony Jay has enjoyed a distinguished career as writer, broadcaster and producer. He was a founder and editor of the BBC’s legendary Tonight programme and is famous for his political comedies Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.
Survey shows 17% fall in number of people who would pay ‘much higher prices’ for ‘sake of the environment’
Randeep Ramesh
The Guardian, Wednesday 7 December 2011
There has been dramatic decline over the past decade in the public’s support for tackling climate change in Britain. Backing for higher green taxes and charges has waned and scepticism about the seriousness of the threat to the environment has increased.
The British Social Attitudes survey shows that in 2000 43% of the population would pay “much higher prices” for “the sake of the environment”. Last summer support fell to just 26%, with the poorest sections of society most reluctant to save the planet with their cash.
Over the same period the public has become much more sceptical about the science behind climate change. In 2010 37% said many claims about environmental threats were “exaggerated”, up from 24% in 2000.
Alison Park, research director of the survey, said that the two factors that loomed large in the public’s mind appeared to be the financial crisis which made people much less likely to be able to sacrifice cash or taxes. She also said that “climategate” claims about the veracity of scientific claims in 2009 had also damaged the case of proponents of global warming theories.
On some questions the public is much less bothered because it thinks the issue has been dealt with. Only 28% regard air pollution from cars as “very” or “extremely” dangerous to the environment, down from 54% in 2000.
Chris Huhne has called for Britain to lead the world in cutting carbon emissions, setting himself on a collision course with George Osborne, the Chancellor. The Lib Dem minister, who is responsible for climate change, will arrive at UN talks in Durban, South Africa, today to lead the charge for an international deal to stop global temperatures rising above 35.6F (2C). If the talks fail, it will be embarrassing for Mr Huhne, who has led the way on Britain’s efforts as part of the European Union to get a climate deal by 2015 at the latest.—Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 5 December 2011
Tom Brokaw delivered a strong message in Silicon Valley for climate skeptics. In response to a Fresh Dialogues question about climate change, Brokaw said, “It’s real, we see it in our weather systems,” and made a somber call to action, saying everyone needs to take a part. Brokaw, who has hosted two documentaries about global warming for the Discovery Channel, says he’s planning an expedition to Antarctica with a team of climate scientists to record the glacial melting next January.
Climate Change is real in the HUFFPO (why are we not surprised)
Brokaw cited carbon based fuels and energy consumption as major issues, and stopped short of making specific policy recommendations, but said that the Obama administration missed a valuable opportunity to do something substantial about energy and jobs. “People could have got allied with that,” he added.
He acknowledged his part in contributing to the problem (long commutes in polluting LA traffic to visit his beloved mother), but is now doing what he can to be greener. He recently installed solar power in his Montana Ranch, and enthused about recouping his capital investment in only three years. In this intimate video, he waxes lyrical about the piping hot water and heating system—even during long Montana winters.
Brokaw ended on an upbeat note, saying that he thinks the younger generation will change things for the better.
--------------
Back in 2006 when it all seemed so settled, Brokaw appeared in a special that wasn’t.
BROKAW’S OBJECTIVITY COMPROMISED IN GLOBAL WARMING SPECIAL July 11, 2006
Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw’s lack of objectivity and balance on the issue of global warming appears to have tainted his upcoming Discovery Channel documentary called: “Global Warming: What You Need To Know” airing on July 16.
Brokaw’s partisan past and his reliance on scientists who openly endorsed Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 and who are financially affiliated with left wing environmental groups, has resulted in a documentary that is devoid of balance and objectivity.
Former Colorado state climatologist (as of July 1, 2006) and professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State University,Senior Research Scientist in the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and a Senior Research Associate position in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC). Roger Pielke, Sr, viewed an advance copy of the Brokaw’s special and declared that it contained “errors and misconceptions.”
“The show relied on just a few scientists with a particular personal viewpoint on this subject which misleads the public on the broader view that is actually held by most climate scientists,” Pielke wrote on July 7.
Unfortunately, viewers should not expect a scientifically balanced view of the climate from the former NBC newsman. Brokaw who has been affiliated with the Sierra Club and has recently lavished praise on former Vice President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Brokaw, who called Gore’s film “stylish and compelling”, has called the science behind catastrophic human caused global warming ‘irrefutable.” Brokaw also chose to ignore all 60 scientists who wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in April of 2006 questioning the science of climate alarmism.
Brokaw’s partisan environmental credentials are so firmly established that the former anchor was offered a job in the Clinton-Gore Administration to be the director of the National Park Service in 1993. According to The Washington Post, Brokaw ‘very seriously’ considered the offer at the time but decided to remain with NBC News. “I have a lot of friends in the environmental movement,” Brokaw said. Brokaw’s wife also serves as vice-chairman of the board of directors of the environmental group Conservation International.
In his new Discovery Channel special, Brokaw does not disclose the potential and known biases of the scientists he chose to feature.
For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz..
Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.
Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore’s slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore’s movie is based. Hansen has actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May.
Hansen also conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html ) that the use of “extreme scenarios” to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.
Brokaw’s special also features Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. Brokaw once again fails to disclose Oppenheimer’s partisan and ideological affiliations to viewers.
Brokaw fails to note that Oppenheimer actively campaigned against President George Bush in 2004 and, like Hansen, endorsed Senator Kerry for president. Oppenheimer was affiliated with the partisan group Scientists and Engineers for Change and the green group Environment2004 financially bankrolled in part by the Heinz Foundation where Teresa Heinz-Kerry serves as the chairwoman. Environment2004, which put up billboards in Florida mocking President Bush in the final months of the 2004 presidential election.
Viewers of Brokaw’s program will not be informed that Oppenheimer personally donated to the group Environment2004, a group that was so partisan it encouraged visitors to their Web page to “get involved” in defeating President Bush by playing a game called “Whack-a-Bush.”
In addition, Oppenheimer also serves as a “science advisor” to the left wing and politically charged group Environmental Defense and was a co-founder of Climate Action Network.
Finally, Oppenheimer appeared with Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio and Gore’s movie producer Laurie David on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show.
Brokaw’s Special ‘a disappointment’
Brokaw’s special has led climatologist Pielke to conclude that Brokaw presents “a narrow view of the issue of natural and human climate variability and change.”
“It is a disappointment that this show, hosted by Tom Brokaw, did not use the two hours to present a balanced view on the spectrum of perspectives on the human influences on the climate system,” Pielke wrote.
Pielke has authored more than 275 peer reviewed journal articles on climate. According to Pielke, Brokaw also presents flawed science in his program.
“Rapid glacial retreat is not a new observation, nor are all glaciers retreating. The Grand Pacific glacier in Glacier Bay National Park, for example, retreated 48 miles from 1794 to 1879, and a further 17 miles by 1916. Large masses of glacial ice breaking from the Antarctic continent are not a new feature of this region,” Pielke noted.
The Discovery Channel, the BBC and NBC News Productions jointly produced Brokaw’s global warming special
------------
Note David Appell however, a hardliner for many years has had his confidence shaken by the emails. He is showing HERE some journalistic integrity, you won’t find elsewhere hyere extarcted by Tom Nelson.