I am revising the former first two paragraphs based on information that there were some factual errors. I believe the following should clarify the issues.
A scientist named Arrhenius first proposed that CO2 from human activities might cause global warming in 1895 or there abouts. There was also a media hype about Geologists calling for a coming Ice Age reported in the NY Times in that same year. It didn’t happen.
Margaret Thatcher in the 1970’s took up the idea of CO2 induced global warming. Her motives have been the subject of much speculation by some but those directly involved have indicated that it may have been used to promote the development of nuclear power plants to provide UK electrical power although several coal mines ended up being closed. That was a direct result of opposition in Thatcher’s party to the National Union of Mineworkers and that lead to the systematic destruction of the coal industry in the UK. Other allegations have asserted that the cap and trade system, that was part of the AGW scare, was intended to level the economic global playing field. (The USA) The intent, although now taken on by the UN and others, is the same but it is likely to reduce the standard of living of most of the developed world. The following reference, written by a contemporary from this time, may explain better than any interpretation I may write.
A fellow named Revelle hired a fellow named Keeling, both of whom were scientists, to investigate the effects of CO2 on climate. Two previous scientists, Arrhenius and Callander had made some speculations about this and Keeling adopted them, with no question, as fact. He reported this to Revelle who just happened to have the ear of a budding politician, Albert Gore. Revelle was Gore’s hero and Gore’s ticket to power, wealth and fame.
Then along comes Maurice Strong. Strong was a big oil guy. He was later involved in the UN developing a Global Governance plan among other things. He was very ambitious and ended up advising Kofi Annan, UN Sectrtary General. Strong looks to one day be the UN’s leader. For a complete rundown on Strong check out this site: http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.htmlAs one might guess, Strong ended up in league with none other than Albert Gore. Gore and Strong run the only two carbon trading companies certified in the USA. Guess who is taking in the cash on the global warming bandwagon? Is it any wonder that Al and Maurice are so hot on warming?There are a number of other paths here like the Molten Metal Company. Al Gore gave a presentation to celebrate their achievements in recycling metals. What they did was take a lot of money in government grants and accomplished nothing. See this site for a detailed explanation of the Gorey/Strong details: http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html
If this is getting a bit fishy, there’s more. Did you know that the IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change, is not charged with determining whether or not man is responsible for Global Warming? They aren’t! What they are charged with is determining the effect man is having on Global Warming. Not whether or not there is any relationship. How curious! But aren’t all the scientists in the world in a consensus agreement on the effect man is having. No, not hardly! Those 2500 scientists actually dwindles down to a handful of, literally, scientists that wrote the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers WG1 4th Assessment. A group of reviewers and other scientists recently took the science documentation behind the 4th Assessment Report by the IPCC and came out with a different interpretation. For example, The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers WG1 says they are 90% certain that most of the warming is the result of man. The Independent Summary for Policy Makers says there is no conclusive evidence that man is responsible for the recent warming. And the two groups got that conclusion from the same data. But fear not. Before the UN publishes the data for the public to read, anything in the science will be cleansed from the report that conflicts with the SPM that was written mostly by government officials. The ISPM is available here. It is enlightening:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/Independent%20Summary5.pdf There is lots more to this but suffice it to say that if you think everything you see on the television is clean and the whole truth, think again. I will get to some of the science in my next post.