Many people believe the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established to determine the cause of global warming.
However, the panel was not formed to determine why global warming was occurring, but rather to determine how mankind was affecting global warming.
The International Panel on Climate Change was established by the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, which stated:
“Concerned that certain human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially severe economic and social consequences,
“Noting with concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.”
There was no pretense about seeking to determine what was causing global warming. It was assumed global warming was being caused by human activities.
The UN jumped to a conclusion.
It’s true that temperatures were rising and that there was an hypothesis postulated by Arrhenius in the late 1800s that CO2 could cause warming, but no attempt was made to examine other possibilities.
As a result, governments also jumped to the conclusion that CO2 was causing global warming, especially the EU which has developed an entire complex political structure, including cap and trade, to reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.
This same presumption, that human activities were the cause of global warming, permeated the 1992 Rio conference, known as the Earth Summit.
The conference passed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and President Bush signed the UNFCCC treaty on June 12, 1992. It was then ratified by the Senate on October 15, 1992.
It was passed by the Senate during a very contentious presidential election where Senator Gore was a candidate to be the Vice President of the United States.
The UNFCCC entered into force on March 21, 1994.
Since then, no government body has been established to evaluate any alternative hypotheses for the cause of global warming.
If an individual had headaches, and it was assumed the cause was a brain tumor, wouldn’t that person seek a second opinion before having brain surgery?
The proposed solution for preventing globe warming is, in its effect on the world, akin to the potential negative effects of brain surgery.
Rather than getting a second opinion, the issue has become politicized, with those wanting a second opinion called deniers, and skeptics, and with the issue morphing into climate change.
In their efforts to predict the outcome of climate change from CO2 emissions, the IPCC has failed badly.
The computer programs being used to predict the terrible consequences of climate change have been consistently wrong, yet the IPCC, the UN and even the government of the United States haven’t been willing to admit they may have jumped to a conclusion.
There are alternative hypotheses, some have been highlighted in earlier articles. See, Sun Power Part 1, and Sun Power 2.
It has been left up to a few think tanks to put forth alternative hypotheses. The Science Environmental & Policy Project (SEPP), the Heritage Foundation, the Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute have all published information on alternatives to the CO2 hypothesis.
The Heartland Institute has conducted nine international conferences on climate change with hundreds of scientists and engineers attending them.
The Heartland Institute will hold the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change this coming June, in Washington DC, precisely twenty-three years after the Earth Summit in Rio.
Watts up With That, http://wattsupwiththat.com contains numerous documents on the science of climate change.
The IPCC, the UNFCCC and many governments have jumped to a conclusion on global warming, aka climate change.
Shouldn’t we all look at the alternatives before implementing actions that will have very damaging consequences on society everywhere?
The tenets of science require that every hypothesis and theory be constantly subjected to scrutiny, where only a single piece of new evidence can overturn any hypothesis or theory.
This is not only the scientific process, it’s the right thing to do.
* * * * * *
It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.
Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.
If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.
© Power For USA, 2010 – 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.