The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has come under increasing fire from the scientific community in recent years. The support for AGW has been based upon computer models rather than real world data. Real world data shows the following:

1. Global temperatures peaked in 1997 and have fallen since with no evidence of potential increase.
2. Sea level data shows that it is increasing at a rate of 6” per century rather than flooding of NYC as projected by Al Gore and his fellow alarmists.
3. The Himalayan glaciers show no evidence of shrinking.
4. Total global sea ice remains unchanged.
5. The Polar Bear population continues to increase.

I can and will provide links to each of these statements if requested to do so. I do provide at the end of this post to a link that supports what I have posted here.

The carbon exchange idea has made Al Gore hundreds of millions of dollars while adding billions to the cost of utilities of ordinary individuals throughout the western world. It is always wise to follow the money when trying to understand policy.

I ask that you review the contents of the letter to the Secretary of the United Nations and its supporting scientists before again saying that there is a ‘Scientific Consensus’.

The letter starts with:

Dear Secretary-General,
“Climate change science is in a period of ̳negative discovery‘ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:”

I urge anyone who is interested in the claims of climate change to read the report referenced. The letter and its signatories start of p46. Go to p46 to see the full letter and a list of the scientists who signed it.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...ts_dissent.pdf

I thought I'd check out the link.

The Science and Public Policy Institute.

They're 7 guys with various credentials. One was reported to be a co-starter of The Weather Channel.

Their Mission Statement says they're trying to push credible scientific research - yet all I see are statements supporting climate change naysayers. More importantly, I do NOT see statements on why the rest of the research, that has resulted in the vast majority of scientists agreeing in principle on climate change, is wrong.

This is the part that really gets me...

They list a 202 area code phone number (for Washington DC).

Their "contact" is a guy with an address at the UPS store in a strip mall in Haymarket, VA.

Here it is, from their website: Robert Fergueson, 5501 Merchants View Square # 209, Haymarket VA. I Googled it and that's what I found.

Fergueson is supposed to have been the Chief of Staff for three different Republican Congressmen from 1981-2002 (mostly Jack Fields, R-TX from 1981-1997). He supposed to have a lot of *policy* experience in many environmentally related fields. I noted it said *policy* experience. He's said to have served int he Army from'66 to '70 and has an undergraduate degree from BYU and an advance degree from GWU. I'd tried to get more information, but there are a LOT of Robert Ferguesons who are at least semi-famous so there are a LOT of Google results.

A little more digging found this interesting exchange:

Climate Change as Breaking and Local StoryIn Fahys’s Salt Lake Tribune News Reporting | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

In brief, someone from the Salt Lake Tribune, Judy Fayhs, wrote articles that came under attack from Fergueson. Emails went back and forth and there's a lot there. But what I found most interesting was something about SPPI's Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Christopher Monckton. In a phone interview with Fahys, Monckton acknowledged his lack of formal training in the hard sciences - yet defended his qualifications to critique other people's work. Oh - and he had training in architectural sciences that allowed him to build his own home which was still standing. Why THAT was important, I have no idea.

So, the SPPI is run by a guy who was a career political aide for Republicans, with a contact address of a strip mall UPS store, and who's Chief Policy Advisor is a man who admits he hasn't got the scientific background in the area he's critiquing.

First it was "global warming" and when they figured out we weren't actually warming up they switched it to "climate change." That way whether it was warm or cold they could blame it on us and demand more taxes and regulation.

Warmer than usual summer? Climate Change. Colder than usual winter? Climate Change.

Tricky isn't it...