There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
~ From the Petition Project, which now list tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse the above statementCongressman wants funding stopped; scientists plan retaliation campaign
By Bob Unruh
Posted: March 05, 2010 ~ 9:50 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The clash over "global warming" has been ratcheted up another degree this week, with one member of Congress demanding U.S. taxpayer funding for the research be halted and scientists who have been accused of slipshod and deceptive work planning a campaign of retaliation against their critics.
The controversy moved to the front burner late last year when a series of e-mails was hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain that indicate scientists were hiding and manipulating data and trying to marginalize critics.
The revelations were significant, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed two findings Dec. 7 that concluded greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." The EPA's rulings could mean thousands of dollars in additional taxes for individual consumers.
Now, Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, is citing the doubts about the integrity of "climate change" science in a letter asking for an accounting of U.S. taxpayer support for the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.
The U.S. since 1994 has given some $50 million to the panel, and contributions under Obama now have doubled.
Barton, writing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asked the State Department to stop any contributions until an up-to-date audit is released.
"In recent months, the IPCC has come under significant criticism for the quality of its principal work product: the periodic assessments of the causes ofclimate change and related impacts from a changing climate," Barton wrote.
"Various reports have identified problems concerning quality-control procedures, peer review, and political influence on the assessment writeups, raising serious questions about the scientific integrity of the enterprise," he said.
The congressman asked Clinton to provide details of U.S. funding and state what controls – if any – have been placed on the funds.
Meanwhile, the Washington Times reports "global warming" scientists are preparing to strike back at their critics.
The report by Stephen Dinan said the newspaper had obtained private e-mails in which climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences said they were tired of "being treated like political pawns."
The e-mails revealed a strategy to form a nonprofit group that would challenge "global warming" critics in public newspaper ads. One suggested "an outlandlishly aggressively partisan approach" that would gut credibility of critics.
"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails obtained by the newspaper.
Many of the scientists in the "climate change" advocacy camp have been "under siege," the newspaper reported, since the East Anglia e-mails revealed discussions about skewing data to push chosen results.
Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., has suggested the Justice Department investigate scientists for potentially falsifying data.
Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said scientists should be shoring up their own research and eliminating mistakes.
"Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research," she told the newspaper.
In the Telegraph in the U.K., writer James Delingpole who has followed the "Climategate" scandal as the purloined e-mails have been dubbed, said the arguments are beginning to border on paranoia.
The issue, he said, no longer has anything to do with climate, global warming or even science.
"It's about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government," he wrote.
READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com
Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!