Scientist Exposes IPPC as “Fundamentally Corrupt”

An energy-rationing bill has been introduced to address “global warming.” The “Climate Security Act” would impose caps on how much carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can be allowed and would institute an elaborate program to “trade” allowances among the industries and business affected.

Americans better hope that some members of Congress will ask if there truly is a threat of global warming and why a similar program in Europe has proven to be a resounding failure.

If you really wanted to undermine the nation’s economy, you could not devise a better way. It is the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol on steroids.

Little noted during all the headlines concerning Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize was the fact that it was shared with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among skeptical scientists I know, the emails were flying. Several had served as part of the vast array of scientists whose opinions on the various IPCC draft reports were requested and then ignored.

A lot of these expert reviewers are among the 2,000 scientists that the IPCC and Al Gore are always citing as being part of the “consensus” on global warming. The problem for both is that many really, really, really disagree that any planet-threatening global warming is occurring.

One of them is Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand-based climate scientist who has been a part of the reviewing process since the IPCC came into being. He is one of those scientists who will not and cannot be shut up despite the din of the IPCC propaganda.

Briefly, Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England, and his long career has included stints in France, Canada, China, and New Zealand. He has published more than a hundred scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.

So, following the announcement of the Nobel, Dr. Gray wrote to Professor David Henderson who has called for a “review” of the IPCC and its procedures. This is a nice way of saying that the Panel is so widely viewed as just one more corrupt United Nations instrumentality, a lot of scientists think it should be tossed in a garbage can behind the UN building.

Permit me to share some of Dr. Gray’s thoughts with you.

Commenting on his initial belief that the IPCC would proceed on the basis of “scientific ethics” and that its conclusions would result from “facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles”, Dr. Gray’s experience revealed that, “Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.”

“I have been forced to the conclusion that, for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound…normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.”

“I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.”

Dr. Gray concluded that the only reform “I could envisage, would be its abolition.” Okay, okay, I hear all the environmentalists saying, “but he’s just one crazy, old New Zealand climate scientist. Boo! Hiss!” Character assassination is just one form of the corruption that is endemic to the entire environmental movement.

Undaunted, Dr. Gray continued, “The two main ‘scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible.’ Evidence for both of this claims is fatally flawed.”

Aw, gee, I’m not a scientist you’re saying. What do I know? Well, if you know enough to be reading this, you know enough to wrap your brain around Dr. Gray’s assertion that “No average temperature of any part of the earth’s surface, over any period, has ever been made.” If the earth’s “average temperature” cannot be determined, how can you know that it’s dramatically heating? How can you predict anything about an unknown?

As for the IPCC claims about CO2, Dr. Gray points out that “they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prize-winners and all were published in the best scientific journals.”

The IPCC has depended on computer climate models for its claims and there is now a volume of papers demonstrating how they have repeatedly been proven to be inaccurate. As Dr. Gray points out, if you cannot validate these models as actually capable of making predictions, “no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.” Anyway, “No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used to prediction.”

“The most elaborate of all their ‘evaluation’ techniques is far more dubious,” said Dr. Gray. “Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to ‘evaluate’ them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success.” (Emphasis added.)

“Sooner or later all of us will come to realize,” Dr. Gray concluded, “that this organization, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.”

But that’s the point of the IPCC!

If you can require that ethanol be substituted or just added to gasoline, you drive up the cost of corn to where the cost of everything else–like food–dependent on it costs more. Moreover, requiring the addition of ethanol increases refinery costs that are, in turn, passed on to consumers.

If you mandate that wind and solar energy be substituted to provide electricity for that provided by coal (over 50% in the USA) and other sources, then you assure that these two totally inadequate energy producers will drive up the cost to consumers.

If every kind of industry contributes to CO2, then you can create an elaborate “cap-and-trade” scam to sell “credits” for the permission to continue in business. The consumers will pick up the costs involved.

On the chance that Dr. Gray is not some crazy, old New Zealander, maybe we should all be in the streets calling for the abolition of the IPCC? And, while we’re out there, let’s get rid of the United Nations too.

Editor’s Note: The full text of the letter is available at here.

Global Warming Scares Heat Up

To understand the whole global warming debate you have to understand that it is not about any dramatic warming of the Earth. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age with time out for some mini-Ice Age episodes.

As Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, has repeatedly written, the average global temperature has increased about one degree Fahrenheit over the past century. It’s a natural cycle and, since we are at the end of the current 12,000-year interglacial cycle of temperate climate, we are due another Ice Age.

Global warming hysteria is about controlling the world’s population by impeding or making more costly the use of energy–oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear–in developed, industrial nations and thwarting efforts to expand the use of electricity in Third World nations. Keeping people ignorant and ultimately dependent on a vast one-world government based on failed socialist utopian policies is the name of the game.

This explains in part why so much of the global warming propaganda has been coordinated and emanated from the United Nations. Its International Panel on Climate Control and its Kyoto Protocol on Climate Control are just two examples of the mischief that is generated by the UN. The Panel has revised its estimates of global warming so many times that it has become a farce. Worse yet, those estimates are all based on flawed computer models.

So what explains just a few of the headlines we are all reading every day now? “Earth spews troubling amount of methane”, “Winter ice declining rapidly in the Arctic”, and “Nastier hurricanes? Just blame us: Study links human activity, monster storms.”

A friend of mine, John Brignell, a British professor emeritus, runs a website called NumberWatch.com. On it you will find a page that documents how just about every imaginable natural phenomenon has been attributed to global warming. It’s a very long, often totally contradictory, list and a tribute to the idiocy and hypocrisy that fuels the global warming hoax.

While the global warming hoax has an economic component whose focus is energy use, there is a political component because it is through the implementation of laws that the control of human behavior is achieved. This was seen most recently when California’s legislature voted to implement controls on “greenhouse gas emissions” from utilities and other industrial activities said to be the primary cause of global warming. California has notoriously failed to keep pace with the growth of its population and the provision of sufficient electrical power.

The global warming hoax is also intended to force people to use public transportation or to select alternative forms of energy such as solar or wind. These latter two are totally inadequate to our needs and exist, like ethanol, largely because of government subsidies and mandates.

So why are we reading this sudden new spate of articles about things alleged to cause global warming? It is not a coincidence as, indeed, nothing one reads or hears incessantly is accidental. Where it takes on a very dangerous potential is the proposed legislation emanating out of Washington, D.C. these days.

Largely unable to find traction with its anti-war diatribes, the Democrat’s fallback position is to scare everyone with global warming. It began in the summer of 2005 when Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) proposed a bill calling for modest mandatory limits on emissions of greenhouse gases said to cause climate change.

These limits are moving forward despite the unanimous rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by the Senate some years ago.

It is essential to keep in mind that climate change is caused by factors such as solar activity, the heating or cooling of the oceans, cloud formation and activity, and volcanic activity. Human beings have absolutely no “control” over these climate factors.

The vast bulk of the Earth’s surface isn’t inhabited, despite the fact there are six billion humans extant. Humans and other animals’ lives depend on the oxygen we breathe. We exhale carbon dioxide. The Earth’s vegetation benefits from the carbon dioxide as the essential element it requires for growth. And yet there are people in government and elsewhere that will tell you that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or even a “pollutant” that is bad for the Earth.

Some of those people are in Congress and these days it is, in the words of Business Week reporter, John Carey “awash in carbon-capping bills and proposals from Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Tom Carper (D-DE), John Kerry (D-MA), and others. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) plans to introduce legislation on the first day of the next session of Congress.”

Perversely, they will find support from the utility industry that would prefer regulatory certainty. This has nothing to do with the dubious, often duplicitous, science of global warming and everything to do with running a business. Similarly, the agricultural lobby will no doubt support this legislation in order to benefit from crops used to make ethanol, a gasoline additive that actually and grotesquely costs more to produce and provides less energy per use.

Finally, these proposed regulations to cap emissions are immediately nullified by the obvious fact that other nations such as India and China, with a billion people each, will not be joining this fraudulent effort. We could shut down all energy use in America without having any affect even if the false assertions about global warming were true.

The proposed legislation must be stopped before Congress in its stupidity imposes it. Previous Congresses thought Prohibition and the War on Poverty were good ideas. If you think life in America is expensive today, you have no idea how that cost will increase if global warming “controls” are imposed.

Hurricane Katrina and Global Warming

A profound tragedy is unfolding in New Orleans, the most beautiful city in America, with the richest cultural history and the most wonderful style of living. I lived in New Orleans for seven years. I was married there. My children were born there. I have many friends there.

My daughter, her husband and their little baby managed to get out of the city ahead of the flood on Sunday, driving 14 hours into Texas with the few belongings they could stuff into their car. They have no idea what has become of their house and their possessions, not to mention their friends, their pets, their jobs, their way of life.

Tragedies happen, and my daughter and her family are happy just to be alive. Their losses and those of hundreds of thousands of other innocents deserve mourning, prayer and respect.

That is why the response of environmentalists fills me with what only can be called disgust. They have decided to exploit the death and devastation to win support for the failed Kyoto Protocol, which requires massive cutbacks in energy use to reduce, by a few tenths of a degree, surface warming projected 100 years from now.

Katrina has nothing to do with global warming. Nothing. It has everything to do with the immense forces of nature that have been unleashed many, many times before and the inability of humans, even the most brilliant engineers, to tame these forces.

Giant hurricanes are rare, but they are not new. And they are not increasing. To the contrary. Just go to the website of the National Hurricane Center and check out a table that lists hurricanes by category and decade. The peak for major hurricanes (categories 3,4,5) came in the decades of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when such storms averaged 9 per decade. In the 1960s, there were 6 such storms; in the 1970s, 4; in the 1980s, 5; in the 1990s, 5; and for 2001-04, there were 3. Category 4 and 5 storms were also more prevalent in the past than they are now. As for Category 5 storms, there have been only three since the 1850s: in the decades of the 1930s, 1960s and 1990s.

But that doesn’t stop an enviro-predator like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from writing on the Huffingtonpost website: “Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and – now — Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.”

Or consider Jurgen Tritten, Germany’s environmental minister, in an op-ed in the Frankfurter Rundschau. He wrote (according to a translation prepared for me): “By neglecting environmental protection, America’s president shuts his eyes to the economic and human damage that natural catastrophes like Katrina inflect on his country and the world’s economy.”

The bright side of Katrina, concludes Tritten, is that it will force President Bush to face facts. “When reason finally pays a visit to climate-polluter headquarters, the international community has to be prepared to hand America a worked-out proposal for the future of international climate protection.”

He goes on, “There is only one possible route of action. Greenhouse gases have to be radically reduced, and it has to happen worldwide.” In other words, thanks to Katrina, we’ll finally get Kyoto enforced. (He might start at home, by the way. Europe is not anywhere close to reducing CO2 to Kyoto standards. In fact, the U.S. is doing much better than many Kyoto ratifiers.)

Ross Gelbspan, in a particularly egregious, almost giddy piece in the Boston Globe that was reprinted in the International Herald Tribune, wrote that the hurricane was “nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service Katrina, [but] its real name was global warming.” He also finds global warming responsible for droughts in the Midwest, strong winds in Scandinavia and heavy rain in Dubai. The reason for all this devastation, of course, is that the Bush Administration is controlled by coal and oil interests.

And the Independent, a widely read British newspaper, reported today that “Sir David King, the British Government’s chief scientific adviser, has warned that global warming may be responsible for the devastation reaped by Hurricane Katrina.” King contended that “the increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming.”

The Kyoto advocates point to warmer ocean temperatures, but they ought to read their own favorite newspaper, The New York Times, which reported yesterday:

“Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming. But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught ‘is very much natural,’ said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.'”

An article on TCS quoted Gray last year as saying that, while some groups and individuals say that hurricane activity lately “may be in some way related to the effects of increased man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,

Catastrophic Global Warming is More Scare than Science

On June 13, USA Today declared that “The debate’s over: Globe is Warming.” That’s another headline you can ignore. The world has been warming ever since the last Ice Age, but it is not rapidly warming in ways that threaten our existence, nor warming in a way that requires the industrialized nations to drastically cut back on their use of energy to avoid the many scenarios of catastrophe the Greens have been peddling since the 1980’s.

Catastrophic global warming is a classic scare campaign initiated by the Greens after a previous effort in the 1970s to influence public policy by declaring a coming Ice Age failed to generate any response. What we are seeing now is yet another worldwide coordinated campaign by the Greens to rescue the anthropogenic global warming theory from the junk heap to which it should be consigned.

In early June, the National Resources Defense Council, one of the large Green organizations, declared that, “[Human-caused, i.e., anthropogenic] Global warming is fast becoming the number one environmental problem of our time.” It has organized an Internet campaign led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Sen. John McCain, and other so-called environmental leaders to drum up the fears of people who know little of the real science of the Earth in order to force the US to implement the United Nations Kyoto protocol on “climate control.”

The NRDC declared, “The world’s leading scientists now agree that [anthropogenic] global warming is real and is happening right now. According to their forecasts, extreme changes in climate could produce a future in which erratic and chaotic weather, melting ice caps and rising sea levels usher in an era of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions.” Scary, eh? One huge volcanic eruption could this. As to the weather, it is the very definition of chaos and has been for billions of years.

The good news is that leading climatologists and meteorologists are actively debunking this nonsense. One of them, Dr. F. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, is in the forefront. He debunks a June 7 statement issued by several national academies of sciences just before Britain’s Tony Blair arrived for talks with President Bush, saying, “The Statement simply regurgitates the contentious conclusions of the (UN) International Panel on Climate Change report of 2001, which has been disputed by credible scientists. The so-called scientific consensus is pure fiction.”

Among the data he cites is the fact that, “Since 1940, there has been a 35-year-long cooling trend and not much warming in the past quarter-century, according to global data from weather satellites.” Moreover, “an extrapolation of the satellite data gives at most a fraction of a degree rise for the 2lst century,” adding that, “The IPCC further claims that the 20th century was the warmest in the past 100 years, but this myth is based on a seriously flawed publication. The IPCC also claims that sea levels will rise by up to nearly a meter by 2100; but every indication is that they will continue to rise inexorably and much less, as they have for nearly 20,000 years since the peak of the last Ice Age.”

Bear in mind that the IPCC is a creation of the United Nations and we have all seen how corrupt that institution has become, failing to fulfill its mandate for a more peaceful world while seeking to become a world government that would destroy the sovereignty of the United States and all other nations.

Other scientists have joined Dr. Singer to dispute the global warming claims. Paul Knappenberger of the University of Virginia, says of the claims made by the science academies that, “What is missing is the scientific assessment of the potential threat. Without a threat assessment, a simple scientific finding on its own doesn’t warrant any change of action, no matter how scientifically groundbreaking it might be.” What passes for a threat assessment is simply the claims being made. Knappenberger noted, “The fact of the matter is that there does exist a growing body of scientific evidence that the climate changes in the coming decades will be modest and proceed at a rate that will lie somewhere near the low end of the IPCC projected temperature range.”

Here’s what you must keep in mind; the IPCC claims are based on what virtually every scientist knows to be seriously flawed computer models for its projections. In short, we are being asked to believe what computer engineers are telling us, not what credible climatologists and meteorologists are telling us. There isn’t a computer model for the world’s weather that can reliably predict the future by more than a week at best. This is why tracking the routes of hurricanes proves so difficult. This is why blizzards often turn out to be better or worse than initial projections.

Iain Murray, another scientist, laid into the statement of the national academies for having committed the sin of advocacy. “Climate alarmists in the scientific community now face a long retreat, while the victory of President Bush’s position on the issue seems assured. Even the hopes of European intervention are dashed.” The US Senate unanimously rejected signing the Kyoto protocol many years ago. “Rational nations will not take action if the costs of the action outweigh the benefits,” said Murray of the protocol’s demand for energy caps on emissions while exempting nations like China and India, each with more than a billion people.

Meanwhile, in Congress we have people like Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, seeking to introduce legislation that would put “caps” on emissions of greenhouse gases and implementing what is essentially the Kyoto protocol that the Senate rejected long ago. The US Department of Energy has estimated that a cap-and-trade program such as Bingaman proposes would cost $331 billion in lost GDP between 2010 and 2025. Other Senators like McCain and Lieberman have similar strategies.

There is no scientific consensus. There is only the manipulation of public opinion and the effort to influence public policy. There is no catastrophic global warming and no way that any limits on energy use could have any effect on it if it did exist. The catastrophic global warming is a classic scare campaign and we may well be witnessing its last desperate gasps as more and more scientists step forward to debunk it.

New Jersey’s Nutty CO2 Notions

While the entire northeast of the United States was digging out from a huge blizzard–usually a sign of cold weather–a meeting on “the climate challenge” was occurring in London, England and “an independent report” by the Institute for Public Policy Research (Great Britain), The Australia Institute, and the Center for American Progress announced that “an ecological time bomb is ticking away” that will plunge the world into chaos due to the heat said to be generated by greenhouse gas emissions.

This kind of lunacy is intended to impose caps on the use of energy everywhere. It is the goal of the United Nations Kyoto Climate treaty that became international law as of Wednesday, February 16.

To understand what “caps” really are, let me quote from my friend, John Brignell, a British professor emeritus, statistician, and editor of Numberwatch.com. Recalling Martin Luther’s rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church over the issue of indulgences, he reminds us, “Chaucer’s Pardoner earned one hundred marks a year by selling indulgences, worthless pieces of paper, relics and other valueless items to credulous believers in the religion of the day. Now we have carbon trading, in which new worthless pieces of paper are sold for millions of pounds.” That is the essence of the Kyoto protocol, a system by which meaningless trading of forbidden emissions are sold for the right to continue contributing to the dreaded and totally bogus global warming.

While an army of snowplows was at work on the roads of the Garden State, the little Green gnomes in the Department of Environmental Protection were working to reclassify carbon dioxide (CO2) as a “contaminant.” If this becomes law, the DEP might as well arrest everyone living in the Garden State because humans generate CO2 every time they exhale. Or perhaps we will just pay for the right to exhale?

To bring about the implementation of the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, something the US Senate unanimously rejected and the President has correctly said is based on “flowed science”, New Jersey in concert with other northeastern States has entered into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that would, if enacted, impose a “regional CO2 cap-and-trade program.”

To achieve this, CO2 has to be reclassified as a “contaminant”, i.e., a form of pollution!

This is yet another example of the way environmentalists–Greens–are seeking to do an end-run around the rejection and opposition to their bogus “global warming” claims. Aside from the fact that they use junk science to advance their lies, this is yet one more example of their unrelenting efforts to harm the health and welfare of everyone worldwide who would suffer the consequences of this hoax. And, yes, enough nations have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to theoretically impose its demands to cut back on CO2 emissions, but among those exempt from its mandates are China and India, plus a host of Third World nations, thus rendering it meaningless.

In late January, Dr, Marlo Lewis, Jr., Ph.D., a Senior Fellow in Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, exposing the abject lies and idiotic justifications it is offering for its proposed reclassification of CO2 as “an air contaminant.” The hearings and written comments on this proposal are cover. What happens next is up to the DEP.

Dr. Lewis stated his objections more politely than I ever could and I will excerpt them here so you can make up your own mind. “The proposed rule is a conceptual muddle. Logically, DEP cannot classify CO2 as an

State of Fear by Michael Crichton: Exposing the Global Warming Sham

The famed novelist, Michael Crichton, may achieve what mountains of scientific data produced by meteorologists and others have not. He may get the public to understand that the UN Kyoto Climate Control Protocol is, itself, a work of fiction.

His novel, “State of Fear“, (HarperCollins, 603 pages) is a technopolitical thriller based on the widely ignored data that global warming is a hoax, but worse than that, it is a hoax specifically designed to harm the lives and the economy of people living in industrialized nations. It may well be the first novel to come complete with a section devoted to the data that demonstrates not only how false global warming is, but the impact it would have if the UN Protocol was strictly enforced.

When first proposed, the US Senate unanimously rejected the global warming treaty and, in his first term, President George W. Bush withdrew the Kyoto Protocol from consideration in 2001. If this action had not been taken and the treaty applied to the US, the country would have been required to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% below its 1990 level. They only way to achieve this would have been to impose strict energy use limits.

Take away energy or greatly reduce it and you create the conditions for an economic disaster and impact the lives and health of Americans from coast to coast. You invite draconian “solutions” such as limiting the use of air conditioning, gas rationing, and how many hours factories can operate.

State of Fear” begins with the murder of an American graduate student studying ocean-wave dynamics. Other murders follow, but the UN Kyoto Protocol is tantamount to murder, too. Recall the deaths of Frenchmen when a heat wave hit that nation a few years ago. The lack of air conditioning literally killed countless elderly and others. Consider how the East Coast of the United States shut down when a massive electrical blackout occurred. Only the backup generators in hospitals prevented the deaths of seriously ill patients.

The novel references the same bogus computer models that are cited by global-warming proponents such as Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, Kevin Knobloch of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and John Passacantando of Greenpeace, USA. They predict melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and other catastrophes. They are as reliable as a deck of Tarot cards. Here again, scientific data amply demonstrates that, though the temperatures in Greenland and Iceland have been falling at 2.2 degrees Celsius since 1987, there has been no affect on the ice in those nations that has actually been accumulating, not melting. The same is happening in Antarctica.

After the Russian Federation approved its participation in the UN Kyoto Protocol, the treaty comes into effect on February 16, 2005. Its requirements for the reduction of energy use exempts Red China, India, both home to a billion people, and some 130 Third World nations. Happily, the US will not participate, but UN treaties have saddled us with laws such as the Endangered Species Act that have proven a great hindrance to economic growth. Most certainly, the US Constitution does not authorize such laws, although it does bind us to honor idiotic treaties conjured up by the UN.

There are, however, those in the Congress and in various States who would impose these harmful restrictions on Americans. Chief among them in Congress is Sen. John McCain and Sen. Joseph Lieberman who introduced “The Climate Stewardship Act” (S. 139) that would cap CO2 emissions at 2000 levels by 2010. It is estimated this would cost the American economy $106 billion.

Nine northeastern states are colluding for the same goal (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.) Other States attorneys general are using a public nuisance lawsuit against five utilities to achieve the same goal. All this is more than curious given the Senate resolution that rejected the UN Kyoto Protocol. And, of course, they based their action on the same bogus data put forth by the UN and the many NGOs behind the global warming hoax. The end result would be a significant slowdown in economic growth combined with a rise in the cost of energy.

I hope Michael Crichton’s novel (which is soundly rooted in documented science) becomes yet another big bestseller. I hope lots of people who remain susceptible to the lies of the Greens will read it and discover what those of us who have fulminated against the UN Kyoto Treaty since the Greens first conjured it in the early 1990s. Our speeches, our articles, our books, based on real science and real economics have not slowed or stopped its ratification or implementation. Perhaps a work of fiction will achieve what we could not?