The UN wants climate change to be real so they can push through their Agenda 21.
Got some proof of that wild accusation?
You don't appear to understand how the UN operates. The UN is an umbrella organisation that embraces most nations on Earth. It is not an entity that can dictate policy. The member nations are the fundamental controllers of the UN.
Surprise then that the IPCC manages to correlate this.
The IPCC was set up to establish WHY the planet's climate was changing (the 'CC' part of IPCC refers to Climate Change). It was set up way back in 1988. Further and for the record: Many people contribute their time for no payment to the IPCC. The IPCC initiated and utilised existing science in an attempt to determine:
* What was causing the observed temperature rise.
* What possible effect the observed temperature rise would have on people and environments.
* If there was any action that could be taken BY ALL THE NATIONS ON THE PLANET to counter the observed temperature rise.
The IPCC acts as a scientific and advisory organisation. It has no axe to grind in the issue, one way or the other.
Here is a few of the tricks pulled along the way.
Tree ring data that didn't agree with instrument data was replaced by more instrument data. Why ?
Ice core data has long been the preferred method of proxy data collection. Tree ring data is notoriously unreliable, due to various reasons and tends to provide relatively local figures only. Since 1988, satellite and oceanographic data has been a couple of the preferred methods of data collection.
Because if they don't correlate in present timeframes, this calls into question how reliable the tree ring model is for data further back in time, for which we have no instrument readings.
Which is why ice core data is far more accurate and vastly preferred. And used.
See page 16 ... The trick to hide the decline.
Check your sources. You need to be more discriminating. The GWPF is a front for big oil.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWPF
"However, the foundation itself has rejected FoI requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions, leading Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics to comment,
These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by...the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves...The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders."
"In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward
commented ""We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners." "