Apparently, not everyone on the planet has bought into the Global Warming hoax yet, so they’re putting out this: Satellite data vital to UN climate findings. While I would be fine with the title, I would also question why the satellite data wasn’t vital to the previous findings. Could it be because previous satellite data didn’t back up the Global Warming Theory and was thus discarded?
Anyway, even this bit of media biased reporting casts suspicion on the entire Global Warming scheme in its opening line, “The most authoritative report on climate change to date will be released tomorrow in Paris, France.” If the previous reports were not “authoritative” then why, a rational person might ask, are we in a rush to base policy on them?
Then we have this bit of scandal, “Predictions for the future of global warming in the report, intended as a summary for policymakers, are based on 19 computer models.” I would point out that I can have you any number of computer models, within a month, that will show anything you want them to predict. To verify the projections of these computer games, one has to wait until the date of the projection and take REAL MEASUREMENTS! This is admitted in the next paragraph of the report, “The ability of satellites to deliver global data on the Earth System makes them particularly useful to study climate change and to validate and assess the quality of climate models.”
Then we have this twisted bit of misdirection, “Satellites are often the only means of studying the Earth’s Polar Regions because of their remoteness, darkness and cloudiness.” Which makes me wonder how, considering that the greatest warming in the other IPCC reports occurred in the Arctic, was measured without the aid of this satellite data included in the latest report.
Another interesting quote from the story is, “Satellites are useful for helping build scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane — the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. Using the Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography (SCIAMACHY) instrument aboard Envisat, researchers at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 were able to confirm increased methane concentrations induced mainly by human activities. ” Which raises the question of why the 2001 report was presented in such a definitive manner if it wasn’t confirmed until four years later? Of course, that delay, and the obvious agenda being pushed by these “scientists” brings anything they say after the initial report into doubt.
As a parting shot, allow me to present this:
A space-borne instrument known as a radar altimeter offers valuable information on the state of the ocean by providing measurements of the height of the ocean surface. Data acquired by radar altimeters aboard Envisat and ERS show sea levels have been rising by three mm a year since the early 1990s.
I would point out that the alarmist predictions of the initial IPCC report were of sea level rises of several feet, even hundreds of feet. For the record, 3 mm is 0.11811 inches, so a hundred years at this rate is less than a foot. Of course, one would have to question the ability of satellite measurements of a wave tossed ocean to have this level of accuracy.