NST: Global Warming: The Facts Do Not Add Up


Just one day after I posted about the NST not printing my Bankai-ing of Datuk Renji Sathiah, they go and help me gang-flank him.

Kudos to you NST for helping truth defeat falshood! (As I say and give examples of in the first paragraph of here.)

Here is the NST version of my letter below. I recommend that you see my previous post Bankai-ing Datuk Renji Sathiah on Global Warming for the text Datuk Renji Sathiah’s letter (image thumbnails provided below), the full version of my letter (original is always the best), and helpful links.


Datuk Renji Sathiah’s letter from NST 28 Nov 2007:

   RenjiSathiahClimateChange1   RenjiSathiahClimateChange2


My letter from NST 5 Dec 2007 (NST removes links after about a week):

   GWFactsDontAddUp1   GWFactsDontAddUp2

Global warming: The facts do not add up


I, a Malaysian citizen, am offended by the accusations of Datuk Renji Sathiah, former head of Malaysia’s delegation to climate-change talks (“Global warming irrefutable” — NST, Nov 28).

I was once a firm believer in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

But then I began to research the facts. What I found was flaws in the methodology, theoretical models and conclusions of AGW theory. Weighing the proponents’ and the sceptics’ claims, I found the sceptics to be more logical and honest.

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is often regarded as the authority on climate change issue, but it is becoming clear that the much-trumpeted AGW “consensus” of scientific opinion is merely a mirage created by cherry picking of data and a misrepresentation of individual scientific papers.

Dozens of scientists whose work was cited by the IPCC reports as “proof” of AGW have filed lawsuits to have their names removed from what they consider a politically-motivated disregard of science.

Among them, Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, called for the IPCC to be abolished because it has for years been ignoring the scientific method to strengthen its case for AGW.

As for the Kyoto Protocol which the IPCC advocates, it is a clearly checkable fact that Europe’s implementation of the Kyoto Protocol has achieved only two things: It has caused energy costs to skyrocket (Germany’s by more than US$9 billion in 2005), and it has utterly failed to even slow rising carbon emission levels, let alone reduce them. The carbon cap-and-trade method does not work.

However, Renji is correct in his assertion that the US rejected Kyoto Protocol in 1997 due to political reasons.

The protocol calls for a rollback of carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. Why this date? The reason lies not in science, but in politics and economics.

European and Japanese economic growth had stagnated since 1990. A slow economy means less production, less energy use and fewer carbon emissions. Since 1990, the British had been closing down coal plants and switching to gas power.

In 1990, Germany was reunified and closed down many of the inefficient Soviet-era factories. Since 1990, Russia had slow economic growth and closed thousands of wasteful Soviet-era factories.

Each of these proponents of Kyoto gained instant advantage by setting the CO2 level target at 1990, rather than any other date. Their CO2 emissions levels in 1997 were hardly any greater than the 1990 levels. Meanwhile, the US would have had to cut back on its decade of strong economic growth to meet the targets.

With such politically-motivated and unfair terms, is it any wonder the US Senate voted 95-0 to reject the protocol until the flaws in it are fixed?

Renji implies that all scientific studies that refute global warming have no credibility, simply because a handful of them have fossil-fuel lobby sponsorship. I would ask, does he apply the same standard to environmental lobby sponsorship?

Who do you think pays the salaries of all the climate scientists? Who sponsors studies that support the “irrefutable reality” of AGW?

The green lobby, environmental foundations and various governments spend much more on financing climate studies than the handful of oil companies. Nasa scientist and AGW proponent James Hansen received US$25,000 (RM82,000), US$720,000 and US$1 million from foundations that support AGW theory. This same Hansen’s data, which showed increasing temperatures, was recently discredited as flawed due to a Y2K bug, an error that he was forced to admit after it was exposed by sceptics.

As for who the obfuscators are, let me close with this quote from Stephen Schneider, one of the original public advocates for AGW: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”



You can come down when the global warming doomsday hoax is finally disowned by the world.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “NST: Global Warming: The Facts Do Not Add Up”

  1. Skeptics PWN Global Warming Fearmongers « Global Lolzing Says:

    […] Source/Submitter: BUUUUURRRRNING HOT: NST: Global Warming: The Facts Do Not Add Up […]

  2. Howard Juneau Says:

    Global warming is REAL! Real natural, that is. And it’s ‘really’, but I tossed grammar for effect. I have been researchig every “fact” that is released vis vis global warming for several years. I began my ‘work’ merely out of curiousity , but then became engrossed in what seemed to be :A) Invasion of the Brain Snatchers/Night of the Living (Green) Dead and B)A Real Life Scooby Doo Episode , only actually scary. I am comfortable now in the knowlege that CO2 is not affecting AGW ( I am unure of AGW’s very existence actually). In fact I have swithed from spring water to seltzer just to release a little more CO2. The only disturbing data regarding “climate change” for me is the gullibility of or population (by and large).When I first started discovering discrepencies and questionable data, I wanted to tell everyone I could. I figured they would be pleased. I was not prepared to be labeled , discounted and dismissed.The horror for me was that nobodycared to investigate or even debate what I was saying.All I ever got was the “5 word zombie chant” of ‘Not according to the IPCC’.Nobody wanted to even consider loking a bit deeper into the subject.When I gave a reference, I would hear Zombie chant #2:”He/she is paid by big oil.” For a while, I really was disturbed.Smart people were taking the bait! People I used to admire for their thinking! I have since given up on the collective brain of America.There is no point in worrying about it.”This too shall pass” I suppose. It remains a frightening lesson to me though.The ‘Land of the Free- of Truth and liberty- is an easily led mass of zombies. I don’t say sheep because it’s insulting towards them.They don’t have the ability to reason-to question-to think logically.I got the final piece relatively recently, regarding Al Gores partnership with Enron in starting “Carbon Trading”firms. So OF COURSE carbon dioxide is evil. But he’l absolve you of your sins for a healthy chunk of change.He may as well be out saying “Eat At Al’s”, because he really is just drumming up business. But nobody cares or bothers to research . It’s fine that Uncle Al shuns the very lifestyle he demands of the flock, gets paid by Occidental Petroleum and owns a toxic zinc mine.That’s fine. So what? The only catastrophe for me has been my total disillusionment in my country. It’s disgusting. And I won’t even discuss the Oligarchy. I’m sure everything I have said here is not new to you , but I did uncover one fascinating thing you can have fun looking into. I wondered early on how the IPCC was uncontested in saying the CO2 and temps were unprecidented when the Earth had been tropical with many time the CO2 for a majority of its history.They couldn’t be flat out trying to lie!. So I wrote a bunch of them and asked what they were comparing against.it couldn’t be the entire history. I was told they were using the Quarternary period.This was a few years ago , and , unfamiliar with that period, I looked it up.It was not, in fact, a period. It was a time frame coined by frenchman jules Desnoyers that was refused acceptance and even acknowlegement by the ICS and IUGS as it didn’t have Period qualifications(no major cataclysms, plate movement,etc) It kind of had become an arcaic geo-slang.BUT. It began at the end of the last ice age.When CO2 was at it’s lowest possible point.If you use this “period”, you data will clearly demonstrate temp/CO2 rise. You wil be telling the truth.Kind of. Butit wasn’t a period!Ha. In 2006, suddenly there was a rebirth! A Resurrection.Suddenly there were actually Quarternary Fan clubs of scientists and groups and probably even picnics.AGW DEPENDED on it becoming recognized. So ther ewere petitions,and letters and forums of scientists who suddenly loved the Quarternary. I have watched in sheer fascination as website after website were editd over nite to include it.Believe me – it wasn’t there before. If you Google it now, it seems like it has been a Period all along. Wiki briefly mentions it’s history as being “periodus Non Grata”.But even that article has been chopped.So now the time frame for AGW research is legit.Starting from the end of the last Glacial maximus, oh my goodness!it’s gotten warmer!It’s like studying 3 days in lat eMarch and comparing that to Jan 1 to say the entire YEAR has shown a warming. Bias,bias, bias.I said as much in a few letters to the INQUA, and I shant expect help from them should they pass me broken down on the road, to say the least. But thats the end of that mystery.Now I know, science can be bought. Idiocracy, here we come.

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    Fear not! More and more people are becoming aware that the whole AGW thing is a hoax, a scam. The record snowfalls certainly helped put the hysteria on ‘ice’ haha!


    We are not alone!


  4. megamega Says:

    Dont read this if you HATE tons of new MYSPACE friends
    find it here: http://tinyurl.com/5z7h8m

  5. alenasee Says:

    секс знакомства с номерами телефонов – секс по телефону, секс знакомства с телефоном, секс игры на телефон, секс знакомства с номерами телефонов, бесплатный секс по телефону, секс по телефону бесплатно. Сайт seks-po-telefonu.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: