Nope, No Reason for Skepticism Whatsoever

Global alarming hysteria based more in agenda-driven politics than in sound scientific research? Surely not.

First, read this post by Joe Hargrave at The American Catholic:

How many more lies and frauds will the IPCC have to perpetrate on the entire world before we’re allowed to reject it’s scare-mongering without being ridiculed as “deniers” by their blind followers?

[...]

It makes you wonder how accurate other reports dismissed as “voodoo science” might turn out to be if they were given a fair hearing. This is politics, not science.

[More]

Then, read this post by Ed Morrissey at HotAir:

The UN’s team on climate change, the IPCC, has had a rather bad few months. First came the uncovered e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a key research organization for the IPCC, that showed deception and professional character assassination by so-called scientists attempting to block data and analyses that contradicted the CRU conclusions on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Next, a scandal hit closer to home when the IPCC’s reliance on a theory of dissipating Himalyan glaciers turned out to be unscientific speculation — that the IPCC badly misquoted anyway. Now the Telegraph’s James Delingpole reports that another key claim by the IPCC also comes from non-peer-reviewed work by scientists operating out of their field of work:

Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest...

[...]

How did the IPCC come to include this claim in its report to the UN? Supposedly, all of the underlying data is supposed to be peer-reviewed, legitimate research by professional scientists and not advocates. Yet within nine days we have seen two of its major claims turn out to be anecdotal speculation based on nothing at all. It goes right along with those Himalayan glaciers that were supposedly going to disappear within 25 years — at best, speculation that the IPCC falsely presented as scientific research, and likely a large load of carbon-rich effluvium.

[More]