Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic
#67
[Image: 4256064437_e52765ed3b.jpg]

We have a serious shortage of rock salt here. Can you believe this ? They can't get salt out of the salt mines because the salt never arrived to grit the surrounding roads. The running joke is that in the former Soviet Union they sent people to the salt mines. Here in the UK we can't get to the salt mine !

I could swear that grit orders have been lagging because of this global warming malarky. More NWO ? Maybe it's a job for the old back office detective ?

[Image: charlie%20danger.jpg]

Charlie gets involved with a blonde bombshell and dragged into the plot to build the New World Order. First, dead bodies start showing up, then bullets start flying and bombs start going off. Charlie teams up with Shurelock Homes, John Wayne, Bruce Lee, Calamity Jane and Lassie. He encounters Willie Nelson, George Carlin, Patrick Henry, George Washington and Superman among others. He does battle with George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Al Gore and Timothy Geithner among others. And who, disguised as Barney Fife, the Elephant Man, Ma and Pa Kettle, Ziggy Stardust, Mr. Moto, Julia Child and the Hunchback of Notre Dame; tries to thwart the New World Order, the bankrupting of the US and the creation of the North American Union!

Nothing that a bit of snow is going to spoil <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/swordfight.gif" alt="Swordfight" title="swordfight" />
Advocating for the Space Elevator.<br /><br />User Anonymous revealed ! He is actually me (a previous account). Registered in 2001.<br /><br />~~ Where ever you are Samurai Jane, I miss you
Reply
#68
Quote:Climate body admits glacier error
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel has admitted it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts.

A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed.

But he said it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.

The issue, which BBC News first reported on 05 December, has reverberated around climate websites in recent days.

“ It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing ”
Georg Kaser, University of Innsbruck

Some commentators maintain that taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science.

Dr van Ypersele said this was not the case.

"I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report," he said.

"Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC's credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes."

Grey area

The claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 appears to have originated in a 1999 interview with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, published in New Scientist magazine.

The figure then surfaced in a 2005 report by environmental group WWF - a report that is cited in the IPCC's 2007 assessment, known as AR4.

An alternative genesis lies in the misreading of a 1996 study that gave the date as 2350.

AR 4 asserted: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."

Dr van Ypersele said the episode meant that the panel's reviewing procedures would have to be tightened.

Slow reaction?

The row erupted in India late last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit, with opposing factions in the government giving radically different narratives of what was happening to Himalayan ice.

In December, it emerged that four leading glaciologists had prepared a letter for publication in the journal Science arguing that a complete melt by 2035 was physically impossible.

"You just can't accomplish it," Jeffrey Kargel from the University of Arizona told BBC News at the time.

"If you think about the thicknesses of the ice - 200-300m thicknesses, in some cases up to 400m thick - and if you're losing ice at the rate of a metre a year, or let's say double it to two metres a year, you're not going to get rid of 200m of ice in a quarter of a century."

The row continues in India, with Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh calling this week for the IPCC to explain "how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare".

Meanwhile, in an interview with the news agency AFP, Georg Kaser from the University of Innsbruck in Austria - who led a different portion of the AR4 process - said he had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong in 2006, before AR4's publication.

"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an interview.

He said that people working on the Asia chapter "did not react".

He suggested that some of the IPCC's working practices should be revised by the time work begins on its next landmark report, due in 2013.

But its overall conclusion that global warming is "unequivocal" remains beyond reproach, he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/s ... 468358.stm

Published: 2010/01/19 18:10:20 GMT

© BBC MMX
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#69
I will not go, says climate chief
The chairman of the UN's climate science body said he would not resign in the wake of a row about a mistake on glaciers that appeared in a key report.

Rajendra Pachauri told BBC News: "I am not going to stand down, I am going to stand up."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it had made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

Critics say the mistake has damaged the scientific credibility of the IPCC.

"I was re-elected by acclamation, essentially - I imagine - because everyone was satisfied with my performance on the fourth assessment report," Dr Pachauri said.

"I am now charged with producing the fifth assessment report, which I will do faithfully and to the best of my abilities."

Credibility concerns

Last week, IPCC vice-chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele said the panel had made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

The date appeared in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (4AR), which read: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."

A number of scientists had recently disputed the 2035 figure, after a row erupted in India late last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit, which BBC News reported on 5 December.

Opposing factions in the Indian government gave radically different opinions of what was happening to Himalayan ice.

Dr Pachauri said the inclusion of the 2035 date in the 4AR, which was published in 2007, was "a case of human error", adding that it was unfortunate that it had happened.

"However, let me emphasise that this does not in any way detract from the fact that the glaciers are melting, and this is a problem that we need to be deeply concerned about."

He told BBC News that he became aware of the error "maybe around the 16th or 17th of January".

"Then we swung into action," he explained.

"I got the entire top team of the IPCC to go through the details of this case, and we decided that this was an error but we also saw that this did not in any way move away from the reality that these glaciers are melting."

The claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 appears to have originated in a 1999 interview with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, published in New Scientist magazine.

The figure then surfaced in a 2005 report by environmental group WWF - a report that is cited in the IPCC's 2007 assessment, known as AR4.

An alternative genesis lies in the misreading of a 1996 study by a Russian researcher that gave the date as 2350.

Gathering storm

In a separate development, a report in the UK's Sunday Times newspaper said the IPCC faced "new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters", in its 2007 milestone report.

However, the IPCC issued a statement that said the story was "misleading and baseless".

It stated: "The assessment addresses both observations of past changes and projections of future changes in sectors ranging from heat waves and precipitation to wildfire.

"Each of these is a careful assessment of the available evidence, with a thorough consideration of the confidence with which each conclusion can be drawn.

"In writing, reviewing, and editing this section, IPCC procedures were carefully followed to produce the policy-relevant assessment that is the IPCC mandate."

Some commentators maintain that these developments, taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science.

But a defiant Dr Pachauri said: "I want to tell the sceptics... who see me as the face and the voice of the science of climate change, I am in no mood to oblige them; I am going to remain as chairman of the IPCC for my entire term."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/s ... 479795.stm

Published: 2010/01/25 19:53:30 GMT

© BBC MMX
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#70
[Image: co2_fuckoff.png]

"I live in Wales. I rains here 365 days a year". Rofl <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />
Advocating for the Space Elevator.<br /><br />User Anonymous revealed ! He is actually me (a previous account). Registered in 2001.<br /><br />~~ Where ever you are Samurai Jane, I miss you
Reply
#71
[Image: funny-picture-3286400694.jpg]
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#72
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />
Advocating for the Space Elevator.<br /><br />User Anonymous revealed ! He is actually me (a previous account). Registered in 2001.<br /><br />~~ Where ever you are Samurai Jane, I miss you
Reply
#73
Great one, Wook! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />
e4e5Qh5Ke7Qe5#
Reply
#74
I love it! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />
Don't believe anything they say. <br />And at the same time, <br />Don't believe that they say anything without a reason. <br />---Immanuel Kant
Reply
#75
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ptics.html

Quote:Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.
The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.
But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago.

The revelation comes after a string of embarrassing blunders and gaffes for climate scientists and will fuel concerns that key researchers are too secretive and too arrogant.
It will pile pressure on the director of the university's climate change unit, Professor Phil Jones, who has stood aside while an investigation is carried out, and make it harder for him to return.
The ruling followed a complaint from retired engineer David Holland-66, whose Freedom of Information-requests were ignored.
Last night Mr Holland welcomed the watchdog's decision but said it was disappointing the researchers would not be prosecuted.
'All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,' he said. 'We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.'
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#76
[quote]
by Socrate , Thursday, January 28, 2010, 07:18
Well, the bigger the lie is, the more people it take to make it work.
I remember a short exchange by email with a nasa climate scientist back in 2005, concerning one of his paper. After answering my first mail, he inscribe me as a spammer on a spam list.
So
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAArol ... tegate.pdf
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#77
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/201 ... criminals/

Quote:January 28th, 2010 9:19 am

Climategate: Obama backs cap-and-trade as UK cites climate criminals

One of the many eye-rolling moments during Tuesday’s SOTU was when Obama momentarily acknowledged that some of us might be skeptical about anthropogenic global warming, but then barreled on in his support of cap-and-trade legislation. There were ripples of disbelief, a mild response under the circumstances. Perhaps POTUS was ignorant of the fact (one always wonders where he gets his information) that the Timesonline is now reporting that the University of East Anglia CRU (center of almost all climate data used by the UN IPCC in its global warming findings) had broken the law in hiding information:

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.

The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.

Of course cap-and-trade relies on this hugely corrupted, possibly even one hundred percent incorrect and now missing data that was hidden by these scalawags. People have already been making fortunes on “Carbon Exchanges” based upon this despicable behavior and are poised to make billions more via so-called carbon credits. Critics have compared these to papal indulgences but they are far worse because they have tremendous economic and social implications in the midst of a fragile economy. (It is also a complete desecration of science.)

Yet Obama continues to back cap-and-trade. Some
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#78
Obama seems to be a Pied Piper marionette ... <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sheep.gif" alt="Sheep" title="sheep" />
e4e5Qh5Ke7Qe5#
Reply
#79
Here is something I found from Ralph Abraham.

"Ralph H. Abraham (b. July 4, 1936, Burlington, Vermont) is an American mathematician [Chaos]. He has been a member of the mathematics department at the University of California, Santa Cruz since 1968."

~~~
THE FUTURE IS NOT OURS TO SEE
By r2abraham

Today is day 6 of 15 of COP15, the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. It appears that “Climategate” has not changed the fact that — according to media reports in any case – every person, on every side of the controversy over what to do about CO2 emissions — is totally entranced by the three AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) illusions:

#1. Excess CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activities

#2. Global climate is warming abnormally, and

#3. #1 is the cause of #2.

Each of these three hypotheses is controversial, yet they are assumed as the framework of the discussions ongoing in Copenhagen. The truth is, the paleoclimate data is contested, the present state of our climate is contested, and the future is not ours to see. But one thing is certain, global climate will warm, or cool, or perhaps stay as it is. And in any case, the social and economic implications are catastrophic, and we should be preparing for all possibilities. Hopefully, the COP discussions will lead in this direction, but a major paradigm shift will be required.

WHATEVER WILL BE WILL BE
~~~
http://r2abraham.wordpress.com/2009/12/ ... rs-to-see/

[Image: 250px-Ralph_Abraham.jpg]

"Abraham has been involved in the research frontier and the development of dynamical systems theory in the 1960s and 1970s. He has been a consultant on chaos theory and its applications in numerous fields, such as medical physiology, ecology, mathematical economics, psychotherapy, etc.[2]

Another interest of Abraham's concerns alternative ways of expressing mathematics, for example visually or aurally. He has staged performances in which mathematics, visual arts and music are combined into one presentation."

He appeared at the Trialogues.

"These trialogues are from a series of lively, far-reaching discussions between Rupert and his close friends Ralph Abraham and Terence McKenna, that took place between 1989 and 1998, in America and England.

These three-way conversations began in private after their first meeting in 1982. Encouraged by their similar fascinations and complimentary views, and inspired by the synergy of their ideas and styles and the input of differing areas of expertise, the three friends continued to meet and explore new areas of thought. "
Advocating for the Space Elevator.<br /><br />User Anonymous revealed ! He is actually me (a previous account). Registered in 2001.<br /><br />~~ Where ever you are Samurai Jane, I miss you
Reply
#80
Thank goodness this has also exposed peer review for the flawed process that it is.

http://tinyurl.com/ykgxfys

Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.

But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.

The cornerstone of maintaining the quality of scientific papers is the peer review system. Under this, papers submitted to scientific journals are reviewed anonymously by experts in the field. Conducting reviews is seen as part of the job for academics, who are generally not paid for the work.

The papers are normally sent back to the authors for improvement and only published when the reviewers give their approval. But the system relies on trust, especially if editors send papers to ­reviewers whose own work is being criticised in the paper. It also relies on anonymity, so reviewers can give candid opinions.

Cracks in the system have been obvious for years. Yesterday it emerged that 14 leading researchers in a different field – stem cell research – have written an open letter to journal editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with the process. They allege that a small scientific clique is using peer review to block papers from other researchers.

Many will see a similar pattern in the emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit, which brutally expose what happens behind the scenes of peer review and how a chance meeting at a barbecue years earlier had led to one journal editor being suspected of being in the "greenhouse sceptics camp".

The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.

Here is how it worked in one case.

A key component in the story of 20th-century warming is data from sparse weather stations in Siberia. This huge area appears to have seen exceptional warming of up to 2C in the past century. But in such a remote region, actual data is sparse. So how reliable is that data, and do scientists interpret it correctly?

In March 2004, Jones wrote to ­Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had "recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of ­Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised".

He did not specify which papers he had reviewed, nor what his grounds for rejecting them were. But the Guardian has established that one was probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist ­formerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the only paper published on the topic in the journal that year.

Kamel analysed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than Jones, despite analysing much the same data.

Kamel told the Guardian: "Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century." The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.

Kamel was leaving academic science and never tried to publish it elsewhere. But the draft seen by the Guardian asserts that the difference between his findings on Siberia temperatures and that of Jones is "probably because the CRU compilation contains too little correction for urban warming." He does not, however, justify that conclusion with any data or analysis.Kamel says he no longer has a copy of the anonymous referee judgments on the paper, so we don't know why it was rejected. The paper could be criticised for being slight and for not revealing details about its methods of analysis. A reviewer such as Jones would certainly have been aware of Kamel's views about mainstream climate research, which he had called "pseudo-science". He would also have known that its publication in a journal like GRL would have attracted the attention of professional climate sceptics. Nonetheless, the paper raised important questions about the quality of CRU's Siberian data, and was a rare example of someone trying to replicate Jones's analysis. On those grounds alone, some would have recommended its publication.

Kamel's paper admits the discrepancy "does not necessarily mean the CRU surface record for the entire globe is in error". But it argues that the result suggests it "should be checked in more regions and even globally". Jones was not able to comment on the incident.

Critics of Jones such as the prominent sceptical Stephen McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog have long accused him of preventing critical research from having an airing. McIntyre wrote on his web site in December: "CRU's policies of obstructing critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature and withholding data from critics have unfortunately placed issues into play that might otherwise have been settled long ago." He also says obstructing publication undermine claims that all is well in scientific peer review.

Dr Myles Allen, a climate modeller at the University of Oxford and Professor Hans von Storch, a climate scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, in Geesthacht, Germany signed a joint column in Nature when the email hacking story broke, in which they said that "no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since it began in about 1850." But that argument is harder to make if such evidence, flawed though it might be, is actively being kept out of the journals.

In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to ­support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please."

Stahle is a tree-ring professor from the University of Arkansas. This request appears to subvert the convention that reviewers should be both independent and anonymous.

Cook replied later that day: "OK, today. Promise. Now, something to ask from you." The favour was to provide some data to help Cook review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring work. "If published as is, this paper could really do some damage," he said. "It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved [inverse regression] method is actually better in a practical sense."

Briffa was unable to comment. Cook told the Guardian: "These emails are from a long time ago and the details are not ­terribly fresh in my mind."

Jones did not restrict his harsh criticism of papers he saw as flawed to pre-publication reviews. He and Mann also had a reputation for harsh criticism of journals that published papers they disagreed with.

In March 2003, Mann discussed encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research. He was angry about that journal's publication of a series of sceptical papers "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal", according to Mann. His anger at the journal had evidently been building for some time, but was focused in 2003 on a paper published in January that year and written by the Harvard astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sally Balunias. The pair claimed that Mann's famous hockey stick graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years was wrong. After analysing 240 studies of past temperatures from tree rings and other sources, they said "the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1,000 years, nor is it the most extreme". It could have been warmer a thousand years before, they suggested.

Harvard press-released the paper under the headline "20th century climate not so hot", which would have pleased lobbyists against the climate change consensus from the American Petroleum Institute and George C Marshall Institute, both of which had helped pay for the research. Mann told me at the time the paper was "absurd, almost laughable". He said Soon and Balunias made no attempt in the paper to show whether the warmth they found at different places and times round the world in past eras was contemporaneous in the way current global warming is. If they were just one-off scattered warm events they did not demonstrate any kind of warm era at all. Soon did not respond to Guardian requests to discuss the paper.

The emails show Mann debating with others what he should do. In March 2003, he told Jones: "I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted – the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper"

But Jones told Mann: "I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set [the field of paleoclimate research] back a number of years if it goes unchallenged." He was right. The Soon and Balunias paper was later read into the Senate record and taken up by the Bush administration, which attempted to get it cited in a report from the Environmental Protection Agency against the wishes of the report's authors.

Persuaded that the paper could not be ignored, Mann assembled a group of colleagues to review it. The group included regular CRU emailers Jones, Dr Keith Briffa, Dr Tom Wigley and Dr Kevin Trenberth. They sent their findings to the journal's editorial board, arguing that Soon's study was little more than anecdote. It had cherry-picked data showing warm periods in different places over several centuries and had provided no evidence that they demonstrated any overall warming of the kind seen in the 20th century.

The emails reveal that when the journal failed to disown the paper, the scientists figured a "coup" had taken place, and that one editor in particular, a New Zealander called Chris de Freitas, was fast-tracking sceptical papers on to its pages. Mann saw an irony in what had happened. "This was the danger of always criticising the sceptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal." But Mann had a solution. "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. ­Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Was this improper pressure? Bloggers responding to the leaking of these emails believe so. Mann denies wanting to "stifle legitimate sceptical views". He maintains that he merely wanted to uphold scientific standards. "Please understand the context of this," he told the Guardian after the scandal broke. "This was in response to a very specific, particularly egregious incident in which one editor of the journal was ­letting in a paper that clearly did not meet the standards of quality for the journal."

Naturally de Freitas defends his actions during the incident. "I was never ever found to have done anything wrong, even in the rumpus over the Soon and Balunias paper. All accusations against me were fully investigated and my performance as editor of this journal was shown to be flawless."

But many on the 10-man editorial board agreed with Mann. They concluded that their colleague de Freitas had ignored the anonymous advice of four reviewers to reject the paper. There was a revolt. Their chief editor von Storch wrote an editorial saying the Soon paper shouldn't have appeared because of "severe methodological flaws". After their publisher Otto Kinne refused to publish the editorial, von Storch and four other board members resigned in protest. Subsequently Kinne himself admitted that publication had been an error and promised to strengthen the peer review process. Mann had won his argument.

Sceptical climatologist and Cato Institute fellow Pat Michaels alleged in the Wall Street Journal in December last year that the resignations by von Storch and his colleagues were a counter-coup initiated by Mann and Jones. This is vehemently denied by von Storch. While one of the editors who resigned was a colleague of Jones at CRU, von Storch had a track record of independence. If anything, he was regarded as a moderate sceptic. Certainly, he had annoyed both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics.

Also writing in the Wall Street Journal in December, he said: "I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides – the sceptics and alarmists – who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt ... I left the post [as chief editor of Climate Research] with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper – a sceptic's paper, at that."

The bad blood over this paper lingered. A year later, in July 2004, Jones wrote an email to Mann about two papers recently published in Climate Research – the Soon and Balunias paper and another he ­identified as by "MM". This was almost certainly a paper from the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and Michaels that returned to an old sceptics' theme. It claimed to find urbanisation dominating global warming trends on land. Jones called it "garbage".

More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"

This has, rightly, become one of the most famous of the emails. And for once, it means what it seems to mean. Jones and Trenberth, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, had recently become joint lead authors for a key chapter in the next IPCC assessment report, called AR4.

They had considerable power over what went into those chapters, and to have ruled them out in such a manner would have been a clear abuse of the IPCC process.

Today, neither man attempts to deny that Jones's promise to keep the papers out was a serious error of judgment. Trenberth told the Guardian: "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed everything [though] we cannot possibly refer to all literature … Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC."

In an additional statement agreed with Jones, he said: "AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC assessment. The comment was naive and sent before he understood the process."

Some will not be content with that. Jones had been a contributing author to IPCC assessment reports for more than a decade and should have been aware of the rules.

Climate Research is a fairly minor journal. Not so Geophysical Research ­Letters, published by the august American ­Geophysical Union (AGU). But when it began publishing what Mann, Wigley, Jones and others regarded as poor quality sceptical papers, they again responded angrily. GRL provided a home for one of a series of papers by McIntyre and McKitrick challenging the statistical methods used in the hockey stick analysis. When Mann's complaints to the journal were rebuffed, he wrote to colleagues in January 2005: "Apparently the contrarians now have an 'in' with GRL."

Mann had checked out the editor responsible for overseeing the papers, a Yale chemical engineer called James Saiers, and noted his "prior connection" with the same department at the University of Virginia, where sceptic Pat Michaels worked.

He added, "we now know" how various other sceptically tinged papers had got into GRL.

Wigley appeared to agree. "This is truly awful," he said, suggesting to Mann: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

A year after the row erupted, in 2006, Saiers gave up the GRL post.Sceptics have claimed that this was due to pressure from Wigley, Mann and others. Saiers says his three-year term was up. "My departure had nothing to do with attempts by Wigley or anyone else to have me sacked," he told the Guardian. "Nor was I censured, as I have seen suggested on a blog posting written by McKitrick."

As for Mann's allegation, Saiers does not remember ever talking to Michaels "though I did attend a barbecue at his home back in the early 1990s. Wigley and Mann were too keen to conclude that I was in league with the climate-change sceptics. This kerfuffle could have been avoided if the parties involved would have done more to control their imaginations".
Don't believe anything they say. <br />And at the same time, <br />Don't believe that they say anything without a reason. <br />---Immanuel Kant
Reply
#81
Quote:Snowstorm paralyses US east coast
The heaviest snow storms for decades have struck the eastern US, paralysing air and road transport, and bringing Washington DC to a standstill.

The storm knocked down power lines and left hundreds of thousands of people without electricity.

Nearly 2ft (60cm) of snow had fallen by noon on Saturday in cities across the region, the Associated Press reports.

The governors of Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland have declared states of emergency.

West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey are also affected.


WASHINGTON SNOWSTORMS

•More than 1ft (12in, 30.5cm) of snow has fallen only 13 times since 1870
•Heaviest on record is 28in (71cm) in January 1922
•Worst snowfall is believed to have hit in 1772, before records began, with as much as 3ft

The National Weather Service declared a 24-hour blizzard warning for the Washington-Baltimore region until 2200 on Saturday (0300 GMT on Sunday).

Most flights from the Washington-Baltimore area's three main airports and Philadelphia International Airport have been cancelled.

Hundreds of car accidents were reported, including two fatalities - a father and son who died while helping another motorist in Virginia.

US national rail service Amtrak cancelled a number of trains between New York and Washington, and also between Washington and some southern destinations.

Local weather forecasters said the Washington area could see its heaviest snowfall in 90 years.

It comes less than two months after a December storm dumped more than 16in (41cm) of snow in Washington.

The usually traffic-heavy roads of the capital were deserted, while the city's famous sites and monuments were covered with snow.


“ DC traditionally panics when it comes to snow - this time, it may be more justifiable than most times. ”
Becky Shipp Resident of Arlington, Virginia
The Washington Metro was operating only on underground lines, and bus services were cancelled.

US government offices in the Washington area closed four hours early on Friday, while the Smithsonian museums and National Zoo were closed on Saturday.

Debi Adkins, who lives just outside the city of Baltimore, told the BBC: "The snow started at 1130 yesterday morning and it just hasn't stopped... about 20 inches came overnight - and thunder and lightning.

"I'm not going anywhere - I couldn't if I wanted to. You just can't get your cars out. The front door of the building I live in is closed shut, so I just can't get out."

Ushaa Shyam Krishna in Chantilly, Virginia, said he - like many others - had stocked up on essential food items ahead of the storm.

"For the first few hours after the storm began, my daughter and I tried to shovel the snow, but now we have given up," he said.

"On Thursday the supermarkets were half empty - we went again yesterday and the shelves were totally empty."



Send your pictures and videos to http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/a ... 501246.stm

Published: 2010/02/06 20:06:46 GMT

© BBC MMX
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#82
I know 3 things:

1. They show me a lot of pictures of melted icecaps lately.

2. If I run the motor in with the garage door shut, it may kill me, or so I am often told.

3. When you say to someone, "Could you please stop doing that, I think it could be harming me" and they refuse to even consider stopping, they're probably a sociopath who has no business as a so-called pillar of industry.

Okay, possibly 4...

4. If you can't find a way to turn the bragging rights from installing a smokestack scrubber into capital to pay for the smokestack scrubber, you may be either a pretty shitty businessman, or another sociopath.
&quot;Yes, as through this world I've wandered I've seen lots of funny men;<br />Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.&quot; <br />(Woody Guthrie, &quot;Pretty Boy Floyd&quot;)
Reply
#83
Have you ever considered how much the US is becoming like Europe as regards;
Personal freedoms.
Use of natural resources.
Class distinction.

I never bought into the longterm good the most radical invironmental groups are doing anybody, because without realizing it, they are at best, the dupes of the super rich.
Tie up the natural resources beyond the reach of the common man behind the guise of it's protection, and then it falls under the domain of stategic reserve, to be accessed only by those appointed by the powerful for the benefit of only the rich.
In other words, if someday something of value is found on protected lands, its exploitation will be 'awarded' to those corporations held by the very rich.
The 1872 mining laws were put into place to guard against this very thing.
Your public lands have already been in the process of being transferred into the hands of the rich by devious means for decades.
Read the charters of the BLM and the forest service.
The lands they administer (especially the BLM) were put in their hands to protect, not sell off!
They have "public auctions" of this land that anybody is invited to, but even if sold at $100 an acre, it's often sold in parcels of 500 acres or more.
Dig up that old coffee tin in the back yard and come up with that kind of cash. And even if you could, it's already your land that's supposed to be held in trust for your use!
So, the words Autumn and Fall are not to be capitalized?
They are in my world!

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new?"It has been already, in the ages before us. Ecc 1: 9-10
Reply
#84
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ ... f_cli.html

Quote:February 04, 2010
IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks
By Marc Sheppard
Unquestionably the world's final authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's findings and recommendations have formed the bedrock of literally every climate-related initiative worldwide for more than a decade. Likewise, virtually all such future endeavors -- be they Kyoto II, domestic cap-and-tax, or EPA carbon regulation, would inexorably be built upon the credibility of the same U.N. panel's "expert" counsel. But a glut of ongoing recent discoveries of systemic fraud has rocked that foundation, and the entire man-made global warming house of cards is now teetering on the verge of complete collapse.


Simply stated, we've been swindled. We've been set up as marks by a gang of opportunistic hucksters who have exploited the naïvely altruistic intentions of the environmental movement in an effort to control international energy consumption while redistributing global wealth and (in many cases) greedily lining their own pockets in the process.


Perhaps now, more people will finally understand what many have known for years: Man-made climate change was never really a problem -- but rather, a solution.


For just as the science of the IPCC has been exposed as fraudulent, so have its apparent motives. The true ones became strikingly evident when the negotiating text for the "last chance to save the planet" International Climate Accord [PDF], put forth in Copenhagen in December, was found to contain as many paragraphs outlining the payment of "climate debt" reparations by Western nations under the watchful eye of a U.N.-controlled global government as it did emission reduction schemes.


Then again, neither stratagem should come as any real surprise to those who've paid attention. Here's a recap for those who have, and a long-overdue wake-up call for those who haven't. [See also The CFC Ban: Global Warming's Pilot Episode]


The Perfect Problem to the Imperfect Solution


The U.N. signaled its intent to politicize science as far back as 1972 at its Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm, Sweden. There, an unlikely mélange of legitimate environmental activists, dyed-in-the-wool Marxists, and assorted anti-establishment '60s leftovers were delighted to hear not only the usual complaints about "industrialized" environmental problems, but also a long list of international inequities. Among the many human responsibilities condemned were overpopulation, misuse of resources and technology, unbalanced development, and the worldwide dilemma of urbanization. And from that marriage of global, environmental, and social justice concerns was born the IPCC's parent organization -- the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) -- and the fortune-cookie like prose of its socialist-environmentalist manifesto, the Stockholm Declaration.


It was seven years later that UNEP was handed the ideal villain to fuel its counterfeit crusade. That was the year (1979) in which NASA's James Hansen's team of climate modelers convinced a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel to report [PDF] that doubling atmospheric CO2 -- which had risen from 280 ppmv in the pre-industrial 1800s to over 335 ppmv -- would cause nearly 3°C of global warming. And although the figure was wildly speculative, many funding-minded scientists -- including some previously predicting that aerosols and orbital shifts would lead to catastrophic global cooling -- suddenly embraced greenhouse gas theory and the inevitability of global warming.


It was at that moment that it became clear that the long-held scientific position that the Earth's ecosystem has always and will always maintain CO2 equilibrium could be easily swayed toward a more exploitable belief system. And the UNEP now had the perfect problem to its solution: anthropogenic global warming (AGW).


After all, both its abatement and adaptation require huge expansion of government controls and taxation. Furthermore, it makes industry and capitalism look bad while affording endless visuals of animals and third-world humans suffering at the hands of wealthy Westerners. And most importantly, by fomenting accusations that "rich" countries have effectively violated the human rights of hundreds of millions of the world's poorest people by selfishly causing climate-based global suffering, it helps promote the promise of international wealth redistribution to help less fortunate nations adapt to its consequences.


Best of all, being driven by junk-science that easily metamorphoses as required, it appeared to be endlessly self-sustaining.


But it needed to be packaged for widespread consumption. And packaged it they surely have. Here's an early classic.


The year was 1988, and Colorado Senator Tim Wirth had arranged for Hansen to testify on the subject before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to help sell the dire need to enact national environmental legislation. As Wirth has since admitted, he intentionally scheduled Hansen's appearance on what was forecasted to be the hottest day of the hearings. And in a brilliantly underhanded marketing ploy, he and his cohorts actually snuck into the hearing room the night before and opened the windows, rendering the air conditioning all but useless.


Imagine the devious beauty of the scene that unfolded in front of the cameras the next day -- a NASA scientist preaching fire and brimstone, warning of "unprecedented global warming" and a potential "runaway greenhouse effect," all the while wiping the dripping sweat off his brow. No wonder the resultant NY Times headline screamed, "Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate."


And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how climate hysteria and not one, but two of its shining stars were born. For coincidentally, that was the same year the IPCC was established by the U.N. Its mandate: to assess "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change."


How perfect: an organization formed not to prove or disprove AGW, but merely to assess its risks and recommend an appropriate response.


Now it was time to really get to work.


Testing the "Global Warming as Social Injustice" Waters


In 1990, the IPCC issued its First Assessment Report, warning of a natural greenhouse effect being enhanced by human emission activities. Apparently not quite ready to show its cards, the IPCC even admitted that the still-little-understood effects of such factors as carbon sinks, ocean currents, and clouds left many uncertainties as to timing and magnitude.


Meanwhile, the politics pushed forward in earnest. At the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (aka Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, the event's Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, told the opening session that industrialized countries had "developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma." The veteran U.N. puppeteer blamed the "lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class," which included "high meat consumption and large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing" for the world's environment ills. The solution: "[A] vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations."


From that meeting sprouted the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty. Absent specific numbers, the highly-touted Kyoto precursor nonetheless promised to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." But much less fanfare accompanied the essentially concurrent adoption of Agenda 21: a global contract that bound governments around the world to a U.N. plan to change the way people "live, eat, learn and communicate," all in the name of "saving the earth" from mankind’s mistakes, particularly global warming.


Again we saw a U.N.-crafted convergence of climate "science" and social "justice." While the signing of the UNFCCC would be a gradual process, 178 governments voted to adopt the Agenda 21 on the spot. This was quite a victory, especially in light of the IPCC's complete control over just exactly how such planetary salvation was best realized.


And in 1995, its Second Assessment Report (SAR) upped that ante a bit, stating that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Oddly, SAR slightly toned down previous projections for future warming and sea level rise based on the newly-considered cooling effects of anthropogenic atmospheric aerosols -- a move the U.N. brass likely regretted two years later.


In 1997, a protocol was added to UNFCCC that attempted to enact national commitments to emission reductions based on SAR recommendations. Fully 160 countries agreed to the legally binding Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized countries would reduce their collective emissions by 5.2%. However, although a signatory, the United States made ratification all but impossible when its Senate unanimously passed a resolution that year prohibiting U.S involvement in "any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations."


It appeared time to ratchet up the rhetoric -- truth be damned.


The Dawn of Outright Climate Fraud


Back in 1989, future Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Working Group 2 (WG2) lead author Stephen Schneider disclosed several tricks of the trade to Discover magazine:


To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.


And according to MIT's Richard Lindzen's 2001 Senate subcommittee testimony, that's precisely what he witnessed as a Third Assessment Report (TAR) lead author. Among the atmospheric physicist's revelations was the fact that contributing TAR scientists -- already facing the threat of disappearing grant funds and derision as industry stooges -- were also met with ad hominem attacks from IPCC "coordinators" if they refused to tone down criticism of faulty climate models or otherwise questioned AGW dogma. I suppose that's one way to achieve the "consensus" the IPCC loudly boasts of.

As previously discussed here and here, it was in the same 2001 TAR that the IPCC suddenly and inexplicably scrapped its long-held position that global temperatures had fluctuated drastically over the previous millennium and replaced it with a chart depicting relatively flat temperatures prior to a sharp rise beginning in 1900. This, of course, removed the pesky higher-than-present-day temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period of 900-1300 AD, the existence of which obstructed the unprecedented-warming sales pitch.


Truth be told, this little bit of hocus-pocus alone should have marked the end of the panel's scientific credibility, particularly after Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick uncovered the corruption behind it. But thanks to a hugely successful campaign to demonize all critics as big-oil shills, the "Hockey Stick Graph" (aka MBH98) not only survived, but -- after receiving a prominent role in Al Gore's 2006 grossly exaggerated "scary scenarios" sci-fi movie -- actually went on to become a global warming icon. Even after McIntyre finally got his hands on one scientist's data last September and proved that Keith Briffa had cherry-picked data to create his MBH98-supporting series, the MSM paid McIntyre and others reporting the hoax little heed.


Consequently, TAR's false declaration of the 20th as the hottest century of the millennium was widely accepted as fact, right along with its proclamation that the 1990's were the hottest decade and 1998 the hottest year since measurements began in 1861...as was the replacement of "discernible human influence" described six years earlier with the claim of "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."



So by the time AR4 rolled out in 2007, in which they significantly raised not only the threat level, but also the degree of anthropogenic certitude (to 90%), the IPCC's word was all but gospel to the MSM, left-leaning policymakers, and an increasingly large portion of the population. Indeed, everywhere you turned, you'd hear that "the IPCC said this" or "the IPCC said that." The need to address "climate change" had quickly become a foregone and inarguable conclusion in most public discourse.


At that moment, Kyoto II seemed as inevitable as the next insufferable NBC Green is Universal week, and with it, the U.N.'s place as steward of the planet, which would surely be ratified at the pending 2009 Climate Conference in Copenhagen.


...Until, that is, the mind-boggling magnitude of AR4's deception became glaringly apparent.


Caught with their Green Thumbs on the Scale


Most readers are likely aware that in November of last year, a folder containing documents, source code, data, and e-mails was somehow misappropriated from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU). The so-called "Climategate" emails disclosed an arrogant mockery of the peer review process as well a widespread complicity in and acceptance among climate researchers to hiding and manipulating data unfriendly to the global warming agenda. The modeling source code -- as I reported here -- contained routines which employed a number of "fudge factors" to modify the results of data series -- again, to bias results to the desired outcome. And this, coupled with the disclosure of the Jones "hide the decline" e-mail, provided more evidence that MBH98 -- and ergo unprecedented 20th-century warming -- is a fraud.


The following month, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian climate data. Apparently, Hadley ignored data submitted by 75% of Russian stations, effectively omitting over 40% of Russian territory from global temperature calculations -- not coincidentally, areas that didn’t "show any substantial warming in the late 20th-century and the early 21st-century."



But Climategate was only the tip of the iceberg. An AR4 warning that unchecked climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was found to be lifted from an erroneous World Wildlife Federation (WWF) report and misrepresented as peer-reviewed science. IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri attempted to parry this "mistake" by accusing the accusers at the Indian environment ministry of "arrogance" and practicing "voodoo science" in issuing a report [PDF] disputing the IPCC. But one in his own ranks, Dr Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the chapter making the claim, had the astoundingly bad manners to admit that he knew all along that it "did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research." Apparently, so had Pachauri, who continued to lie about it for months so as not to sully the exalted AR4 immediately prior to Copenhagen.


And "Glaciergate" opened the floodgates to other serious misrepresentations in AR4, including a boatload of additional non-peer-reviewed projections pulled directly from WWF reports. These included discussions on the effects of melting glaciers on mudflows and avalanches, the significant damages climate change will have on selected marine fish and shellfish, and even assessing global-average per-capita "ecological footprints." It should be noted here that IPCC rules specifically disqualify all non-peer-reviewed primary sources.


Nonetheless, Chapter 13 of the WG2 report stated that forty percent of Amazonian forests are threatened by climate change. And it also cited a WWF piece as its source -- this one by two so-called "experts," who incidentally are actually environmental activists. What's more, the WWF study dealt with anthropogenic forest fires, not global warming, and barely made mention of Amazonian forests at all. Additionally, the WWF's figures were themselves based on a Nature paper [PDF] studying neither global warming nor forest fires, but rather the effects of logging on rain forests. So the IPCC predicted climate change-caused 40% forest destruction based on a report two steps upstream which concluded that "[l]ogging companies in Amazonia kill or damage 10-40% of the living biomass of forests through the harvest process."


Adding to the glacial egg on the AR4 authors' faces was the statement that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa were being caused by global warming. It turns out that one of the two source papers cited was actually a mountain-climbers' magazine. Actually, this is a relatively authoritative source compared to the other: a dissertation from a Swiss college student based on his interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.


The 2007 green bible also contained a gross exaggeration in its citation of Muir-Wood et al., 2006's study on global warming and natural disasters. The original stated that "a small statistically significant trend was found for an increase in annual catastrophe loss since 1970 of 2% per year." But the AR4 synthesis report stated that more "heavy precipitation" is "very likely" and that an "increase in tropical cyclone intensity" is "likely" as temperatures rise.


Perhaps the most dumbfounding AR4 citation (so far) was recently discovered by Climatequotes.com. It appears that a WG2 warning that "[t]he multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability and have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula" originated from and was attributed to a guide for Antarctica tour operators on decontaminating boots and clothing. Really.


And here's one you may not have heard yet. A paper published last December by Lockart, Kavetski, and Franks rebuts the AR4 WG1 assertion that CO2-driven higher temperatures drive higher evaporation and thereby cause droughts. The study claims they got it backwards, as higher air temperatures are in fact driven by the lack of evaporation (as occurs during drought). I smell another "-gate" in the works.


And yet, perhaps the greatest undermining of IPCC integrity comes from a recent study, which I’ve summarized here, challenging the global temperature data reported by its two most important American allies: NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). As these represent the readings used by most climate analysis agencies, including the IPCC, the discovery by meteorologist Joe D'Aleo and computer expert E.M. Smith that they've been intentionally biased to the warm side since 1990 puts literally every temperature-related climate report released since then into question.


...Along with, of course, any policy decisions based on their content.

It's Time for some Real Climate Justice


Here in the states, left-leaning policymakers and their cohorts in the MSM have thus far all but ignored both the reality and implications of the fraud unveiled by Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, and the myriad other AGW-hyping scandals that seem to surface almost daily. Remarkably, most continue to discuss "climate pollution" and "carbon footprints" and the "tragedy" of Copenhagen’s failure, even as the global warming fever of their own contagion plunges precipitously. The president appears equally deluded, as passing a "comprehensive energy and climate bill" (as though the climate might somehow be managed by parliamentary edict) was one of the many goals he set forth in his State of the Union address last week.


But their denial will be short-lived as even the last vestiges of the green lie they so desperately cling to evaporate under the heat of the spotlight suddenly shining upon them.


For outside of the U.S., many news organizations and politicians already get it. Some are calling for Pachauri's resignation, and others for a full investigation into his possible financial conflicts of interest. There have also been demands for a complete reassessment of all IPCC reports, including a suggestion from the Financial Times that, given the IPCC's "central role in climate science," an independent auditor must be commissioned to "look at all the claims in the 2007 report and remove any that were not soundly based."


At least one American, AGW believer Walter Russell Mead of American Interest Online, agrees: "A highly publicized effort that includes serious skeptics and has bipartisan backing is the only way to get American public opinion on board the climate change train." And China's lead climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, suggested that "contrarian views" be included in 2014's AR5.

But when the Australian suddenly recommended "applying a healthy degree of scepticism to scientific claims that drive policy," paleoclimatologist Bob Carter told me he just couldn't help laughingly writing the editors to welcome them to the ranks of the majority of scientists who "practice exactly the technique that [they] belatedly recommend" -- the skeptics.

Indeed, this abrupt challenge to their own "consensus" mantra that they’ve spoon-fed the public for years rings decidedly hollow. Those "serious skeptics" and the holders of those "contrarian views" are the same scientists the IPCC deliberately excluded from its proceedings with impunity. They're the same people whom the media have ignored or ridiculed for years, along with their conventions -- like Heartland's ICCC 1, 2, and 3 -- and innumerable contrarian reports. In fact, a superb rebuttal to AR4, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) -- produced by Dr. S. Fred Singer, Dr. Craig Idso, and thirty fellow scientists -- has received no MSM attention whatsoever, despite its availability here since last June.


Besides, the time for credibility makeovers has long passed. As U.K. Professor Phillip Stott recently observed:


[A]s ever, capitalism has read the runes, with carbon-trading posts quietly being shed, 'Green' jobs sidelined, and even big insurance companies starting to hedge their own bets against the future of the Global Warming Grand Narrative. These rats are leaving the sinking ship far faster than any politician, many of whom are going to be abandoned, left, still clinging to the masts, as the Good Ship 'Global Warming' founders on titanic icebergs in the raging oceans of doubt and delusion.


Stott compared the IPCC's fall to that of the Berlin Wall. And he's spot-on -- for just as the latter symbolized the doom of European communism, so does the former signal the death knell for global socialist-environmentalism.


Let's get real -- given the enormousness of the booty these grifters attempted to extort from the entire developed world, not to mention the extraordinary depth of their hubris, it isn't rehabilitation that's required here, but swift justice. In 2006, IPCC cheerleader Grist Magazine's staff writer David Roberts received a pass when he called for the Nuremberg-style war-crimes trials for the "bastards" who were members of the global warming "denial industry." Surely, it's now clear that the members of the global warming "fraud industry" are the true "bastards" who should be hauled before an international tribunal for crimes against humanity...any tribunal, that is, other than the U.N.'s own International Criminal Court in The Hague.


We'll deal with their accessories-after-the-fact in the Congress, the White House -- and consequently, the EPA -- in due time.


And the first such judgment is already scheduled -- for November.


Marc Sheppard is environment editor of American Thinker and editor of the forthcoming Environment Thinker.



48 Comments on "IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks"
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#85
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSoY55jC ... r_embedded
Climategate spreads like an ozone hole
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#86
Narrator: Chicken Little was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.

Chicken Little: "Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!"

Narrator: So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.

Henny Penny: "Where are you going, Chicken Little?"

Chicken Little: "Oh, help! The sky is falling!"

Henny Penny: "How do you know?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Henny Penny: "This is terrible, just terrible! We'd better hurry up."

Narrator: So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.

Ducky Lucky: "Where are you going, Chicken Little and Henny Penny?"

Chicken Little & Henny Penny: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We're going to tell the king!"

Ducky Lucky: "How do you know?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head."

Ducky Lucky: "Oh dear, oh dear! We'd better run!"

Narrator: So they all ran down the road as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Loosey walking down the roadside.

Goosey Loosey "Hello there. Where are you all going in such a hurry?"

Chicken Little: "We're running for our lives!"

Henny Penny: "The sky is falling!"

Ducky Lucky: "And we're running to tell the king!"

Goosey Loosey: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Goosey Loosey: "Goodness! Then I'd better run with you."

Narrator: And they all ran in great fright across a field. Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth..

Turkey Lurkey: "Hello there, Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey. Where are you all going in such a hurry?"

Chicken Little: "Help! Help!"

Henny Penny: "We're running for our lives!"

Ducky Lucky: "The sky is falling!"

Goosey Loosey: "And we're running to tell the king!"

Turkey Lurkey: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Turkey Lurkey: "Oh dear! I always suspected the sky would fall someday. I'd better run with you."

Narrator: So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.

Foxy Loxy: "Well, well. Where are you rushing on such a fine day?"

Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together) "Help! Help!" It's not a fine day at all. The sky is falling, and we're running to tell the king!"

Foxy Loxy: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Foxy Loxy: "I see. Well then, follow me, and I'll show you the way to the king."

Narrator: So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling.
Advocating for the Space Elevator.<br /><br />User Anonymous revealed ! He is actually me (a previous account). Registered in 2001.<br /><br />~~ Where ever you are Samurai Jane, I miss you
Reply
#87
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDDqGqN16s
Henrik Svensmark - Galactic Cosmic Rays causes climate change

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#88
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... -alliance/

Updated February 16, 2010
Three Major Firms Pull Out of Climate Change Alliance

FOXNews.com

ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar pulled out of a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups pushing for climate change legislation on Tuesday, citing complaints that the bills under consideration are unfair to American industry.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#89
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... collapses/

Quote:A sharp-eyed viewer has noticed that when I was debating George Monbiot on TV yesterday and I mentioned that his cherished “peer-reviewed science” had been discredited by Climategate he bared his teeth like a cornered cur. Says my body language expert John Lish:

“It was a quite aggressive and defensive gesture which was noticeable when he was attempting to dismiss you (talking about peer review). A definite body-language sign of being rattled. He’s definitely uncomfortable about what’s occurring and others will have spotted that as well.”

Monbiot isn’t the only one. Consider the paranoid tone of this email from climate-fear-promoter Paul Ehrlich, during an exchange with fellow members at the National Academy of Scientists on how best to deal with the Denier threat: (Hat tip: Marc Morano)

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”

And consider this tragic response from the editor of the US magazine Skeptical Inquirer when faced with declining readership. Despite its name, the Skeptical Inquirer has tended to adopt a none-too-sceptical position on AGW. This has annoyed one or two readers who have been cancelling their subscriptions in disgust. The editor Kendrick Frazier seems to imagine that this is not a reflection on his editorial policy but on his readership’s ‘false consciousness’ – as he shows in this robust editorial: (hat tip: Philip Thomas)

This is the third SI reader who has canceled his (it’s always a male) subscription over our climate change pieces in the current SI (not to mention the at least six who did so after our first round of articles several years ago). Boy, they don’t want to hear anything they disagree with, do they.

It is clear the anti-GW science crowd have their minds made up, and nothing anyone is going to say, no appeal to scientific evidence, no attempt to place things into an accurate context, no attempt to point out that many media and blog portrayals are not always fully accurate, no facts, no explanations, no attempts to show they themselves are being manipulated, nothing is ever going to change their minds. Very much like the evolution/creationist controversy, except that these are some of our longtime readers.

They do not want to engage forthrightly with factual, science-based statements or arguments. They only want their own views reinforced. There is no attempt at open-minded discussion or even fair argument. Just a determination to maintain their ideological purity and not have it be contaminated with any scientific information and perspective that doesn’t support their presuppositions. They want to draw a don’t-tell-me-anything-I-don’t-want-to-hear cocoon around themselves. Unfortunately, that cocoon is growing ever larger. And they know they are punishing us, because, even more than most publications, which have advertising, we depend mostly on subscription revenue.

Guess we should just go along with the crowd, the lynch mob. Hop on the bandwagon. Slam those damned ignorant climatologists coming up with all that nonsense about changing climate and a warming planet. Who needs science anyway?

All this is a roundabout way of answering one of my editors’ kind suggestions that I respond to this morning’s front page story in which some desperate scientists at the embarrassing, useless and parti pris Met Office have apparently attempted to repair their creaky, wheel-less AGW bandwagon with a hurried new botch job report. Sorry, but I don’t think many of us are going to fall for this nonsense any more.

Monbiot tried it on yesterday with his free two and half minute propaganda broadcast generously funded by the BBC’s The Daily Politics show in which he rehashed all his old arguments (man’s selfishness, rising sea-levels, plight of the poor, wind farms, blah di blah di blah) as though Climategate, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate, Amazongate, Africagate et al had never happened. Now the MET office is having a go.

Sorry chaps, it won’t wash. The debate has moved on. It’s not about “the science” any more. (Not that it ever was). It’s about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government.
On all of which, more later….

COMMENTS
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#90
I've always been suspicious of Monbiot. Peer reviewed ? Science is in a mess because their ideal Scientific method does not exist accept maybe in a few isolated fields.

Quote:Quote:
The larger issue is how do we face the outside
world when they begin to criticize us for
suppressing data...
AstraZeneca· publications manager in internal
email 6 Dec 1999.

According to conventional wisdom, we are firmly
grounded in evidence-based medicine (EBM). While
many forms of data, such as clinical experience, case
studies, and uncontrolled trials can provide useful
information regarding patient care, the randomized
controlled trial (RCT) reigns supreme. As RCTs allow
the direct comparison of drug and placebo or of
various compounds to one another, their rigor exceeds
that of other forms of research [Sackett et al. l996).
As more and more RCTs are published in medical
journals, we gain a better understanding of what
works best. Interventions that fail to demonstrate
adequate efficacy and safety lose first line status and
are discarded over time. Patients, of course. benefit
immensely from this meticulous scientific evaluation
process, as they can rest assured that they are
receiving treatments that show the greatest benefit
and least risk. So the story goes. However, one could
argue that rather than EBM, we are actually now
entrenched in marketing based medicine (MBM), in
which science has largely been taken captive in the
name of increasing profits for pharmaceutical firms.
The case for MBM is based on several factors, each
of which influences the knowledge and practice of
medicine, including: suppression and spinning of ...

http://lancaster.mindfreedom.org.uk/tik ... ot_Common_

The real problem appears to be compartmentalisation of the issues. We're talking convergence here regardless if it's the FoM, Medicine, Climate change or Sociology. Greed and avarice has slimed it's way into so many important areas of human discourse poisoning the well. Far from being "just the way things are" this is a situation that needs solving so we can all move on. Those lost in it or too afraid to face the truth want us to believe that we have always had this situation. Yes, there have always been and always will be greed or hate and all the rest of human emotions and psychology but now something has run out of control in an atmosphere of lack of honesty and unwillingness to grapple with the difficult issues.
Advocating for the Space Elevator.<br /><br />User Anonymous revealed ! He is actually me (a previous account). Registered in 2001.<br /><br />~~ Where ever you are Samurai Jane, I miss you
Reply
#91
[Image: 6a00e008c6b4e58834012875e75520970c.jpg]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/ ... _back.html

May 10, 2010
Cap-and-Trade Is Back
By Brian Sussman
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#92
I think both sides are being rediculous.

That said, I recently spoke with someone who was doing a report on global warming. The interesting thing he said was that during his research, he found that one of the guys who was against man made global warming actually predicted a larger increase in sea level due to natural causes then the GW people were predicting due to mane made causes. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />

I find that funny and thats about all I have to say for now.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Reply
#93
http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-s ... or-a296746
Quote:German born chemist, Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser has published evidence that proves the Royal Society (RS), London, has been caught out making schoolboy errors in mathematical calculations over the duration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere. Backed up by a review by a leading Swedish mathematics professor the revelation is a serious embarrassment to the credibility of the once revered British science institute and a major setback for its claims about climate change.

A gaffe in their own basic calculations led the RS to falsely find that CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years rather than a dozen or so as per peer-reviewed studies show. Global warming skeptics have been quick to condemn the error and demand an apology and immediate correction.

The Royal Society advises the British government on matters concerning climate change. Due to the scale of the error any forthcoming review will necessarily result in a substantial downward revision of the threat posed by CO2 in the official government numbers.



Read more at Suite101: Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-s ... z12Xc5e0S6
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#94
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janet ... e-revenue/
Greek PM says it at last: carbon taxes are just another way to raise revenue
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#95
Quote:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetd...e-revenue/
Greek PM says it at last: carbon taxes are just another way to raise revenue

I would have thought that the "taxes" part gave that away.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Reply
#96
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ate-policy

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#97
the part that blows me away is that the eco-morons who support it are entirely on board with "wealth redistribution" but for some reason don't understand that the wealth is being redistributed from the poor to the uber rich.

Those morons are the poor!
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards...
Reply
#98
It's weird, there is a serious delusional disconnect from eco nazis and lefty socialist types.
To BELIEVE is to accept another's truth <br />To KNOW is your own CREATION. <br /><br />Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici<br /><br />Yep, I am so far left or right depending on how you look at it that I am a Anarchist.
Reply
#99
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -banks-oil

Oil companies and banks will profit from UN forest protection scheme

Redd scheme designed to prevent deforestation but critics call it 'privatisation' of natural resources
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)