Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
IPCC busted
#1
I see another thread containing complaints about the media not reporting.

Well here's a story that's getting some coverage:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en...991177.ece

Quote:
From The Sunday Times
January 17, 2010
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."
Reply
#2
This is what happens when you have a political body (IPCC) doing a Meta Analysis with built in bias,thus blunders should be expected.

I have long wondered why so many consider the IPCC a scientific body when the very name of the organization does not support it.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The organization members (governments) who chose scientists from their respective nations to be part of this contrived science,for the purpose of furthering their socialistic goals.

Yet a number of the chosen scientists protested the political manipulations on the early released reports and resigned,or made threats of lawsuits to have their names removed from the reports.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
Agreed. I never forget the fact that "government" is included in the name of the IPCC.

I also take note of what they call the summaries to their assessment reports. "Summary for policymakers". Not "Summary for the media", not "Summary for the public". They are specifically aiming their reports at "policymakers"....with the added inference that policy should be made. Not making policy isn't a part of the conversation.
Reply
#4
Here is how the great Pachauri sees things:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01...ciers.html

Quote:Meanwhile, Dr Pachauri, head of the parent research institute, TERI, and a "full-time salaried employee", is seeking to disown his own 2007 report. Despite having dismissed criticism of it by the Indian government as "voodoo science", he told an Indian news agency today that he washed his hands of the controversy saying he has "absolutely no responsibility".

Richard North of EU Referendum is digging the dirt on Pachauri and his dealings. It is well worth keeping an eye on his blog which makes regular climate related postings:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

Richard North often works with Christopher Booker and both publish in the Daily Telegraph:

Quote:The curious case of the expanding environmental group with falling income

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...ncome.html
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#5
Hi All,
Jo Nova has the story as well.
I mean the story that the media are beginning to wake up that is..

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/is-the-...awakening/
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#6
(01-18-2010, 01:04 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote: Richard North often works with Christopher Booker and both publish in the Daily Telegraph:

I've read their book, Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth. Good reading that.

Quote:The curious case of the expanding environmental group with falling income

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...ncome.html

The word "hide" makes another appearance in this scandal.
Reply
#7
I've never trusted the IPCC, they are nothing but a bunch of scam artists.
Reply
#8
In one of the skeptic videos ( I will see if I can find the link again), an expert on the Himalayan glaciers, of which there are over 8,000, claimed that there is 150 years of data on the recession of some of those glaciers and there has been no change in the rate of recession over all of that time frame.

Also found this excellent, unbiased, and thorough discussion paper on the subject:

http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-info...20_him.pdf

It proves the point that everything is extemely complex when it comes to climate and we are just at the beginning of our understanding of the many forces at work.
Reply
#9
(01-18-2010, 03:23 PM)mcclane Wrote: I've never trusted the IPCC, they are nothing but a bunch of scam artists.

My suspicion of the IPPC began when I observed the behavior of Dr. Watson,who was acting like an idiot.When a person is like that in a hot chair and supposed to be an accredited scientist,then I have no choice but wonder why such a blunder put there.

I wonder if that is the same man who recently called (ON THE AIR) Marc Morano an ASS****?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#10
Busted Again!!

Unlike US Journalists, British journalists are actually investigating IPCC claims. The latest is an expose destroying an IPCC claim that AGW is causing rain forest destruction. Article is in the British Telegraph , Jan 30, titled "Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC's failures "

You can read it here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...lures.html
Reply
#11
(01-31-2010, 06:58 PM)ajmplanner Wrote: Busted Again!!

Unlike US Journalists, British journalists are actually investigating IPCC claims. The latest is an expose destroying an IPCC claim that AGW is causing rain forest destruction. Article is in the British Telegraph , Jan 30, titled "Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC's failures "

You can read it here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...lures.html

Another gobsmacking report from the WWF!

Rolleyes
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#12
The best historical recounting in a single article of the source and history of the whole AGW scam, the players, and the fraud, that I have recently read can be found at

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/i...f_cli.html

Title: "IPCC: International Pack Of Climate Crooks " (Beautiful!!)
Reply
#13
Quote: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.

Well I tell you what,I was never convinced because I long ago saw through the baloney,that was the IPCC.

When they have embraced obviously bad science papers as gospel,consistently bragged of having 2,500 scientists (a lie) on the panel,push the mantra of consensus (a normal political game,not useful is science research) and have lousy idiots being chairmans of the IPCC body,I knew it was run on a river of baloney.

And now it is falling apart when their corruption and incompetence has come to roost.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#14
"And now it is falling apart when their corruption and incompetence has come to roost."

Hmm... I wonder. Over at GREENIE WATCH I read this entry about Maurice Strong and thought who he?

Quote:Bureaucratic Structure

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was specifically designed by Maurice Strong as a political vehicle to further his objective of crippling the industrial nations. An acknowledged master of bureaucratic systems he set up every segment of the organization for the maximum public relations effect. This meant emphasis on emotional impact, especially by exploiting fear. The first need was to direct and control the science. It was achieved at the 1985 meeting in Villach Austria chaired by Canadian bureaucrat Gordon McBean with Phil Jones and Tom Wigley from CRU in attendance. The second need was for maximizing the fear factor to force political action.

Given the connections in the above snippet I did a Bing on Maurice Strong.
Lots of hits!

I'll just quote a bit of history from this site:

Quote:Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future!

By Henry Lamb
January, 1997

....

Shortly after his selection as U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan told the Lehrer News Hour that Ingvar Carlsson and Shirdath Ramphal, co-chairs of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance, would be among those asked to help him reform the sprawling, world-wide U.N. bureaucracy. His first choice, however, announced in the Washington Post on January 17, 1997, was none other than Maurice Strong, also a member of the Commission on Global Governance.

....

My emphasis. Read more about Maurice Strong in the link above and about his contacts through the marxist/socialist world. I think I am beginning to understand why the enviromentalists never seem to condemn China even though they produce three times the CO2 "polution" of the USA.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#15
Hi All,
I just spotted this at WUWT,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/07/em...up-posted/

Gail Combs (06:25:25) :

Van Grungy (04:09:23) :

http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/29/19...-was-born/

Must be mentioned again…”

Thanks for the added info on the history of this hoax.

However it actually started with Maurice Strong at the UN First Earth Summit in 1972 , Mead just took the ball and ran with it.

“It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe. “

http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

And then there is the Margret Thatcher connection to AGW http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

The whole thing has had political roots right from the beginning, so it was never really pure science. Before 1972 there were several avenues of investigation as there should be but once the issue became a political football funding was directed at “politically correct science” Any other investigation had an up hill battle Exxon money or no Exxon money.

One wonders if the “Exxon funding” of deniers was a political ploy given the Rockefeller – Exxon connections and the Rockefeller foundations – Greenpeace/WWF connections. This type of setup used to confuse the public has been used before.

“…To further confuse the American people and blind them to the real purpose of the proposed Federal Reserve Act, the architects of the Aldrich Plan, powerful Nelson Aldrich, although no longer a senator, and Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank, set up a hue and cry against the bill. They gave interviews whenever they could find an audience denouncing the proposed Federal Reserve Act as inimical to banking and to good government… “ http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

Seems all is fair in love, war and politics.
------------------------------------------

and this absolute bueaty that must apply to the "physics" of the IPCC..

~”Anyone simultaneously following the development of politicized science and the science of politics has by now realized that there are times when the two are inexorably intertwined.

Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science Discovered

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science.
The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism.
Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.”
Posted by Mia Nony on 03/08 at 02:24 PM "

BTW - I do not seem able to post at WUWT. ?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#16
There is a link (copied below) on ICECAP to the following paper

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED
An Independent review of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
by John McLean

Here's the link:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...conned.pdf

This is a complete and detailed history of atmospheric CO2 science and what led to the creation of the IPCC along with the science and politics involved. Quite fascinating. McLean then discusses in detail the shinanigans of the IPCC and carefully documents the mistatements and omissions from the various Assessment reports and the characters involved in maintaining the AGW hysteria. If AGW believers are not skeptical about IPCC pronouncements on global warming after reading this, then there is no hope for them.

Here are the chapters


SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS .................................................................................. 3 PREFACE ................................................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 1 – THE DUBIOUS SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR ESTABLISHING THE IPCC ................. 7
CHAPTER 2 – FLAWED AUTHORING OF IPCC REPORTS .................................................... 26
CHAPTER 3 – FLAWED AND DECEPTIVE REVIEW PROCESS ................................................. 36
CHAPTER 4 – DECEPTIONS, CONCEALMENT, MISINFORMATION AND DISTORTIONS ................. 39
CHAPTER 5 – FLAWED TEMPERATURE DATA ................................................................. 46
CHAPTER 6 – FLAWED CLIMATE MODELS ..................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 7 – SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 62
CHAPTER 8 – RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 65
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Reply
#17
The behavior of Robert Watson who was the second chairman of the IPCC,made me realize that the organization was being built on political machinations.

That was in the early 1990's.

He was a scientist,but talked like a politician.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#18
[/i]One of the "scientists" who writes IPCC Reports. The fraud never ends!

From American Thinker website 3/19/11
IPCC guru was a student when writing 'authoritative' reports

Thomas Lifson

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports have motivated governmental action to cut carbon emissions, relied on an uncredentialed student named Sari Kovats for writing and supervising its supposedly authoritative reports. Donna Laframbois of NOconsensus.org brings us the shocking news.

In 1994, Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. She was 25 years old. Her first academic paper wouldn't be published for another three years. It would be six years before she'd even begin her doctoral studies and 16 years before she'd graduate.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this about how IPCC authors are selected:


There is a very careful process of selection...These are people who have been chosen on the basis of their track record, on their record of publications, on the research that they have done...They are people who are at the top of their profession as far as research is concerned in a particular aspect of climate change...you can't think of a better set of qualified people than what we have in the IPCC. [i]


Academically speaking, Kovats was invisible back in 1994. That anyone connected to the IPCC could have considered her a scientific expert is astonishing.

I'm sorry to say that that was just the beginning. When it came time to write the next version of the climate bible, Kovats received a promotion. She was selected to be a lead author, again for the health chapter - despite the fact that her doctoral studies wouldn't begin until the year the IPCC report was published.

What do we suppose happened with the next edition of the climate bible - the one that appeared in 2007, still three full years before Kovats earned her doctorate? Was she selected once again to be a health chapter lead author? You betcha.

But by then the IPCC, in its wisdom, had decided she was a scientific expert in other areas, as well. Kovats served as a contributing author for three additional chapters in Working Group 2:

Chapter 1 - Assessment of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and Managed Systems
Chapter 6 - Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas
Chapter 12 - Europe

She was also an IPCC expert reviewer.

So how does a neophyte suddenly beome the "top of [her] profession"? The great Andrew Bolt, of the Courier Mail/Herald Sun in Australia has a good answer:

Maybe she just has the right opinions
. [/i][i]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)