Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming Hysteri’

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 286

8 februari, 2010

Follow the money!

The report is here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

 

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-money.html

Climate money

Posted by Richard Monday, February 08, 2010

 Something to which some attention was given at the time – but not enough – is Joanne Nova’s report last July on ”Climate Money”.

It pointed out at the time that the US government had spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

This is especially relevant in view of the attempted smear by the Independent on Sunday yesterday, resurrecting the tired story of Exxon Mobile funding the sceptics.

Over ten years, the company paid a grand total of $23 million to sceptics (by no means the larger part of which was devoted to climate change) less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

Against that, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government had poured in $32 billion for climate research. In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher.

That, of course, is only the US picture – and government funding. To that, one must add the hundreds of millions, if not billions, poured in by the charitable foundations, and the massive funding from industry – much of which ends up in the pockets of advocacy groups such as the WWF.

Then, albeit on a smaller scale, we have other nations around the world adding to the funds. In the UK we have seen that the Met Office has been given £243 million of taxpayers’ money on ”climate research”, and that represents just the tip of the iceberg.

Despite the billions, Joanne Nova observes that ”audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

All this puts into perspective the claims that the current attacks on the IPCC and Pachauri are an ”an organised, systematic and vicious attack by powerful and well-funded lobbies in the developed world.”

In fact, our greatest strength is precisely that we are a ”largely uncoordinated grassroots movement”. If we ever became organised and ”coordinated” in the way that the climate lobby claims to be, we would lose much of our power. And there is some comfort in the knowledge that, despite the billions pumped into the climate propaganda machine, the warmists are losing the argument.

Thus, while you can assert that ”money talks”, conviction talks louder.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Annonser

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 285

8 februari, 2010

I just have to show this weather forecast from Friday in Baltimore

14 to 22 inches of SNOW blowing and drifting!

But what is a poor Meteorologist (Jim Kosek) to do when confronted with ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING?

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 3

8 februari, 2010

This is an answer to comments by SwanLake and a continuation of the discussion in my posts:

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2,

The HUGE difference between EU and USA in response to Haiti. and EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

There are other long time key players involved in this drive for one world government. Their arguments have varied but for the last 35 years environment, and now the Global Warming Hysteria, had been the main driving force behind it.

You will find that some of the key figures keep popping up in all of these organisations. In a complex web these organisations intermingle and cross support each other. Even if they are formally separate with slightly different agendas.

So in this post I will point to the Club of Rome and of Maurice Strong. Both key players in the planning and execution of these ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_rome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

Here is a long article about Strong from 1997:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v49/ai_19722906/?tag=content;col1

Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires. Through his published writings and public presentations he has declared his desire to empower the U.N. as the global authority to manage a new era of global governance. He has positioned his NGO triumvirite, the IUCN, WWF, and the WRI, to varnish U.N. activity with the perception of ”civil society” respectability. And now he has been appointed Senior Advisor to the U.N. Secretary General and assigned the responsibility of reforming the United Nations bureaucracy. The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.

http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html

And he is an ”intresting” figure to say the4 least.

Strong did business deals with arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, and wound up with a 200,000-acre ranch in Colorado – which his wife, Hanne, runs as a New Age spiritual colony called the Baca.

http://www.algerie-defense.com/2009/11/adnan-m-khashoggi-an-arms-dealer-returns-now-selling-an-image/

2005 Oil-for-Food scandal and hiring practice criticisms

In 2005, during investigations into the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food Programme, evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that in 1997, while working for Annan, Strong had endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to ”Mr. M. Strong,” issued by a Jordanian bank. It was reported that the check was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein. During the inquiry, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would ”sideline himself until the cloud was removed”. Strong now lives in Beijing.[14]

Strong was the UN’s envoy to North Korea until July 2005. According to Associated Press his contract was not renewed ”amid questions about his connection to a suspect in the UN oil-for-food scandal”, Tongsun Park, as well as due to criticism that he gave his stepdaughter a job at the UN contrary to UN staff regulations against hiring immediate family.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

See also http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126198672832_8/?hub=Canada

“In 1978, a mystic informed Hanne and Maurice Strong that ”the Baca would become the center for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.” The Strongs say they see the Baca, which they call ‘The Valley Of the Refuge Of World Truths ,'” as the paradigm for the entire planet and say that the fate of the earth is at stake. Shirley MacLaine agrees – her astrologer told her to move to the Baca, and she did. She is building a New Age study center at the Baca where people can take short week-long courses on the occult!

Apparently, the Kissingers, the Rockefellers, the McNamaras, the Rothschild’s, and other Establishment New World Order elitists all agree as well, for they do their pilgrimage to the Baca – where politics and the occult – the New World Order and the New Age – all merge. Watch Maurice Strong and watch the Baca!”

He told Maclean’s magazine in 1976 that he was ”a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” He warns that if we don’t heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.

In 1990, Strong told a reporter a scenario for the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland – where 1,000 diplomats, CEOs and politicians gather ”to address global issues.”

“Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead. What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?The group’s conclusion is ”no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse.
It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists – they’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davros as hostage. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…?

The journalist adds, ”and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out of the window. I sat there spellbound…. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.”

WEST magazine May, 1990 entitled ”The Wizard of the Baca Grande”:

“Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN.

He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda,” wrote Dewar.

He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn’t have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives.”

Strong prefers power extracted from democracies, and kept from unenlightened voters. Most power-crazed men would stop at calling for a one world Earth Charter to replace the U.S. Constitution, or the UN Charter.

But in an interview with his own Earth Charter Commission, Strong said ”the real goal of the Earth Charter is it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and commitments of people everywhere.” Sounds like Maurice was hanging out at his spirit ranch without his sunhat on. “

In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:

”This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”

In an essay by Strong entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation, he says:

Strengthening the role the United Nations can play…will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives.”

”The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”[8]

And here are some more quotes:

“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.

Licences to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child.”

“After all, sustainability means running the global environment – Earth Inc. – like a corporation: with depreciation, amortization and maintenance accounts. In other words, keeping the asset whole, rather than undermining your natural capital.”

“I am convinced the prophets of doom have to be taken seriously.”

Maurice Strong Interview BBC1972

From Jesse Ventura how was a believer:

How Strong since 2005 (after the UN scandal), moved to Beijing and became an agent for the Chinese government. And helps them to sell and trade carbon credits. Making another fortune for himself.

An interview about his book “Where on Earth are you going?” from April 24,2001

Maurice Strong’s unprecedented rise to power. From the CBC documentary ‘Life and Times’ (2004).

The documentary presents Strong in an very favorable and glowing light .But it give some interesting insights. Such as the influence of his socialist principal. And how he was vetted by globalist kingpin David Rockefeller in the mid-40s, at the United Nations headquarters in New York City, after Strong landed a job there with the help of people who had connections to the UN.

And here are some more quotes from previous posts about the goal behinf the Global Warming Hysteria:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 76

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

–          The Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution (1991) by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider – Page 75

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 39

The political stream was the pursuit of Maurice Strong and all those descendants of the Club of Rome including President Obama who want one world government with total control over everybody. That goal has not changed. The 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, Mankind at the Turning Point says, “It would seem that humans need a common motivation…either a real one or else one invented for the purpose…In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (my emphasis). H. L. Mencken’s comment that, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule” is validated.

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING – This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling

The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken

Here are some revealing quotes from some environmentalists. They are SOOOO humane are they not:

The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the ”Club of Rome”: In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.

—Lamont Cole

Poverty For “Those People”

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

—Carl Amery

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 284

7 februari, 2010

More on BBC, one of the high priest of spreading the Global Warming Hysteria. It seems that BBC:s pension funds ARE HEAVILY INVESTED IN COMPANIES PROFITING FROM THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA.

Isn’t it nice “journalism” – the more you scare and invoke fear in common people, the more you get in pension!

Nice touch for “public” broadcasting company financed by peoples licences fees.

Especially since the people you are scaring is THE ONES PAYING YOU!

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156703

                      

£8BN BBC ECO-BIAS 

Sunday February 7,2010

By Geraint Jones  Have your say(26)

STRIKING parallels between the BBC’s coverage of the global warming debate and the activities of its pension fund can be revealed today.

The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon.

The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit.

Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of  employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted.

The fund, which has 58,744 members, accounts for about £8 of the £142.50 licence fee and the proportion looks likely to rise while programme budgets may have to be cut to help reduce the deficit.

The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on  Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe.

Its chairman is Peter Dunscombe, also the BBC’s Head of Pensions Investment.

Prominent among its recent campaigns was a call for a “strong and binding” global agreement on climate change – one that fell on deaf ears after the UN climate summit in Copenhagen failed to reach agreement on emissions targets and a cut in greenhouse gases.

Veteran journalist and former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons is unhappy with the corporation’s coverage.

He said recently: “The corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’ when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t. It is, in effect, BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC’s environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard.

“I was not proud to be working for an organisation with a corporate mind so closed on such an important issue.”

Official BBC editorial policy governing how its correspondents should cover global warming was revealed after a member of the public wrote in: “I have heard reports that the BBC has decided not to broadcast any news or reports which disprove, disagree, or cast doubt on global warming theory. Could you provide some form of justification for this?”

In a reply dated October 26 last year, Stephanie Harris, Head of Accountability at BBC News, said: “BBC News takes the view that our reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.”

She went on to quote from a BBC-commissioned report published in June 2007, which said: “There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and that it is at least predominantly man-made. The weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to opponents of the consensus.”

Last month the BBC Trust announced an investigation after a string of complaints that the corporation was promoting the theory that climate change was a man-made phenomenon.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/african-hot-air.html

AFRICAN HOT AIR

>> Sunday, February 07, 2010

EU referendum’s Richard North leads the way yet again today in exposing that the IPCC 2007 report not only got it drastically wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers and disappearing Amazon rain forest, but also about serious food shortages in Africa. It’s deja vu – all over again! – because the IPCC report depended on inflated claims from a pressure group rather than scientific fact. The BBC, of course, as Richard points out, swallowed the bogus claims hook, line and sinker and in a chart about the impact of climate change, has this about Africa:

Projected reductions in the area suitable for growing crops, and in the length of the growing season, are likely to produce an increased risk of hunger. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.

But the BBC’s involvement in spreading these untruths about climate change in Africa goes much deeper and is much more sinister. As I pointed out last week, the World Service Trust, funded predominantly by grants from our taxes by the UK government and the EU, runs a scheme to ‘educate’ African journalists about the dangers of global warming, and to train them how to spread propaganda based on the premise that the West – as the main originator of CO2 emissions – is responsible for virtually all Africa’s woes. The Trust is deadly earnest in its mission, and recently published a lengthy and lavishly produced policy briefing on the topic. This, in the light of Richard North’s revelations, is a tissue of political proopaganda and misinformation. You need to read it it to realise the sheer scale of this lunacy. It beggars belief. Masquerading as ‘research’, it is actually a vitriolic polemic against the West. This is a taster:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) places Africa at special risk from climate change, in part because of its lack of capacity to adapt to changing environmental realities. Sufficient support to enable African governments and citizens to adapt to climate change will be a key ingredient of any successful international treaty. A major policy conclusion of this report is that meeting the
information and communication needs of African citizens should be considered as a critical component of adaptation strategies around climate change. Providing African citizens with the information they need to respond and adapt to climate change is just one component of probable forthcoming debates around climate change in
Africa. A central issue is one of environmental justice. African citizens will be among the most affected by climate change but are least responsible for the greenhouse gases that have caused it. They cannot make just demands on the rest of the world, or determine properly their own political and other responses to this emerging crisis, without being informed about its causes and its consequences. African citizens need better information on climate change, but they also need far better ways of communicating their reality and perceptions on the issue to those principally responsible for causing it.

Thus, the BBC is hard at work with your cash, hell bent on a political mission to persuade millions of Africans that a series of cobbled together lies are the truth. Its co-conspirators are the EU and the government.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/broken-trust.html

BROKEN TRUST

>> Thursday, February 04, 2010

The BBC World Service Trust is an arm of the BBC that receives £17.9m a year – mainly from the Department for International Development and the EU (52%)- to train broadcasters to spread messages about development. Some of what it does is vital and laudable; for example helping to spread knowledge about HIV/Aids through the development of soap operas that are actually listened to. However, and as in everything the BBC does, it is a big caveat, there is a sinister side to its mission. It campaigns loudly about ‘the environment’, and inevitably, where BBC folk are involved, that actually means about ‘climate change’. Take, for example, Africa Talks Climate (do you notice the missing word?)about which the organiser says:

The drive to help people understand issues such as climate change and to have the opportunity to speak and act is at the heart of our work…In a partnership project funded by the British Council, ten countries have been identified in which BBC WST researchers will be conducting research: DR Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. The major objective of Africa Talks Climate is to identify the entry points to engage, inform and empower Africans in local, national and international conversations about climate change. To achieve this, the initiative will collate opinions and then amplify the voices of people at all levels of society.

Interestingly, this was all done with the British Council, which as EU Referendum has pointed out today, is another government-funded body which has been infested with ‘climate change fervour.

Back with WST, their efforts extend to the eastern Caribbean and South America, but also to India. Here, the trust’s aim was again to train journalists:

An extensive training programme for journalists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) was carried out in nine Indian states to improve the quality and quantity of information published in the media and to create a better flow of information between environmental NGOs and the media.

Their partner in part of the enterprise was TERI (The Resources and Energy Institute) set up by none other than Ravendra Pachauri, the boss of the IPCC. TERI itself is not without controversy (to put in mildly), but, eh, this is ‘climate change’, so for WST, it’s simply ”our non-profit partner”.

Now I’m all for Indians and Africans (and anyone else) becoming more aware of the need to treat the environment properly. But this, folks, as we well know, is not really about that. It’s about the BBC pushing their ‘climate change’ lies and propaganda, and nothing will get in their way. The truth is that the World Service Trust, funded by our taxes, is busily at work persuading journalists round the developing world to spread lies and to hate the West for the injustices they have heaped upon them through CO2 emissions. The BBC, whose motto is ”Nation Shall Speak Peace unto Nation” is frantically stoking up hatred instead.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

 

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 283

7 februari, 2010

More on Pachauri, head of IPCC, and his business empire – Sorry, it should officially be a “Non Profit Charity Organization”.

Nice business model, first your scare the shit out of normal people, then you falsify and exaggerate claims, then your company gets grants to “study” these phenomena, then your company give back environmental awards to these companies that gave you grants, to show that ther ARE SOOO GREEN.

AND THEN YOU GET MORE GRANTS AND THE CYCLE CAN GO ANOTHER TURN.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177323/Climate-change-research-bungle.html

Climate change research bungle

The research institute run by the head of the UN’s climate body has handed out a series of environmental awards to companies that have given it financial support, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

By Robert Mendick and Amrit Dhillon, in Delhi

Published: 9:30PM GMT 06 Feb 2010

The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), of which Dr Rajendra Pachauri is the director-general, has given corporate awards to companies such as Pepsi and Honda, as well as Indian businesses.

Those same companies have given financial backing to Teri through grants or paid-for consultancy work.

According to Teri’s own website, Dr Pachauri and his wife are on the jury panel for the 2010 awards. Dr Pachauri has been on the jury panel for the awards in previous years.

The disclosure will lead to further questions over possible conflict of interest against Dr Pachauri, whose position as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is already under threat over errors in its reports.

The Department for International Development (DfID) has pledged to give Teri up to £10million in grants over five years but will subject the institute to an “institutional assessment”, expected to take at least five months, before handing over any of the money.

Among the companies that have received Teri corporate awards is Hero Honda, a joint venture between the Japanese car company and an Indian firm that manufactures millions of motorbikes every year.

It is described on the institute’s website as a major sponsor and was joint second in Teri’s Environmental Excellence Award in 2008.

Another major sponsor, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, won the Corporate Social Responsibility Award in 2004.

PepsiCo India, which received first prize in 2009 for its business response to Aids, pays Teri for a project studying water quality in a local community.

It has also emerged that Teri’s biggest single sponsor, BP India, which has provided £6million, paid for dinner and drinks at an event publicising Dr Pachauri’s debut novel. A BP spokesman said it was entirely legitimate to fund the dinner, the company having enjoyed a “long association with Dr Pachauri”.

He confirmed that the firm gave Teri $9.5million (£6.1million) between 2006 and 2009 for planting 8,000 hectares of jatropha, a type of bush, as part of a bio-diesel research project.

Dr Pachauri has repeatedly denied any conflict of interest between his work for the IPCC and his work for Teri. In a recent letter to The Sunday Telegraph, he said there was “no question” of either himself, the IPCC or Teri being influenced by associations with organisations.

Supporters of Dr Pachauri point to a series of projects that have had huge benefits across India. Coca-Cola, another Teri sponsor, was praised in 2008 when it agreed to close its bottling plant in Rajasthan after Teri informed the company that its operation was reducing groundwater levels at an alarming rate.

A former employee who spent two years at Teri said Dr Pachauri was continually concerned about funding.

At every single meeting I attended in two years, the only topic was funding,” she said.

The ex-employee gave a fascinating insight into the workings of the institute. When Dr Pachauri, who is described on his personal website as “an international statesman promoting climate change awareness”, marked his birthday a few years ago, the staff were shown a homemade video of their boss’s life story.

“I was appalled when they showed a 10-minute film on Pachauri,” said the ex-employee. “It showed Pachauri as an infant, Pachauri as a toddler, Pachauri at school, Pachauri playing cricket, Pachauri getting married. It was all about ‘Pachauri the Great’ and his achievements.”

There was a large cake and a birthday card “as big as a wall” dutifully signed by Teri-ers, as staff at the institute call themselves.

The man who effectively shapes world policy on climate change was born in 1940 in a hill station in northern India.

Dr Pachauri’s father studied for a doctorate in educational psychology at the University of London while his mother, according to Dr Pachauri’s home page, “educated and provided her son with the high standards that have enabled him to cope with his ever-increasing workload”.

He went to La Martiniere, a boarding school for the Indian upper middle classes. Cricket is an obsession and his website devotes a whole section to his achievements, detailing such landmarks as his 300th wicket.

The website declares: “Apart from being a professional medium pace bowler, Dr Pachauri is also a good top-order batsman and a fielder with a sharp catching arm.

“Batsmanship comes naturally to Dr Pachauri, who can be compared to the very best as a natural striker of the ball.”

Dr Pachauri graduated as a mechanical engineer and was chief engineer with the Diesel Locomotive Works before studying engineering and then economics in the US.

Returning in India in the late 1970s, he became director of the Tata Energy Research Institute.

Later, Dr Pachauri would unilaterally drop Tata from the title and now, according to sources, Tata, one of India’s largest conglomerates, wants little to do with him.

Teri brought him to worldwide attention and he was a lead author with the IPCC before becoming chairman in 2002.

Since his election and subsequent re-election, Dr Pachauri has opened himself up to accusations of hypocrisy, urging the population to follow in his footsteps and become vegetarians to cut down on methane while at the same time travelling the world, clocking up environmentally unfriendly air miles.

Last Monday he first gave an interview to The Economist where he declared he had no idea the size of his salary but later that day he told The Guardian he earned £30,000 a year. He lives in an inherited house reported to be worth millions in Delhi’s most expensive neighbourhood.

A DfID spokesman described Teri as a “globally respected institution”.

“Their accounts are externally audited and annually submitted to the government of India,” he said.

“As is routine, DfID is undertaking a full institutional assessment of Teri as part of our due diligence process.”

Teri did not respond to inquiries by The Sunday Telegraph.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 282

7 februari, 2010

Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s Director of Climate “Science”, was responsible for covering up the medieval warm period. And for reintroducing the scandalous and false ‘hockey stick’ graph in the 2007 IPCC report.

Now they are desperately trying to cover it up and illegally blocking FOI requests

In this cover up they have been helped by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth.

Interesting isn’t it

This is Global Warming Hysteria “science” at is best.

This is the famous “consensus” which all politicians, “scientists”, “journalist” and big companies have been trying to ram down our throats.

While at the same time they actively suppressing, smearing etc any one how dared to question the “science” or facts behind this cult.

See also http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/06/rose-on-fortress-met-office/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249035/How-Met-Office-blocked-questions-mans-role-hockey-stick-climate-row.html

How Met Office blocked questions on its own man’s role in ‘hockey stick’ climate row

By David Rose
Last updated at 8:20 AM on 07th February 2010

The Meteorological Office is blocking public scrutiny of the central role played by its top climate scientist in a highly controversial report by the beleaguered United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s Director of Climate Science, shared responsibility for the most worrying headline in the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning IPCC report – that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years.

And he approved the inclusion in the report of the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a steep 20th Century rise.

By the time the 2007 report was being written, the graph had been heavily criticised by climate sceptics who had shown it minimised the ‘medieval warm period’ around 1000AD, when the Vikings established farming settlements in Greenland.

In fact, according to some scientists, the planet was then as warm, or even warmer, than it is today.

Early drafts of the report were fiercely contested by official IPCC reviewers, who cited other scientific papers stating that the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate.  But the final version, approved by Prof Mitchell, the relevant chapter’s review editor, swept aside these concerns.

Now, the Met Office is refusing to disclose Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with his IPCC colleagues in response to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The block has been endorsed in writing by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth – whose department has responsibility for the Met Office.

Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.

Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled that scientists from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – the source of the leaked ‘Warmergate’ emails – acted unlawfully in refusing FOI requests to share their data. 

Some of the FOI requests made to them came from the same person who has made requests to the Met Office.

He is David Holland, an electrical engineer familiar with advanced statistics who has written several papers questioning orthodox thinking on global warming.

The Met Office’s first response to Mr Holland was a claim that Prof Mitchell’s records had been ‘deleted’ from its computers.

Later, officials admitted they did exist after all, but could not be disclosed because they were ‘personal’, and had nothing to do with the professor’s Met Office job.

Finally, they conceded that this too was misleading because Prof Mitchell had been paid by the Met Office for his IPCC work and had received Government expenses to travel to IPCC meetings.

The Met Office had even boasted of his role in a Press release when the report first came out.

But disclosure, they added, was still rejected on the grounds it would ‘inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank provision of views’.

It would also ‘prejudice Britain’s relationship with an international organisation’ and thus be contrary to UK interests.

In a written response justifying the refusal dated August 20, 2008, Mr Ainsworth – then MoD Minister of State – used exactly the same language.

Mr Holland also filed a request for the papers kept by Sir Brian Hoskins of Reading University, who was the review editor of a different chapter of the IPCC report.

When this too was refused, Mr Holland used the Data Protection Act to obtain a copy of an email from Sir Brian to the university’s information officer.

The email, dated July 17, 2008 – when Mr Holland was also trying to get material from the Met Office and the CRU – provides clear evidence of a co-ordinated effort to hide data. Sir Brian wrote:

‘I have made enquiries and found that both the Met Office/MOD and UEA are resisting the FOI requests made by Holland. The latter are very relevant to us, as UK universities should speak with the same voice on this. I gather that they are using academic freedom as their reason.’

At the CRU, as the Warmergate emails reveal, its director, Dr Phil Jones (who is currently suspended), wrote to an American colleague:

‘[We are] still getting FOI requests as well as Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions – not to respond.’

Last night Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the affair further undermined the credibility of the IPCC and those associated with it. He said:

‘It’s of critical importance that data such as this should be open. More importantly, the questions being raised about the hockey stick mean that we may have to reassess the climate history of the past 2,000 years.

‘The attempt to make the medieval warm period disappear is being seriously weakened, and the claim that now is the warmest time for 1,300 years is no longer based on reliable evidence.’

Despite repeated requests, the MoD and Met Office failed to comment.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 281

7 februari, 2010

“Contemplating the impenetrable maze of payments made by various ministries to the UN, the EU, banks, research institutes, teams of academics, NGOs, environmental and industrial lobby groups and ”charitable foundations”often through chains of ”funding vehicles” which may give only the most nebulous idea of their purposewe can get little idea what is the total amount of taxpayers’ money flooding out from all our different branches of officialdom.

The ministries involved have not seemed exactly keen to help sort out all these mysteries and confusions. What does seem clear is that our Government doesn’t really want us to know all the sums involved, who many of the recipients are or why most of these payments are being made in the first place.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

Climate makes money move in mysterious ways

The British Government has been pouring millions of pounds into ‘climate-related’ projects all over the world, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker

Published: 6:14PM GMT 06 Feb 2010

In all the coverage lately given to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its embattled chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, one rather important part of the story has largely been missed. This is the way in which, in its obsession with climate change, different branches of the UK Government have in recent years been pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into a bewildering array of ”climate-related” projects, often throwing a veil of mystery over how much is being paid, to whom and why.

To begin with a small example. Everyone has now heard of ”Glaciergate”, the inclusion in the IPCC’s 2007 report of a wild claim it was recently forced to disown, that by 2035 all Himalayan glaciers will have melted. In 2001 the Department for International Development (DfID) spent £315,277 commissioning a team of British scientists to investigate this prediction. After co-opting its Indian originator, Dr Syed Hasnain, they reported in 2004 that his claim was just a scare story. Some glaciers were retreating, others were not. There was no way they could disappear in a time-span shorter than many centuries.

Three years later, however, when the IPCC produced its 2007 report, it endorsed Dr Hasnain’s claim without any mention of the careful UK-funded study which had shown it to be false. What made this particularly shocking was that in 2008 another British ministry, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) announced that it had paid £1,436,000 to fund all the support needed to run the same IPCC working group which, as we now know from a senior IPCC author, had included the bogus claim in its report.

But the story did not stop there. In a report to Parliament the same year, Defra stated that its funding of the IPCC working group had been not £1.4 million but only £543,816. It was also in 2008 that Dr Hasnain was recruited by Dr Pachauri to work in his Delhi-based The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), where his spurious claim was used to win Teri a share in two lucrative studies of the effects of the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.

The trail into this tangled undergrowth began last December, when Dr Richard North and I were trying to track down 11 payments made by four separate government departments for projects involving Teri Europe, the London-based branch of Dr Pachauri’s institute. We were struck by how reluctant the ministries often seemed to be to reveal how much they had paid under these contracts. What’s more, why was UK taxpayers’ money being used to fund these projects in the first place?

Why in 2005, for instance, did Defra pay Teri for a study designed to help the Indian insurance industry make money out of the risks of global warming? Why was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) sponsoring a study into how Indian industry could make billions out of ”carbon credits”, paid by Western firms under the bizarre UN scheme known as the Clean Development Mechanism?

Typical of this curiously opaque world was a payment by Defra to fund the work of an unnamed ”head of unit” on something called the IPCC Synthesis Report, of which Dr Pachauri was co-editor. This money was paid to Cambridge University (department unnamed), to be forwarded to Teri Europe, then sent on to the anonymous recipient in Delhi, whose email address was Teri India. On one part of the Defra website this payment was given as £30,417. However, the same Defra report to Parliament which had under-declared the payment to the IPCC’s working group now gave this payment as only £5,800. (The IPCC itself meanwhile paid Teri a further £400,000 for its work on the Synthesis Report, although it was only 52 pages.)

The same Defra report to Parliament includes a whole string of other climate-change-related projects, covering three pages, many just as mysterious.

Why, for instance, have UK taxpayers shelled out £239,538 to unnamed recipients for a study of ”Climate change impacts on Chinese agriculture”? Or £230,895 for a ”research programme on climate change impacts in India”? Or £57,500 on the ”Brazilian proposal support group”?

The largest single payment on Defra’s list, and almost the only recipient identified, was £13,315,168 given to the Hadley Centre itself for its Climate Predictions Programme. This is just a tiny part of the money UK taxpayers have been contributing for years to assist the work of the IPCC: the Hadley Centre alone has been handed £179 million.

A key player in the setting up of the IPCC in 1988 was Dr John Houghton, then head of the Met Office. He persuaded Mrs Thatcher to fund him in launching the Hadley Centre in 1990, which has played a central role in the IPCC ever since. Part of the price we pay for Hadley exercising such disproportionate influence in the IPCC is that Britain has made a similarly disproportionate contribution to the cost of running the panel’s operations.

Then why should DfID have paid £30 million to assist ”climate change adaptation in Africa”; or £2.5 million for the same in China? Why in 2002 should UK taxpayers have given £200,000 to pay for delegates from developing nations to attend a ”Rio Earth Summit” conference in Johannesburg, and another £120,000 for green activists to attend the same shindig – let alone £10,000 for a ”workshop on women as ‘sacred custodians’ of the Earth”, to ”explore the spiritual, religious and philosophical views concerning women and ecology and the policy implications of these belief systems”?

Only rarely do the government departments funding all these shadowy activities shout pubiicly about how they are spending our money – as when last September DfID’s Douglas Alexander was happy to get publicity for flying to Delhi to give Dr Pachauri £10 million to pay for his institute to examine how India’s poverty could be reduced by ”sustainable development”.

Similarly, in 2008, our then energy minister Malcolm Wicks flew to Japan to boast that the UK was ”the world’s largest donor” to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, pledging another £2.5 million of taxpayers’ money, on top of £9 million Britain had already paid into this scheme since its launch in 2003. Again, more than one ministry is responsible for funding this programme, as when DfID pays for a ”research agenda on climate change and development”, while the FCO sponsors yet another study into ”clean development mechanisms”.

Contemplating the impenetrable maze of payments made by various ministries to the UN, the EU, banks, research institutes, teams of academics, NGOs, environmental and industrial lobby groups and ”charitable foundations”often through chains of ”funding vehicles” which may give only the most nebulous idea of their purposewe can get little idea what is the total amount of taxpayers’ money flooding out from all our different branches of officialdom.

The ministries involved have not seemed exactly keen to help sort out all these mysteries and confusions. What does seem clear is that our Government doesn’t really want us to know all the sums involved, who many of the recipients are or why most of these payments are being made in the first place.

Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs publishes an interesting note on the Money Laundering Regulations. This lists 26 ”suspicious indications” which should attract attention to the possibility that a financial transaction might need investigating. These range from ”checking identity is proving difficult” or ”reluctance to provide information requested” to ”unnecessary routing of funds through third parties” and ”transactions having no purpose” or ”which seem to involve unnecessary complexity”. Any such ”suspicious indications”, we are told, should prompt the filling in of a ”101 form” to report dubious financial dealings to the authorities. But a good many of them would seem to apply only too neatly to the veil of obscurity our Government draws over the astronomical sums it is paying out in support of its religious belief in ”climate change”.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 280

7 februari, 2010

First there where Glacier gate, then Catastrophe gate, then Amazon gate, then Netherland gate. And now Africa gate.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html

And now for Africagate

Posted by Richard Sunday, February 07, 2010

Following an investigation by this blog (and with the story also told in The Sunday Times), another major ”mistake” in the IPCC’s benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.

Similar in effect to the erroneous ”2035” claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.

At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.

Unlike the glacier claim, which was confined to a section of the technical Working Group II report, this ”50 percent by 2020” claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri. It has been repeated by him in many public fora. He, therefore, bears a personal responsibility for the error.

In this lengthy post, we examine the nature and background of this latest debacle, which is now under investigation by IPCC scientists and officials.

The tale unfolds

”Excellencies, members of the media, distinguished ladies and gentlemen! I speak to you in the voice of the world’s scientific community…”. So declared Dr R K Pachauri in his opening address to the climate summit in Potsdam last September.

In the name of that ”scientific community” which in November 2007 had completed the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) – ”the collective effort of almost four thousand of the world’s best specialists working tirelessly over five years” – Dr Pachauri larded his speech with examples of impending doom.

Thus he told the assembly that, by 2020, ”in some countries of Africa yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent”.

Crucially, this was not a random statement plucked from one of the working group reports but one highlighted in the ”gold standard” Synthesis Report (Section 3.3.2).

That report is based on the assessment carried out by the three Working Groups and provides ”an integrated view of climate change” as the final part of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It represents the considered view of the IPCC as a corporate body and is the part of AR4 which Pachauri had personally supervised as leader of the core writing team.

The rest of this very long post at

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

From The Sunday Times February 7, 2010

Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.

Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.

This report is the IPCC’s most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.

In it he wrote: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban.

Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pachauri said: “In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020.” In a speech last July, Ban said: “Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years.”

Speaking this weekend, Field said: “I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines.”

Watson said such claims should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report,” he said.

The claims in the Synthesis Report go back to the IPCC’s report on the global impacts of climate change. It warns that all Africa faces a long-term threat from farmland turning to desert and then says of north Africa, “additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-20 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)”.

“Agoumi” refers to a 2003 policy paper written for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian think tank. The paper was not peer-reviewed.

Its author was Professor Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan climate expert who looked at the potential impacts of climate change on Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. His report refers to the risk of “deficient yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000–20 period”.

These claims refer to other reports prepared by civil servants in each of the three countries as submissions to the UN. These do not appear to have been peer-reviewed either.

The IPCC is also facing criticism over its reports on how sea level rise might affect Holland. Dutch ministers have demanded that it correct a claim that more than half of the Netherlands lies below sea level when, in reality, it is about a quarter.

The errors seem likely to bring about change at the IPCC. Field said: “The IPCC needs to investigate a more sophisticated approach for dealing with emerging errors.”

Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.

More on Netherlands sea levels:

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/sea-level-blunder-enrages-dutch-minister

Sea level blunder enrages Dutch minister

Published on : 4 February 2010 – 9:24am | By Rob Kievit

A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

In fact, just 20 percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.

Climate-sceptic MPs were quick to react. Conservative MP Helma Neppérus and Richard de Mos from the right-wing Freedom Party want the minister to explain to parliament how these figures were used to decide on national climate policy. ”This may invalidate all claims that the last decades were the hottest ever,” Mr De Mos said.

The incorrect figures which date back to 2007 were revealed on Wednesday by the weekly Vrij Nederland. The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency told reporters that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) added together two figures supplied by the agency: the area of the Netherlands which is below sea-level and the area which is susceptible to flooding. In fact, these areas overlap, so the figures should not have been combined to produce the 55 percent quoted by the IPCC.

The discovery comes just a week after a prediction about glaciers in the Himalayas proved wrong. Rather than disappearing by 2035, as IPCC reports claim, the original research underlying the report predicted the mountain ice would last until 2350.

See also

http://www.rtl.nl/(/actueel/rtlnieuws/binnenland/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2010/02_februari/04/binnenland/blunders-van-klimaatpanel.xml

 

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 279

6 februari, 2010

From China Daily, which is widely regarded as an important tool of intra-government, intra-CCP communication.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-01/28/content_9388523.htm

Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC?

By Li Xing (China Daily)

Updated: 2010-01-28 07:49

While covering the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, I took a morning away from the main venue to attend a forum of ”climate skeptics”.

The speakers presented political, economic, and scientific analyses to counter the series of assessments by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A few of the skeptics went so far as to suggest that the current international drive to tackle global warming would eventually lead the world into some kind of ”energy tyranny”. One even showed a video clip of how ”energy police” would invade private homes in the American suburbs, unplugging and removing the owners’ microwave ovens, television sets, and other appliances.

I left the forum before the morning session ended. I felt that most of the speakers were too emotional and politically charged to be considered objective.

But I was impressed by the presentation of Dr Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, who challenged the IPCC findings with his research data.

In the next few days, I talked with several scientists, including Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair, and asked them about Singer’s data. All of these scientists brushed aside Singer’s arguments, saying that the IPCC’s primary finding is indisputable: ”Warming in the climate system is unequivocal”.

I believed the IPCC reports, which summarize the research of some 4,000 scientists, but I had some serious reservations. For one thing, the IPCC reports contained very little data from Chinese researchers. I was told the IPCC refused to consider Chinese data because the Chinese research was not peer-reviewed.

China is not a small country. Its landmass spans several climate zones and includes the roof of the world. I have to wonder how data from China would affect the IPCC’s findings.

Several Chinese scientists who have gone over the IPCC report believe that the IPCC may have overstated the link between global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.

In a paper published in the December issue of the Chinese language Earth Science magazine, Ding Zhongli, an established environmental scientist, stated that the current temperatures on earth look normal if global climate changes over the past 10,000 years are considered.

Ding’s paper highlighted the fact that in its policy suggestions, the IPCC offered solutions that would give people in rich countries the right to emit a much higher level of greenhouse gas per capita than people in developing countries. It in effect set limits on the economic growth of developing countries, which will result in furthering the gap between rich and poor countries.”

A series of ”climategate” scandals now add more reason to give the IPCC research closer scrutiny.

Last November, hackers revealed that some scientists had favored data which supports the case for ”global warming” in order to enhance their grant proposals.

Just last week, the IPCC announced that it ”regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures” in a claim that glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by 2035. Instead of coming from a peer-reviewed scientific paper, the statement was sheer speculation, the IPCC conceded.

Then over the weekend, the media revealed that the IPCC had misrepresented an unpublished report, which it said linked climate change with an increase in natural disasters. However, the author of the report, Dr Robert Muir-Wood, clearly stated the opposite: ”We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe loss.” Muir-Wood is not a climatologist, but a researcher in risk management.

I am particularly troubled by the fact that top IPCC officials do not seem to take these revelations seriously. Interviewed by the BBC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, dismissed the matter as a ”human mistake”.

Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three ”human” errors, isn’t it time scientists gave its work a serious review?

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 277

6 februari, 2010

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=520378

The Great Unraveling

Posted 02/05/2010 07:16 PM ET

Climate Change: Professional global warming alarmists better think about looking for new jobs. It looks like they’re in for a long, cold winter — and a frigid spring and summer as well.

Those who’ve been spreading global-warming fears must be waking up each morning and asking themselves: What’s going to happen today? A new revelation about the corruption of climate science has become almost a daily event.

On Thursday, the U.K.’s Telegraph reported that India was pulling out of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and forming its own agency to study global warming. Why? Because the Indian government feels it can’t depend on the IPCC’s work.

And why should it? The concerns about the IPCC’s accuracy are justified. A day after India’s announcement, the Netherlands asked the U.N. to explain why the IPCC had said in its 2007 report that 55% of the country was below sea level when the Dutch themselves have reckoned that only 26% of the nation is that low.

This is the same IPCC that said in the same 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 — though there’s no scientific study to confirm the claim. It was based on the hunch of one scientist who expressed his opinion to a reporter.

The IPCC withdrew the assertion when it became widely known that it was bogus. But if the panel hadn’t been called out, we suspect it would have kept mum.

Compounding the headaches for warm-mongers is a probe being launched by the British Parliament into the Climate Research Unit e-mail scandal. The inquiry is intended ”to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.”

This isn’t terribly fresh news, having been announced on Jan. 22 by Parliament. But news that casts doubt on global warming tends to move slowly, if at all, in the U.S. media. If not for the foreign press, the inquiry would be virtually unknown in this country.

That 2007 report helped the IPCC win a share of the Nobel Prize. But its work is looking less credible by the day. Can any of its claims be trusted?

Its authors — who merely compiled others’ work and did no research of their own — sure haven’t inspired confidence in their work. In fact, their blunders are quickly pushing the global warming farce toward a grand collapse.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 276

6 februari, 2010

I would call this a Climate Gate, Pachauri and IPCC effect.

This IS A HUGE SHIFT IN JUST 3 MONTHS.

And remember that in UK the press and media (BBC being one of the high priest), politicians and in school have been vigorously and relentlessly spreading the Global Warming Hysteria.

But now people have had enough of this scam.

The BBC poll here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/8500443.stm

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 275

5 februari, 2010

A long article by Matt Ridley in today’s Spectator saluting all of us bloggers who uncovered the greatest scientific and political scandal of modern times –the Global Warming Hysteria.

So I am very proud to be acknowledged as a global warming guerrilla. It’s a badge of honour.

Absit reverentia vero ”The truth shouldn’t be silenced to spare someone.” 

Se also my comment to Bill

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/climate-gate-%e2%80%93-all-the-manipulations-and-lies-revealed-271/#comment-6003

“Matt Ridley salutes the bloggers who changed the climate debate. While most of Fleet Street kowtowed to the green lobby, online amateurs uncovered the spin and deception that finally cracked the consensus

Journalists are wont to moan that the slow death of newspapers will mean a disastrous loss of investigative reporting. The web is all very well, they say, but who will pay for the tenacious sniffing newshounds to flush out the real story? ‘Climategate’ proves the opposite to be true. It was amateur bloggers who scented the exaggerations, distortions and corruptions in the climate establishment; whereas newspaper reporters, even after the scandal broke, played poodle to their sources.

It was not Private Eye, or the BBC or the News of the World, but a retired electrical engineer in Northampton, David Holland, whose freedom-of-information requests caused the Climategate scientists to break the law, according to the Information Commissioner. By contrast, it has so far attracted little attention that the leaked emails of Climategate include messages from reporters obsequiously seeking ammunition against the sceptics. Other emails have shown reporters meekly changing headlines to suit green activists, or being threatened with ostracism for even reporting the existence of a sceptical angle”

“Yet, this time round, despite 20 years of being told they were not just factually but morally wrong, of being compared to Holocaust deniers, of being told they deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity, of being avoided at parties, climate sceptics seem to be growing in number and confidence by the day.”

What is the difference?

In a word, the internet. The Climate Consensus may hold the establishment — the universities, the media, big business, government — but it is losing the jungles of the web. After all, getting research grants, doing pieces to cameras and advising boards takes time. The very ostracism the sceptics suffered has left them free to do their digging untroubled by grant applications and invitations to Stockholm. The main blog used by the Consensus, realclimate.org, exemplifies this problem, because it was set up by a PR company and is run by an employee of Nasa, who ties himself in knots trying to show that he does the blog in his spare time. It is also characterised by a tone of weary condescension and censoring of dissent that you do not find on most sceptic sites.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml

                                  

The global warming guerrillas

Matt RidleyWednesday, 3rd February 2010

Matt Ridley salutes the bloggers who changed the climate debate. While most of Fleet Street kowtowed to the green lobby, online amateurs uncovered the spin and deception that finally cracked the consensus

Journalists are wont to moan that the slow death of newspapers will mean a disastrous loss of investigative reporting. The web is all very well, they say, but who will pay for the tenacious sniffing newshounds to flush out the real story? ‘Climategate’ proves the opposite to be true. It was amateur bloggers who scented the exaggerations, distortions and corruptions in the climate establishment; whereas newspaper reporters, even after the scandal broke, played poodle to their sources.

It was not Private Eye, or the BBC or the News of the World, but a retired electrical engineer in Northampton, David Holland, whose freedom-of-information requests caused the Climategate scientists to break the law, according to the Information Commissioner. By contrast, it has so far attracted little attention that the leaked emails of Climategate include messages from reporters obsequiously seeking ammunition against the sceptics. Other emails have shown reporters meekly changing headlines to suit green activists, or being threatened with ostracism for even reporting the existence of a sceptical angle: ‘Your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists,’ one normally alarmist reporter was told last year when he slipped briefly off message. ‘I sense that you are about to experience the “Big Cutoff” from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.’

So used are greens to sycophancy in the television studios that when they occasionally encounter even slightly hard questions they are outraged. Peter Sissons of the BBC: ‘I pointed out to [Caroline Lucas of the Green party] that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment. We were having a particularly cold winter, even though carbon emissions were increasing. Indeed, there had been no warming for ten years, contradicting all the alarming computer predictions… Miss Lucas told me angrily that it was disgraceful that the BBC — the BBC! — should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views.’

Of course, reporters have been going native for decades. The difference is that they cannot now get away with it. When acid rain was all the rage in the 1980s, I was a science editor and I relayed all sorts of cataclysmic predictions from scientists and greens about its effect on forests. (Stern magazine said in 1984 that a third of Germany’s forests were already dead or dying and that experts believed all — all! — its conifers would be gone by 1990.) Today, we know that these predictions were wildly wrong and that far from dying out, forests in Germany, Sweden and North America actually thrived during that decade. I should have been more sceptical.

Yet, this time round, despite 20 years of being told they were not just factually but morally wrong, of being compared to Holocaust deniers, of being told they deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity, of being avoided at parties, climate sceptics seem to be growing in number and confidence by the day. What is the difference?

In a word, the internet. The Climate Consensus may hold the establishment — the universities, the media, big business, government — but it is losing the jungles of the web. After all, getting research grants, doing pieces to cameras and advising boards takes time. The very ostracism the sceptics suffered has left them free to do their digging untroubled by grant applications and invitations to Stockholm. The main blog used by the Consensus, realclimate.org, exemplifies this problem, because it was set up by a PR company and is run by an employee of Nasa, who ties himself in knots trying to show that he does the blog in his spare time. It is also characterised by a tone of weary condescension and censoring of dissent that you do not find on most sceptic sites.

Contrast it with wattsupwiththat.com, a site founded in November 2006 by a former Californian television weather forecaster named Anthony Watts. Dedicated at first to getting people to photograph weather stations to discover how poorly sited many of them are, the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians.

Or take a book published last month called The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, a rattling good detective story and a detailed and brilliant piece of science writing. Montford has never worked in the media. He is an accountant and science publisher who works from his home in Milnathort in Kinrossshire. He runs a blog called ‘Bishop Hill’.

Montford came to the subject in 2005 when he read a blog post by another amateur non-journalist named Tim Worstall, a scandium dealer who lives in Portugal (I am not making this up), who was in turn passing on news of another blogger’s work: Stephen McIntyre, a retired mining consultant and keen squash player in Toronto. Because he keeps catching errors in their work, McIntyre is the sceptic the climate scientists most love to hate, even though he is scrupulously polite and insists that the followers on his website, climateaudit.org, are too. ‘A certain person’, the Climategate scientists called him in their emails, or ‘Mr Mc “I’m not entirely there in the head”’, or ‘the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science’.

Notice that all of these sceptic bloggers are self-employed businessmen. Their strengths are networks and feedback: mistakes get quickly corrected; new leads are opened up; expertise is shared; links are made. Prejudice and ignorance abound too, but the good blogs get rewarded with scoops and guest essays so they tap into rich seams of knowledge. When Montford first ran his now classic post called ‘Caspar and the Jesus paper’, about the shenanigans the IPCC had to resort to in order to get a flawed paper rebutting McIntyre into the peer-reviewed literature in time to use it in their report, word of mouth caused interest in his website to explode.

Mcintyre’s forensic dissection of the Consensus papers puts cosy scientific peer review to shame. Digging deep into data and computer programs, he has found myriad mistakes in both the statistical technique and the data used to make the famous hockey stick graph, which purported to show that recent temperatures were unprecedented in level and rate of change. But he has also uncovered a mistake in data that conveniently prevented 1934 being warmer than 1998 in America; the splicing together of the records of two Antarctic weather stations as if they were one; the smoothing of sea-level rise in a way that conveniently concealed its recent deceleration; the use of a Swedish lake sediment series upside down so it showed recent warming instead of cooling; and most recently the reliance of an attempt to resuscitate the hockey stick on a ludicrously small sub-sample of just 12 Siberian larch trees. That last one came about when Montford spotted that a scientist who had been refusing McIntyre access to data for ten years had published in a journal with a strict policy of archiving data. Montford tipped off McIntyre, who asked the journal to force the scientist to release the data, which he eventually did.

‘It seems inconceivable to the commentariat,’ says Andrew Orlowski of the online newspaper of the IT industry, the Register, ‘that scientists have prejudices too, and that the publication process (peer review) is not some Kitemark of quality but is vulnerable to being hijacked.’ Chip Knappenberger, who blogs at masterresource.org, believes the rise of blogs as repositories of scientific knowledge will continue if the scientific literature becomes guarded and exclusive. ‘I can only anticipate this as throwing the state of science and the quest for scientific understanding into disarray.’

When Climategate broke, the mainstream media, like knights facing archers at Crécy, mostly ran dismissive pieces reflecting the official position of the Consensus. For example, they dutifully repeated the line that the University of East Anglia’s global temperature record was vindicated by two other ‘entirely independent’ records (from Nasa and NOAA), which was bunk: all three records draw from the same network of weather stations. Editors then found — by reading and counting the responses on their blog pages — that there was huge and educated interest in Climategate among their readers. One by one they took notice and unleashed their sniffing newshounds at last: the Daily Express went first, then the Mail and the Sunday Times, last week the Times and this week even the Guardian.

For those few mainstream journalists who had always been sceptical — like Christopher Booker — it must be a strange experience, like being relieved after living behind enemy lines. Who knows, one day even BBC News may ask tough questions. But it was the bloggers who did the hard work.

Matt Ridley’s book, The Rational Optimist, will be published in May.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 274

4 februari, 2010

On RT News today 4 Feb 2010

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 273

4 februari, 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html

India to ‘pull out of IPCC’

India has threatened to pull out of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and set up its on climate change body because it ”cannot rely” on the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.

By Dean Nelson in New Delhi

Published: 3:47PM GMT 04 Feb 2010

The Indian government’s move is a snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.

The body and its chairman have faced growing criticism ever since as questions have been raised on the credibility of their work and the rigour with which climate change claims are assessed.

In India the false claims have heightened tensions between Dr Pachauri and the government, which had earlier questioned his claims. In Autumn, its environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said that while glacial melting in the Himalayas was a real concern, there was evidence that some were actually advancing despite global warming.

Dr Pachauri had dismissed the government’s claims as ”voodoo science”, but last night Mr Ramesh effectively marginalised the IPC chairman even further.

He announced that the Indian government will establish a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor the effects of climate change on the world’s ”third ice cap”, and an ”Indian IPCC” to use ”climate science” to assess the impact of global warming throughout the country.

There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report … [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses … they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.

”I respect the IPCC but India is a very large country and cannot depend only on [the] IPCC and so we have launched the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment (INCCA),” he said.

It will bring together 125 research institutions throughout India, work with international bodies and operate as a ”sort of Indian IPCC,” he added.

The body, which he said will not rival the UN’s panel, will publish its own climate assessment in November this year, with reports on the Himalayas, India’s long coastline, the Western Ghat highlands and the north-eastern region close to the borders with Bangladesh, Burma, China and Nepal.

”Through these we will demonstrate our commitment to climate science,” he said.

The UN panel’s claims of glacial meltdown by 2035 ”was clearly out of place and didn’t have any scientific basis,” he said, while stressing the government remained concerned about the health of the Himalayan ice flows.

”Most glaciers are melting, they are retreating, some glaciers, like the Siachen glacier, are advancing. But overall one can say incontrovertibly that the debris on our glaciers is very high the snow balance is very low. We have to be very cautious because of the water security particularly in north India which depends on the health of the Himalayan glaciers,” he added.

The new National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology will be based in Dehradun, in Uttarakhand, and will monitor glacial changes and compare results with those from glaciers in Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 272

4 februari, 2010

“In November 2009, hackers released thousands of e-mails from the CRU, going back years, and it is these e-mails that reveal the very unscientific, unethical activities I described above.

I feel I’ve been had.”

“I grew up admiring science and scientists. One of my favorite TV shows as a kid? Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. I took global warming seriously because I took scientists seriously and forgot that they are people, too, no less prone to vanity, piety or hubris than others. When I read about the CRU e-mails, a scandal now known as Climategate, I felt anger and disappointment, some of it directed at myself.”

“Fresh eyes need to look at the original data the CRU used, to see if they can independently find the same evidence for warming. But wait—that can’t be done. Somehow, the CRU managed to “lose” all its original data.

How’s that for an inconvenient truth?”

http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/February-2010/May-Cooler-Heads-Prevail/

Editor’s Page: May Cooler Heads Prevail

Climate-change scientists—so serious, so sincere, so … scandalous?

A. Kam Napier

If you write long enough, you will eventually have second thoughts about an article from your past. In our April 1996 issue, I wrote “The Angry Sky,” about the alarming impacts Hawai‘i expected from ozone depletion and global warming. You never hear about the ozone layer anymore, but global warming has come to dominate our conversations in ways I never imagined.

I never expected the terms “green,” “sustainability” and “carbon footprint” would be hurled at us daily, secular guilt crammed into every consumer choice. But I especially never expected that some of the leading scientists who argue the case for manmade global warming would be revealed as political partisans, who hid evidence against global warming, attempted to redefine the meaning of “peer-reviewed journals” to mean “only peers who agree with us” and, worst of all, conspired to delete data in anticipation of Freedom of Information requests.

Let me back up. Because of manmade global warming, I warned in 1996, that “sea levels could rise as much as three feet by the year 2100 … warming can lead to hotter and more frequent heat waves … stronger and more frequent hurricanes to Hawai‘i … endanger native plants species [and] coral reefs.” These dire predictions came from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia provide much of the IPCC’s analysis and predictions. In November 2009, hackers released thousands of e-mails from the CRU, going back years, and it is these e-mails that reveal the very unscientific, unethical activities I described above.

I feel I’ve been had.

One thing I could not have known in 1996 was that the IPCC’s warming predictions would be wrong. Mean global surface temperatures have not risen since 1998, and, by some measures, have dropped since 2001. The CRU e-mails show scientists trying to hide this decline, to give one detail—I don’t have room in this column to detail the extent of CRU’s shenanigans, nor could I tell the story as well as others, so please read this “Editor’s Page” online for links (see below).

This doesn’t necessarily mean manmade global warming is disproven. But it does deflate the certainty and moral righteousness of the Al Gores and the IPCCs of the world. At Copenhagen and in Congress, politicians have proposed massive disruptions to our economies and lifestyles in the name of halting global warming. It turns out they’ve been doing so, at least partly, with books that have been cooked more than the planet.

I grew up admiring science and scientists. One of my favorite TV shows as a kid? Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. I took global warming seriously because I took scientists seriously and forgot that they are people, too, no less prone to vanity, piety or hubris than others. When I read about the CRU e-mails, a scandal now known as Climategate, I felt anger and disappointment, some of it directed at myself.

People make these kinds of mistakes all the time, and the motives are no mystery. For the researchers, grant dollars and reputations are on the line. For reporters, global warming offers the thrill of covering The Biggest Story Ever Told, an appeal I could not resist. For politicians, it has offered an endless opportunity for grandstanding and power grabs. Convinced they are saving the earth—what could be more rewarding or important?—all three groups helped each other lose their minds.

It’s time for scientists to do what science is all about: check their work to see if the results can be reproduced. Fresh eyes need to look at the original data the CRU used, to see if they can independently find the same evidence for warming. But wait—that can’t be done. Somehow, the CRU managed to “lose” all its original data.

How’s that for an inconvenient truth?

Additional links:

Clive Crook, at The Atlantic Monthly, weighs in on Climategate, Nov. 20, 2009.

Glenn Reynolds (better known as InstaPundit), writes for The Washington Examiner about the internal Climategate emails and how they reveal the very poor quality of the data used in the computer models that predict warming tends,  Nov. 29, 2009.

A critique of the scientists involved in the scandal by an independent organic chemist, Dec. 1, 2009.

Reason Magazine looks at the scandal, Dec. 1, 2009.

The Telegraph reports on a Russian claim that British climate scientists have deliberately cherry picked data from Russian temperature station to exaggerate the case for anthropogenic global warming, Dec. 16, 2009.

The mainstream media comes under fire by its conservative critics for biased reporting, pointing out that some of the leaked emails show an AP reporter working with the CRU scientists as an ally against skeptics, rather than as an objective reporter,  Jan. 8, 2010

PajamasMedia reviews Climategate: The CRUtape Letters, the first book to tackle the issue, Jan. 20, 2010.

CNN reports that the IPCC has  admitted to using unsubstantiated claims that Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035, a false claim that is actually separate from the Climategate scandal, Jan. 20, 2010. Much more on this at ABC News, Jan. 28, 2010.

Climate Depot reports on the IPCC exaggerating temperature data specifically to affect the political discussion of climate change, Jan. 26, 2010.

London’s The Times reports that the University of East Anglia violated the Freedom of Information Act, but could not be prosecuted because this was revealed too long after the incidents, Jan. 28, 2010

The February issue of Scientific American attempts to dismiss Climategate as much ado about nothing. The article quotes IPCC head, Dr. Rejendra Pachauri, as lamenting how politicized climate change science has become. The article omits that Pachauri earns millions from countless business relationships in green technology companies—exactly how much, he won’t disclose.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 271

2 februari, 2010

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/osama-and-obama-on-global-warming/

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

EDITORIAL: Osama and Obama on global warming

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama said there was ”overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” In his most recent message to the world, Osama bin Laden said that climate change ”is not an intellectual luxury but an actual fact.” It’s nice to see these two leaders can agree on something.

The hitch is that the man-caused catastrophic global warming theory is dead, and it needs to be buried. Evidence had been mounting for years that there were problems with the global warming model; most telling was that the globe refused to warm up. Carbon emissions continued apace, but the world began cooling. This is why true believers abandoned the ”global warming” brand name and tried to shift the debate to the more ambiguous label ”climate change,” which is something the rest of us like to refer to as ”weather.”

The dam broke with Climategate when hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit revealed that global warming advocates had for years attempted to hide conflicting data and silence their professional critics. British authorities have determined that the university broke freedom-of-information laws by denying information to scientists seeking to check claims that global warming was caused by human activity.

Evidence is emerging that the data had been rigged all along. Russian analysts noted that British temperature calculations excluded data from 40 percent of Russian territory, much of which showed no increase in temperature in the past 50 years. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also cherry-picked data, cutting Canadian data sources from 600 to 35 and relying on only one monitor for all of Canada above the Arctic Circle. This was done even though Canada operates 1,400 weather stations, 100 of which are in the Arctic.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is having its own scandal regarding a finding in its Nobel Peace Prize-winning 2007 report that glaciers in India were rapidly disappearing. It is now revealed that this dramatic claim was based not on years of patient observation and research but anecdotes from a hiking magazine and a student’s master’s thesis. IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri knew about the erroneous information before December’s Copenhagen climate summit but maintained the falsehood. He even denounced a report from India that showed the glaciers were in far less jeopardy as ”unsubstantiated research.” Last month, Mr. Pachauri published a sexually explicit novel, further diminishing his professional reputation.

Climate scientists have to come to grips with some highly inconvenient truths. World temperatures continue to decline as carbon emissions increase. Chilly Scotland is facing its coldest winter in a century. Arctic sea ice is not vanishing. Polar bears are experiencing a baby boom. Water vapor appears to play as important a role in the climate as carbon emissions. Sunspot activity may be more important than both combined. Meanwhile, climate change fanatics seek to blame capitalism and productivity for global warming, global cooling, too much snow, not enough snow, hurricanes, tornadoes and even the Haiti earthquake.

The simplistic and increasingly discredited theory of carbon-based, man-caused global warming needs to be discarded, and the scientists who sought to squelch skeptics and artificially inflate their own reputations must be disciplined. Alas, Mr. Obama and Mr. bin Laden need to update their talking points.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 270

1 februari, 2010

Ahh… this great science.  AGAIN!  Now from New Zealand.

First you “tweak” and “adjust” the temperature data and then you simple throw away the records of what you have done.

Piece of cake – Global Warming is proved beyond ANY DOUBT!

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/02/breaking-news-niwa-reveals-nz-original-climate-data-missing.html

More major embarrassment for New Zealand’s ‘leading’ climate research unit NIWA tonight, with admissions that it ”does not hold copies” of the original reports documenting adjustments to New Zealand’s weather stations.

The drama hit the headlines worldwide in late November when serious questions were raised about the ”adjustments” NIWA had made to weather records. The adjusted data shows a strong warming trend over the past century, whereas unadjusted records had nowhere near as much warming.

NIWA promised to make its data and corrections fully available, but responding to an Official Information Act request their legal counsel has now admitted it cannot provide copies of the original adjustment records.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm

NIWA Unable To Justify Official Temperature Record

Monday, 1 February 2010, 4:02 pm

Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition 

NIWA Unable To Justify Official Temperature Record

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.

In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature.

“The only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,” said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC.

“NIWA’s website carries the raw data collected from representative temperature stations, which disclose no measurable change in average temperature over a period of 150 years. But elsewhere on the same website, NIWA displays a graph of the same 150-year period showing a sharp warming trend. The difference between these two official records is a series of undisclosed NIWA-created ‘adjustments’

Late last year our coalition published a paper entitled ‘Are We Feeling Warmer Yet?’ and asked NIWA to disclose the schedule detailing the dates and reasons for the adjustments. The expressed purpose of NZCSC was to replicate the calculations, in the best traditions of peer-reviewed science.

When NIWA did not respond, Hon Rodney Hide asked Oral and Written Questions in Parliament, and attended a meeting with NIWA scientists. All to no avail, and the schedule of adjustments remained a secret. We now know why NIWA was being so evasive – the requested schedule did not exist.

“Well qualified climate scientist members of our coalition believe that NIWA has forfeited confidence in the credibility of its temperature recording procedures, and that it cannot be trusted to try to cover up its own ineptitude by in-house adjustments. What is needed is open access in the public domain to all of the known reasons for post-reading adjustments to enable independent climate analysts to make their own comparative assessments of temperature variations throughout New Zealand since the middle of the 19th century,” said Mr Dunleavy

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

“The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

“But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.”

See also

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 269

1 februari, 2010

As a complement to my previous post about the Urban Heat Effect  (or Urban Heat Island) which according to the Global warming Hysterics doesn’t exist and in no way influences temperature measurements.

In this interesting study they have gone through previous studies of the urban heat effect from different places in North America.

“This informative study demonstrates that the UHI phenomenon can sometimes be very powerful, for in just twelve years the UHI of Houston grew by more than the IPCC contends the mean surface air temperature of the planet rose over the entire past century,”

“..making the rate of increase in extreme warm minimum temperatures at urban stations nearly three times greater than the rate of increase at rural stations less affected by growing urban heat islands.”

they determined the urban area to be 2.2°C warmer than the rural area. During this period, the mean daily urban-rural temperature difference increased with decreasing temperature.”

“that under calm conditions (< 2 m s-1) the daily urban-rural temperature difference was 3.2°C in the winter. Last of all, under simultaneous calm and cold conditions, the urban-rural temperature difference was observed to achieve hourly magnitudes exceeding 9°C.”

“the spatially-averaged temperature of the urban area of Barrow was about 2°C warmer than that of the rural area, and that it was not uncommon for the daily magnitude of the urban heat island to exceed 4°C.”

,” and that ”air temperature was also consistently and significantly higher at the urban site (14.8°C) compared to the suburban (13.6°C) and rural (12.7°C) sites.

“..creating an urban heat island with ”the peak of the high temperature dome exactly over the commercial area of downtown,” where noontime air temperatures were as much a 3°C greater than those of surrounding rural areas.”

“In conclusion, the results of these several North American studies demonstrate that the impact of population growth on the urban heat island effect is very real and can be very large, vastly overshadowing the effects of natural temperature change. In addition, over three decades ago Oke (1973) demonstrated (as has also been demonstrated by several of the studies reviewed above) that towns with as few as a thousand inhabitants typically create a warming of the air within them that is more than twice as great as the increase in mean global air temperature believed to have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age, while the urban heat islands of the great metropolises of the world create warmings that rival those that occur between full-fledged ice ages and interglacials!

So what have we learned about the urban heat island effect from data obtained in North America? We’ve learned that it is large and growing in large-and-growing cities, as well as in small towns. Given these undeniable facts, it is presumptuous in the extreme to believe that the global surface air temperature record of the last few decades has been adequately adjusted for small-town and large-city heat island effects; and we can thus be fairly confident that the true warming of the planet has likely been far less than what has been claimed by essentially all assessments of the phenomenon conducted to date.”

But remember that this Urban Heat Effect doesn’t exist according to the Global warming Hysterics and in no way influences temperature measurements.

Another great “triumph for science”.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/u/summaries/uhinorthamerica.php

Last updated 21 January 2009

Temperature (Urbanization Effects – North America) — Summary

——————————————————————————–

How significant are anthropogenic-induced temperature increases that are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions? In what follows, we briefly review what has been learned about this important subject from pertinent studies conducted throughout North America.

In studying the non-greenhouse-gas-induced urban heat island (UHI) of Houston, Texas, Streutker (2003) analyzed 82 sets of nighttime radiation data obtained from the split-window infrared channels of the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer on board the NOAA-9 satellite during March 1985 through February 1987 and from 125 sets of similar data obtained from the NOAA-14 satellite during July 1999 through June 2001. Between these two periods, it was found that the mean nighttime surface temperature of Houston rose by 0.82 ± 0.10 °C. In addition, Streutker notes that the growth of the Houston UHI, both in magnitude and spatial extent, ”scales roughly with the increase in population,” and that the mean rural temperature measured during the second interval was ”virtually identical to the earlier interval.”

This informative study demonstrates that the UHI phenomenon can sometimes be very powerful, for in just twelve years the UHI of Houston grew by more than the IPCC contends the mean surface air temperature of the planet rose over the entire past century, during which period earth’s population rose by approximately 280%, or nearly an order of magnitude more than the 30% population growth experienced by Houston over the twelve years of Streutker’s study.

A very different type of study was conducted by Maul and Davis (2001), who analyzed air and seawater temperature data obtained over the past century at the sites of several primary tide gauges maintained by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Noting that each of these sites ”experienced significant population growth in the last 100 years,” and that ”with the increase in maritime traffic and discharge of wastewater one would expect water temperatures to rise” (due to a maritime analogue of the urban heat island effect), they calculated trends for the 14 longest records and derived a mean century-long seawater warming of 0.74°C, with Boston registering a 100-year warming of 3.6°C. In addition, they report that air temperature trends at the tide gauge sites, which represent the standard urban heat island effect, were ”much larger” than the seawater temperature trends.

In another different type of study, Dow and DeWalle (2000) analyzed trends in annual evaporation and Bowen ratio measurements on 51 eastern U.S. watersheds that had experienced various degrees of urbanization between 1920 and 1990. In doing so, they determined that as residential development progressively occurred on what originally were rural watersheds, watershed evaporation decreased and sensible heating of the atmosphere increased. And from relationships derived from the suite of watersheds investigated, they calculated that complete transformation from 100% rural to 100% urban characteristics resulted in a 31% decrease in watershed evaporation and a 13 W/m2 increase in sensible heating of the atmosphere.

Now climate modeling exercises suggest that a doubling of the air’s CO2 concentration will result in a nominal 4 W/m2 increase in the radiative forcing of earth’s surface-troposphere system, which has often been predicted to produce an approximate 4°C increase in the mean near-surface air temperature of the globe, indicative of an order-of-magnitude climate sensitivity of 1°C per W/m2 change in radiative forcing. Thus, to a first approximation, the 13 W/m2 increase in the sensible heating of the near-surface atmosphere produced by the total urbanization of a pristine rural watershed in the eastern United States could be expected to produce an increase of about 13°C in near-surface air temperature over the central portion of the watershed, which is consistent with maximum urban heat island effects observed in large and densely populated cities. Hence, a 10% rural-to-urban transformation could well produce a warming on the order of 1.3°C, and a mere 2% transformation could increase the near-surface air temperature by as much as a quarter of a degree Centigrade.

This powerful anthropogenic but non-greenhouse-gas-induced effect of urbanization on the energy balance of watersheds and the temperature of the boundary-layer air above them begins to express itself with the very first hint of urbanization and, hence, may be readily overlooked in studies seeking to identify a greenhouse-gas-induced global warming signal. In fact, the fledgling urban heat island effect may already be present in many temperature records that have routinely been considered ”rural enough” to be devoid of all human influence, when, in fact, such may be far from the truth.

A case in point is provided by the study of Changnon (1999), who used a series of measurements of soil temperatures obtained in a totally rural setting in central Illinois between 1889 and 1952 and a contemporary set of air temperature measurements made in an adjacent growing community (as well as similar data obtained from other nearby small towns), to evaluate the magnitude of unsuspected heat island effects that may be present in small towns and cities that are typically assumed to be free of urban-induced warming. This work revealed that soil temperature in the totally rural setting experienced an increase from the decade of 1901-1910 to the decade of 1941-1950 that amounted to 0.4°C.

This warming is 0.2°C less than the 0.6°C warming determined for the same time period from the entire dataset of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which is supposedly corrected for urban heating effects. It is also 0.2°C less than the 0.6°C warming determined for this time period by eleven benchmark stations in Illinois with the highest quality long-term temperature data, all of which are located in communities that had populations of less than 6,000 people as of 1990. And it is 0.17°C less than the 0.57°C warming derived from data obtained at the three benchmark stations closest to the site of the soil temperature measurements and with populations of less than 2,000 people.

Changnon says his findings suggest that ”both sets of surface air temperature data for Illinois believed to have the best data quality with little or no urban effects may contain urban influences causing increases of 0.2°C from 1901 to 1950.” He further notes — in a grand understatement — that ”this could be significant because the IPCC (1995) indicated that the global mean temperature increased 0.3°C from 1890 to 1950.”

Clearly, the meticulous efforts of this world-renowned climate specialist call all near-surface global air temperature histories into question. Therefore, until the challenge of very-small-town urban heat island effects is resolved, the so-called ”unprecedented” global warming of the past century, and especially the past quarter-century, cannot be accepted at face value. In all likelihood, the latter two warmings are artificially inflated.

Moving on, DeGaetano and Allen (2002b) used data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network to calculate trends in the occurrence of maximum and minimum temperatures greater than the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentile across the United States over the period 1960-1996. In the case of daily warm minimum temperatures, the slope of the regression line fit to the data of a plot of the annual number of 95th percentile exceedences vs. year was found to be 0.09 exceedences per year for rural stations, 0.16 for suburban stations, and 0.26 for urban stations, making the rate of increase in extreme warm minimum temperatures at urban stations nearly three times greater than the rate of increase at rural stations less affected by growing urban heat islands. Likewise, the rate of increase in the annual number of daily maximum temperature 95th percentile exceedences per year over the same time period was found to be 50% greater at urban stations than it was at rural stations.

Working on the Arctic Coastal Plain near the Chuckchi Sea at Barrow, Alaska — which is described by Hinkel et al. (2003) as ”the northernmost settlement in the USA and the largest native community in the Arctic,” the population of which ”has grown from about 300 residents in 1900 to more than 4600 in 2000” — the four researchers installed 54 temperature-recording instruments in mid-June of 2001, half of them within the urban area and the other half distributed across approximately 150 km2 of surrounding land, all of which provided air temperature data at hourly intervals approximately two meters above the surface of the ground. In this paper, they describe the results they obtained for the following winter. Based on urban-rural spatial averages for the entire winter period (December 2001-March 2002), they determined the urban area to be 2.2°C warmer than the rural area. During this period, the mean daily urban-rural temperature difference increased with decreasing temperature, ”reaching a peak value of around 6°C in January-February.” It was also determined that the daily urban-rural temperature difference increased with decreasing wind speed, such that under calm conditions (< 2 m s-1) the daily urban-rural temperature difference was 3.2°C in the winter. Last of all, under simultaneous calm and cold conditions, the urban-rural temperature difference was observed to achieve hourly magnitudes exceeding 9°C.

Four years later, Hinkel and Nelson (2007) reported that for the period 1 December to 31 March of four consecutive winters, the spatially-averaged temperature of the urban area of Barrow was about 2°C warmer than that of the rural area, and that it was not uncommon for the daily magnitude of the urban heat island to exceed 4°C. In fact, they say that on some days the magnitude of the urban heat island exceeded 6°C, and that values in excess of 8°C were sometimes recorded, while noting that the warmest individual site temperatures were ”consistently observed in the urban core area.”

These results indicate just how difficult it is to measure a background global temperature increase that is believed to have been less than 1°C over the past century (representing a warming of less than 0.1°C per decade), when the presence of a mere 4500 people can create a winter heat island that may be two orders of magnitude greater than the signal being sought. Clearly, there is no way that temperature measurements made within the range of influence of even a small village can be adjusted to the degree of accuracy that is required to reveal the true magnitude of the pristine rural temperature change.

Moving south, we find Ziska et al. (2004) working within and around Baltimore, Maryland, where they characterized the gradual changes that occur in a number of environmental variables as one moves from a rural location (a farm approximately 50 km from the city center) to a suburban location (a park approximately 10 km from the city center) to an urban location (the Baltimore Science Center approximately 0.5 km from the city center). At each of these locations, four 2 x 2 m plots were excavated to a depth of about 1.1 m, after which they were filled with identical soils, the top layers of which contained seeds of naturally-occurring plants of the area. These seeds sprouted in the spring of the year, and the plants they produced were allowed to grow until they senesced in the fall, after which all of them were cut at ground level, removed, dried and weighed.

Ziska et al. report that along the rural-to-suburban-to-urban transect, the only consistent differences in the environmental variables they measured were a rural-to-urban increase of 21% in average daytime atmospheric CO2 concentration and increases of 1.6 and 3.3°C in maximum (daytime) and minimum (nighttime) daily temperatures, respectively, which changes, in their words, are ”consistent with most short-term (~50 year) global change scenarios regarding CO2 concentration and air temperature.” In addition, they determined that ”productivity, determined as final above-ground biomass, and maximum plant height were positively affected by daytime and soil temperatures as well as enhanced CO2, increasing 60 and 115% for the suburban and urban sites, respectively, relative to the rural site.”

The three researchers say their results suggest that ”urban environments may act as a reasonable surrogate for investigating future climatic change in vegetative communities,” and those results indicate that the twin evils of the radical environmentalist movement (rising air temperatures and CO2 concentrations) tend to produce dramatic increases in the productivity of the natural ecosystems typical of the greater Baltimore area and, by inference, probably those of many other areas as well.

Three years later, George et al. (2007) reported on five years of work at the same three transect locations, stating that ”atmospheric CO2 was consistently and significantly increased on average by 66 ppm from the rural to the urban site over the five years of the study,” and that ”air temperature was also consistently and significantly higher at the urban site (14.8°C) compared to the suburban (13.6°C) and rural (12.7°C) sites.” And they again noted that the increases in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature they observed ”are similar to changes predicted in the short term with global climate change, therefore providing an environment suitable for studying future effects of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems,” specifically noting that ”urban areas are currently experiencing elevated atmospheric CO2 and temperature levels that can significantly affect plant growth compared to rural areas.” Consequently, for the 80% of the U.S. population that reside in urban areas, the future (environmentally speaking) is now, and it’s good for earth’s plants.

Working further south still, LaDochy et al. (2007) report that ”when speculating on how global warming would impact the state [of California], climate change models and assessments often assume that the influence would be uniform (Hansen et al., 1998; Hayhoe et al., 2004; Leung et al., 2004).” Feeling a need to assess the validity of this assumption, they calculated temperature trends over the 50-year period 1950-2000 to explore the extent of warming in various sub-regions of the state, after which they attempted to evaluate the influence of human-induced changes to the landscape on the observed temperature trends, and determine their significance compared to those caused by changes in atmospheric composition, such as the air’s CO2 concentration.

In pursuing this protocol, the three researchers found that ”most regions showed a stronger increase in minimum temperatures than with mean and maximum temperatures,” and that ”areas of intensive urbanization showed the largest positive trends, while rural, non-agricultural regions showed the least warming.” In fact, they report that the Northeast Interior Basins of the state actually experienced cooling. Large urban sites, on the other hand, exhibited rates of warming ”over twice those for the state, for the mean maximum temperature, and over five times the state’s mean rate for the minimum temperature.” Consequently, they concluded that ”if we assume that global warming affects all regions of the state, then the small increases seen in rural stations can be an estimate of this general warming pattern over land,” which implies that ”larger increases,” such as those they observed in areas of intensive urbanization, ”must then be due to local or regional surface changes.

Noting that ”breezy cities on small tropical islands … may not be exempt from the same local climate change effects and urban heat island effects seen in large continental cities,” Gonzalez et al. (2005) describe the results of their research into this topic, which they conducted in and about San Juan, Puerto Rico. In this particular study, a NASA Learjet — carrying the Airborne Thermal and Land Applications Sensor (ATLAS) that operates in visual and infrared wavebands — flew several flight lines, both day and night, over the San Juan metropolitan area, the El Yunque National Forest east of San Juan, plus other nearby areas, obtaining surface temperatures, while strategically-placed ground instruments recorded local air temperatures. This work revealed that surface temperature differences between urbanized areas and limited vegetated areas were higher than 30°C during daytime, creating an urban heat island with ”the peak of the high temperature dome exactly over the commercial area of downtown,” where noontime air temperatures were as much a 3°C greater than those of surrounding rural areas. In addition, the eleven researchers report that ”a recent climatological analysis of the surface [air] temperature of the city has revealed that the local temperature has been increasing over the neighboring vegetated areas at a rate of 0.06°C per year for the past 30 years.”

In discussing their findings, Gonzalez et al. state that ”the urban heat island dominates the sea breeze effects in downtown areas,” and they say that ”trends similar to those reported in [their] article may be expected in the future as coastal cities become more populated.” Indeed, it is probable that this phenomenon has long been operative in coastal cities around the world, helping to erroneously inflate the surface air temperature record of the planet and contributing to the infamous hockeystick representation of this parameter that has been so highly touted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One year later, Velazquez-Lozada et al. (2006) evaluated the thermal impacts of historical land cover and land use (LCLU) changes in San Juan, Puerto Rico over the last four decades of the 20th century via an analysis of air temperatures measured at a height of approximately two meters above ground level within four different LCLU types (urban-coastal, rural-inland, rural-coastal and urban-inland), after which they estimated what the strength of the urban heat island might be in the year 2050, based on anticipated LCLU changes and a model predicated upon their data of the past 40 years. In doing so, their work revealed ”the existence of an urban heat island in the tropical coastal city of San Juan, Puerto Rico that has been increasing at a rate of 0.06°C per year for the last 40 years.” In addition, they report that predicted LCLU changes between now and 2050 will lead to an urban heat island effect ”as high as 8°C for the year 2050.”

Last of all, and noting that a mass population migration from rural Mexico into medium- and large-sized cities took place throughout the second half of the 20th century, Jáuregui (2005) examined the effect of this rapid urbanization on city air temperatures, analyzing the 1950-1990 minimum air temperature series of seven large cities with populations in excess of a million people and seven medium-sized cities with populations ranging from 125,000 to 700,000 people. This work indicated that temperature trends were positive at all locations, ranging from 0.02°C per decade to 0.74°C per decade. Grouped by population, the average trend for the seven large cities was 0.57°C per decade, while the average trend for the seven mid-sized cities was 0.37°C per decade.

In discussing these results, Jáuregui says they ”suggest that the accelerated urbanization process in recent decades may have substantially contributed to the warming of the urban air observed in large cities in Mexico.” Once again, therefore, we are reminded of the huge magnitude of the urban heat island effect compared to the global warming of the past century, as well as the urban heat island’s dependence upon the nature of the urban landscape. And this fact further suggests to us that it is next to impossible to adequately adjust surface air temperature measurements made within an urban area to the degree of accuracy required to correctly quantify background or rural climate change, which may well be an order of magnitude or two smaller than the perturbing effect of the city.

In conclusion, the results of these several North American studies demonstrate that the impact of population growth on the urban heat island effect is very real and can be very large, vastly overshadowing the effects of natural temperature change. In addition, over three decades ago Oke (1973) demonstrated (as has also been demonstrated by several of the studies reviewed above) that towns with as few as a thousand inhabitants typically create a warming of the air within them that is more than twice as great as the increase in mean global air temperature believed to have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age, while the urban heat islands of the great metropolises of the world create warmings that rival those that occur between full-fledged ice ages and interglacials!

So what have we learned about the urban heat island effect from data obtained in North America? We’ve learned that it is large and growing in large-and-growing cities, as well as in small towns. Given these undeniable facts, it is presumptuous in the extreme to believe that the global surface air temperature record of the last few decades has been adequately adjusted for small-town and large-city heat island effects; and we can thus be fairly confident that the true warming of the planet has likely been far less than what has been claimed by essentially all assessments of the phenomenon conducted to date.

References

Changnon, S.A. 1999. A rare long record of deep soil temperatures defines temporal temperature changes and an urban heat island. Climatic Change 42: 531-538.

DeGaetano, A.T. and Allen, R.J. 2002. Trends in twentieth-century temperature extremes across the United States. Journal of Climate 15: 3188-3205.

Dow, C.L. and DeWalle, D.R. 2000. Trends in evaporation and Bowen ratio on urbanizing watersheds in eastern United States. Water Resources Research 36: 1835-1843.

George, K., Ziska, L.H., Bunce, J.A. and Quebedeaux, B. 2007. Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature across an urban-rural transect. Atmospheric Environment 41: 7654-7665.

Gonzalez, J.E., Luvall, J.C., Rickman, D., Comarazamy, D., Picon, A., Harmsen, E., Parsiani, H., Vasquez, R.E., Ramirez, N., Williams, R. and Waide, R.W. 2005. Urban heat islands developing in coastal tropical cities. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 86: 397,403.

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Glascoe, J. and Ruedy, R. 1998. A commonsense climatic index: Is climate change noticeable? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95: 4113-4120.

Hayhoe, K., Cayan, D., Field, C.B., Frumhoff, P.C. et al. 2004. Emissions, pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101: 12,422-12,427.

Hinkel, K.M. and Nelson, F.E. 2007. Anthropogenic heat island at Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001-2005. Journal of Geophysical Research 112: 10.1029/2006JD007837.

Hinkel, K.M., Nelson, F.E., Klene, A.E. and Bell, J.H. 2003. The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska. International Journal of Climatology 23: 1889-1905.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1995. Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Jáuregui, E. 2005. Possible impact of urbanization on the thermal climate of some large cities in Mexico. Atmosfera 18: 249-252.

LaDochy, S., Medina, R. and Patzert, W. 2007. Recent California climate variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature trends. Climate Research 33: 159-169.

Leung, L.R., Qian, Y., Bian, X., Washington, W.M., Han, J. and Roads, J.O. 2004. Mid-century ensemble regional climate change scenarios for the western United States. Climatic Change 62: 75-113.

Maul, G.A. and Davis, A.M. 2001. Seawater temperature trends at USA tide gauge sites. Geophysical Research Letters 28: 3935-3937.

Oke, T.R. 1973. City size and the urban heat island. Atmospheric Environment 7: 769-779.

Streutker, D.R. 2003. Satellite-measured growth of the urban heat island of Houston, Texas. Remote Sensing of Environment 85: 282-289.

Velazquez-Lozada, A., Gonzalez, J.E. and Winter, A. 2006. Urban heat island effect analysis for San Juan, Puerto Rico. Atmospheric Environment 40: 1731-1741.

Ziska, L.H., Bunce, J.A. and Goins, E.W. 2004. Characterization of an urban-rural CO2/temperature gradient and associated changes in initial plant productivity during secondary succession. Oecologia 139: 454-458.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 268

1 februari, 2010

Here is a very good example of the Urban Heat Effect  (or Urban Heat Island) which according to the Global warming Hysterics doesn’t exist and in no way influences temperature measurements.

It is from Reno, NV. And it shows the difference in temperature from the countryside outside the city to downtown Reno.

Wouldn’t you say that this effect is VERY BIG for “not existing”?

And don’t you think it has an impact on the official temperature measurements?

I have in previous post shown other examples of this “nonexistent effect” .  (See Central Park, New York).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/31/uhi-is-alive-and-well/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/29/uhi-is-real-in-reno-at-least/

      Click on the graph and it get’s bigger

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 267

31 januari, 2010

And more on IPCC and Pachauri in this editorial from a paper that used to spread the Global Warming Hysteria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7113594/We-need-facts-not-spin-in-the-climate-debate.html

We need facts, not spin, in the climate debate

Telegraph View: the case that global warming is man-made needs to be constantly tested and credible

Published: 7:00AM GMT 31 Jan 2010

The question of what, if anything, to do about global warming is one of the most important that humanity faces. Most people believe that the Earth is becoming warmer – but there are significant disagreements over the speed and extent of the process, the danger it poses, and its precise causes. The Government is convinced that the debate is over, won by the scientists who insist that climate change is the result of the carbon dioxide generated by human activity. It has now embarked on the project of ”decarbonising” the economy; since carbon-based energy provides most of our electricity and powers nearly all of our transportation, this is a colossal, and colossally expensive, task.

We need, therefore, to be very sure that our policy is based on an accurate diagnosis. But such certainty has become much harder to come by in recent weeks. A paper to be published in the journal Science by a team of researchers from America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggests that changes in the amount of water vapour high in the Earth’s atmosphere may affect the extent to which the planet heats up or cools down to a much greater extent than previously thought. That, of course, is something which those who doubt that man-made activity is responsible for global warming have long maintained. And other developments have struck not just at the data but at the trustworthiness of those presenting it. Our columnist Christopher Booker, among others, has highlighted that extent to which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose objectivity and neutrality most people thought could be taken for granted, has been caught acting like a pressure group. Not only did it insert into its latest report the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 – which has now been acknowledged to have no basis in fact – but, as we report today, it appears to have recycled observations on the dwindling levels of ice on mountains around the world from a climbing magazine and a student dissertation.

In its zeal to persuade the world of the catastrophic consequences of man-made global warming, the IPCC has lost both its objectivity and the trust of the public. That is one of the main reasons why we, along with our sister newspaper The Daily Telegraph, believe that Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman, should step down. This issue is far too important for there to be a scintilla of doubt about the reliability of the reports and raw data on which policy must be based. While Dr Pachauri remains in post, those doubts will remain.

As with every other scientific theory, the case that global warming is man-made needs to be constantly tested. Mr Booker and others have been enormously energetic in pointing out the weaknesses and uncertainties in the argument. Are the doubts enough to mean that the Government is proceeding from a false premise? There is no doubt that there needs to be a continued and vigorous debate on this topic – although there are, of course, additional reasons for decreasing our dependence on carbon, such as the need for energy security, the desirability of adopting more energy-efficient (and therefore cheaper) technologies, and the role of CO2 in the acidification of the oceans. Ministers’ insistence that those who question their presumptions are irrational and dogmatic does nothing to help bring about the consensus that is so sorely needed.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 266

31 januari, 2010

And more on Glaciergate and Pachauri and IPCC and their “science”.

“They raise more questions about why the IPCC ever took the claim seriously. It means the UN panel ignored scientific publications rejecting the rapid-melt theory in favour of claims that had been reported only in the non-scientific media and in a report by WWF, a conservation pressure group.”

“A furious Rees made the magazine publish a retraction in its letters page, describing Hasnain’s comments as a “gross misrepresentation”.

This weekend it emerged that the leaders of the IPCC had known for weeks and probably months about the error and had even convened private conferences to discuss it.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009707.ece

From The Sunday Times January 31, 2010

Panel ignored warnings on glacier error

Jonathan Leake

THE United Nations climate panel ignored warnings by leading scientists not to publish false claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

One warning, in 2006, a year before the report was published, came from Georg Kaser, an Austrian glaciologist who was a lead author on another section of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

He said: “I sent warnings to the IPCC telling them the claim about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was false.”

Another warning came from Gwyn Rees, a British hydrologist who oversaw a £300,000 study funded by the UK government in 2001 to assess the claims about rapid melt.

His findings were published in 2004 — three years before the IPCC report — and also showed there was no risk of rapid melt.

Rees said: “The sheer size and altitude of these glaciers made it highly unlikely they would melt by 2035.”

The new revelations follow a report in The Sunday Times this month which forced the IPCC to retract its claim that the glaciers in the Himalayas might be gone by 2035.

They raise more questions about why the IPCC ever took the claim seriously. It means the UN panel ignored scientific publications rejecting the rapid-melt theory in favour of claims that had been reported only in the non-scientific media and in a report by WWF, a conservation pressure group.

The saga began with Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist who issued the first warnings about rapid glacier melt in media interviews in 1999. He now works for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is run by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC.

It was those claims that prompted Britain to fund the study by Rees — who recruited Hasnain to help lead it.

Rees, a water resource scientist at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, a government research centre, said Hasnain had signed up to the study’s conclusions. These stated that any suggestions the region’s glaciers might soon melt “would seem unfounded”.

Hasnain was also in the audience at a seminar sponsored by the EU in 2004 where Rees gave a presentation suggesting there would be some glacial melt, but nothing on the scale suggested by Hasnain. His closing slide read: “It is unlikely that all glaciers will vanish by 2035!

That same audience also included representatives from WWF who were compiling their own report on glacier melt. Despite Rees’s warnings, they later decided to include Hasnain’s claims in their report, published in 2005, from where they were picked up by the IPCC.

In 2004, Rees had assumed the rapid-melt claims would not be repeated, but in May that year Hasnain gave an interview to New Scientist suggesting the UK-funded study had confirmed his claims of rapid glacier melt.

In it he said: “Global warming has already increased glacier melting by up to 30%. After 40 years, most glaciers will be wiped out and we will have severe water problems.”

A furious Rees made the magazine publish a retraction in its letters page, describing Hasnain’s comments as a “gross misrepresentation”.

This weekend it emerged that the leaders of the IPCC had known for weeks and probably months about the error and had even convened private conferences to discuss it.

The last such meeting was hosted by TERI in Delhi last month and was the scene of a confrontation between Hasnain and Professor Murari Lal, one of the lead authors of the glaciers section of the IPCC report.

According to the minutes, Hasnain defended himself by pointing out that he had not mentioned the 2035 date in any of his scientific papers.

This is true, but The Sunday Times has confirmed that Hasnain has repeated the claims in a series of media interviews over most of the past decade.

In 2007 he told the Indo-Asian News Service: “After 40 years, most of these glaciers will be wiped out and we will have severe water problems.”

Perhaps his biggest publicity coup came in August 2008 when he was interviewed by ABC, one of the giant American TV networks, suggesting that the Ganges, one of the world’s greatest rivers, would dry up by the middle of the century. He said: “We are going to be doomed in the future.”

Suspicions about Hasnain’s claims began to spread, and the Indian government sponsored a new report by V K Raina, the former deputy director-general of the Geological Survey of India.

That study, published last October, rejected the claim that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, saying: “It is premature to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating abnormally because of global warming.”

An IPCC spokesman said it regretted the error but pointed out that glaciers were still melting — albeit far more slowly than its report had suggested.

Hasnain could not be contacted for comment.

Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 265

31 januari, 2010

And more on Glaciergate and Pachauri and IPCC and their “science”.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/glaciergate-still-long-way-from-truth.html

Glaciergate – still a long way from the truth

Posted by Richard Sunday, January 31, 2010

Evidence is building that IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt by 2035 was not only a deliberate fraud, but efforts were made to cover it up when the figure was challenged.

Some of the pieces of the jigsaw are already there in the public domain, starting with Ben Webster’s piece in The Times on Saturday – which we analysed in this post. This made it clear that Rajendra Pachauri was appraised of what he now claims was a ”mistake” by an Indian science journalist, last November.

But the story is taken further by Jonathan Leake in The Sunday Times today, under the heading: ”Panel ignored warnings on glacier error”. There, he reports that the leaders of the IPCC had known for weeks and probably months about the ”error” and had even convened private conferences to discuss it.

Although he refers to the last of such conferences, which was hosted by TERI in Delhi last month (28 December), there is no mention of the fact that this was organised by the United Nations Environment Programme, the sponsoring body for the IPCC itself.

Although it was a pre-planned meeting, it turned rapidly into a crisis ”workshop” of international glaciologists, which decided that, ”the IPCC conclusion that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 may have to be revised … ”, adding that: ”there appears to be no scientific foundation for the IPCC’s prediction for the year 2035.”

Although Rajedra Pachauri is not listed as an attendee, his senior glaciologist, Syed Hasnain was there, and so was professor Murari Lal, one of the lead authors of the glaciers section of the IPCC report. In all, there were fifteen TERI personnel at the workshop, including Hasnain, and TERI University is cited as a collaborator in the production of the subsequent report (cover illustrated).

Given that the meeting was actually held in the TERI offices, with so many TERI personnel there, it is inconceivable the Pachauri – director general of TERI and chairman of the IPCC – was not appraised of its findings, especially given the importance of the issue.

Apart from the implications for the IPCC, what may of course have been preoccupying Pachauri was that, on 15 January, there was to be a high-profile launch of the collaborative programme on glacier research, funded by the Carnegie Corporation, at which the president of Iceland, Dr Ólafur Grímsson, was to be the star guest.

It takes little imagination to surmise that Pachauri would not want to be embroiled in a controversy over glaciers with such a prestigious event in the offing especially, as we see from Carnegie grant statement that the research project was based on Hasnain’s false claim that glaciers ”will vanish within forty years as a result of global warming … resulting in widespread water shortages.”

This brings us to Hansain himself, who was leader of the TERI glaciology team. Building on our work on the timeline of Hasnain’s claims, Leake makes it abundantly clear that not only were Hasnain’s claims false, but he knew them to be so.

In particular, as party to the Sagamatha study which was concluded in June 2004, Hasnain had signed up to the conclusions that suggestions the region’s glaciers might soon melt ”would seem unfounded”.

That Hansain persisted in his false claims, right up until September 2009, and then sought to defend the IPCC claim in the face of Raina’s report published in November 2009, is to say the very least, perverse – more so when the leader of the Sagamatha survey, Gwyn Rees, had re-emphasised in May 2009 that, ”It is unlikely that all glaciers will vanish by 2035!”

With Hasnain by then employed by Dr Pachauri’s TERI, and reliant on grant-funded work from the Carnegie Corporation and the EU ”High Noon” programme – which had been initiated on the basis of Hasnain’s false 2035 claim – there is a very obvious motive for Dr Hasnain to keep the controversy out of the limelight.

Thus it was that only after the falsehood had been ”outed” by Leake on 17 January, that Pachauri began to acknowledge that there was a problem, but then very grudgingly. Two days after the Leake report, all he would concede was: ”Theoretically, let’s say we slipped up on one number …”.

With Hasnain claiming he was ”misquoted” – which was never the case – and Pachauri maintaining that the inclusion of the figure was a mistake, this has all the hallmarks of a clumsy cover-up which continues to this day.

Exposing the Pachauri lie is lead author professor Murari Lal who told the UNEP workshop back in December, ”that it was wrong to assume, as has been done in sections of media that the year 2035 had crept in the report by mistake” (see inset, above right).

Yet even to this day, the IPCC is still talking about an ”error”, thus perpetrating the lie, and concealing from the public that false information was deliberately included in the IPCC report. ”Glaciergate”, it seems, still has a long way to go before we get to the truth.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 264

31 januari, 2010

I have written extensible about the UN pack, this travelling circus that fly around the globe in first class, or private jet, stay in hotel rooms at £400-500 per night in spa resorts, and gets wined and dined at expensive restaurants.

All of this of course paid by us, the normal people.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

Below is another example, this time from the high priest of Global Warming Hysteria, the head of IPCC Pachauri.

See also my posts:

The blatant hypocrisy from the UN pack and their jet set allies

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 59

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 75 

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 80

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 81

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 113

See also

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/do-as-i-say.html

And about Pachauris racy sex novel. Yep, the guy has time to write a racy novel during these last months.

“The chair of the UN’s panel on climate change Dr Rajendra Pachauri has taken a break from writing academic papers on global warming to pen a racey romantic novel.”

“In the acknowledgement of his novel, Dr Pachauri admits to writing the book while flying around the world between meetings as IPCC chairman or else in his capacity as head of a research institute in Delhi.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html

They even have an editorial comment on it

“It is also difficult to imagine that Dr Pachauri’s tale, its mass of concupiscence garnished with a little spiritual rhubarb, will arouse much erotic excitement among its readers. Slumber is all that seems likely to follow such pedestrian lines as:”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7113777/Sexed-up-dossiers.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247376/Controversial-climate-change-boss-uses-car-AND-driver-travel-mile-office—says-YOU-use-public-transport.html

Controversial climate change boss uses car AND driver to travel one mile to office… (but he says YOU should use public transport)

By Simon Parry

Last updated at 1:48 AM on 31st January 2010

He is the climate change chief whose research body produced a report warning that the glaciers in the Himalayas might melt by 2035 and earned a Nobel Prize for his work – so you might expect Dr Rajendra Pachauri to be doing everything he can to reduce his own carbon footprint.

But as controversy continued to simmer last week over the bogus ‘Glaciergate’ claims in a report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which he heads – Dr Pachauri showed no apparent inclination to cut global warming in his own back yard.

On Friday, for the one-mile journey from home to his Delhi office, Dr Pachauri could have walked, or cycled, or used the eco-friendly electric car provided for him, known in the UK as G-Wiz.

But instead, he had his personal chauffeur collect him from his £4.5million home – in a 1.8-litre Toyota Corolla.

Hours later, the chauffeur picked up Dr Pachauri from the office of the environmental charity where he is director-general – The Energy and Resources Institute blatantly ignoring the institute’s own literature, which gives visitors tips on how to reduce pollution by using buses.

Dr Pachauri – who as IPCC chairman once told people to eat less meat to cut greenhouse gas emissionswas driven to an upmarket restaurant popular with expatriates and well-off tourists just half a mile from his luxurious family home.

As he waited outside the institute office for Dr Pachauri, the chauffeur said: ‘Dr Pachauri does use the electric car sometimes but most of the time he uses the Toyota.’

The electric car might be kinder to the environment and more suitable for short trips, explained the chauffeur – who has worked for the environmentalist for 19 years – but it was simply too small for Dr Pachauri and a driver to share. ‘When he uses it, he has to use it by himself,’ he said.

At his office, Dr Pachauri has at his disposal four electric cars obtained by the institute last year from REVA – the Indian company that makes the G-Wiz cars seen in many British cities.

The institute bought the battery-powered cars with the express aim of reducing pollution on short trips by staff around town. One of those cars has been set aside for his personal use.

The chauffeur said Dr Pachauri’s family owned or ran a total of five cars. Dr Pachauri used three: the company Toyota, the REVA and an older ‘Ambassador-style car’ – a reference to the smoke-belching, Indian-made Hindustan Ambassador car, based on the vintage British Morris Oxford, that is a common sight at taxi ranks in Delhi.

The family’s two other cars are owned by Dr Pachauri’s wife and his grown-up son, also a scientist.

The five-star lifestyle and considerable wealth of Dr Pachauri – who is said to wear suits costing £1,000 each – has come under growing scrutiny since he was forced to acknowledge the error of the claims in an explosive 2007 IPCC report that the Himalayan glaciers might melt within 25 years.

The humiliating climbdown over the report, which was masterminded by Dr Pachauri and which led to the organisation sharing the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, was followed by calls for him to step down from the UN panel, which he has chaired since 2002.

On Friday, at the institute’s swish city-centre offices, where the foyer walls are covered with pictures of Dr Pachauri meeting politicians and dignitaries and receiving awards for his environmental work since he took up his role as its head in the Eighties, he declined to comment on recent calls for his resignation. He said: ‘I am very tied up – I am just too tied up to talk to you just now.’

His company’s manager for corporate communications, Rajiv Chhibber, later said: ‘Dr Pachauri is really stressed at the moment. The past two weeks have been very rough on him.

‘We have about 250 interview requests and he has to do all his usual work as well. We have the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit coming up in February and he has got a lot of work to catch up on.’

Another concern for Dr Pachauri could be the questions being asked about his portfolio of business interests in bodies that have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations – including banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds involved in carbon trading.

His institute is said to have received £310,000 from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5million EU grant after citing what have now been found to be the bogus Glaciergate claims in grant applications.

And there are signs in Delhi that Dr Pachauri – once fawned over by politicians and celebrities alike as a climate change luminary – is losing the support of some of his most powerful allies, including, critically, Indian government officials who previously used him as a key adviser.

Reports in Delhi last week suggested Dr Pachauri had been quietly dropped as head of a solar-power campaign being prepared by the prime minister.

The Golf Links area in Central Delhi where Dr Pachauri lives is named after the nearby Delhi Golf Course and is one of the most expensive residential areas in India. Every home in this gated community has its own security guard and it enjoys round-the-clock police patrols to protect its wealthy residents.

Dr Pachauri’s neighbours include a former prime minister’s son and senior Indian business leaders. Indian steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal, Britain’s richest man with an estimated £10.8billion fortune, owns a home in the same area.

Currently, homes of a similar size to Dr Pachauri’s are being advertised at prices of around £6million.

Explaining the area’s sky-high property prices, the director of an international property broker told India’s Economic Times: ‘This area has a certain snob value attached to it. Buying a house here means announcing to the world that one has arrived in life.’

Despite heading the UN body on climate change, Dr Pachauri has no background in environmental science. He began his career as a railway engineer, graduated in engineering and gained his doctorate in industrial engineering.

Dr Pachauri has four electric cars at his disposal

In an attack on Dr Pachauri in a Delhi magazine article on Friday, headlined The Great Climate Change Fraud, Indian commentator Ninad D. Sheth said: ‘Mr Pachauri has no training in climate science yet he heads the pontification panel which spreads the new gospel of a hotter world. How come?

Yesterday, in a statement from Mr Chhibber, Dr Pachauri insisted that he would not resign over the Glaciergate controversy – and, ironically, urged people to use public transport to help reduce global warming.

Dr Pachauri said people should take ‘practical lifestyle steps’ including ‘use of energy-efficient transport, including public transport – and in general become conscious of our carbon footprints as individuals’.

Asked why Dr Pachauri used a chauffeur-driven car, Mr Chhibber said: ‘He does use the REVA electric car whenever he can and he encourages the staff to use the other electric cars when they drive around town. He also encourages all his staff to pool cars when we can.

‘But sometimes the REVA is not practical. It may be he has to pick up other people. There is not so much room inside.’

When Mr Chhibber was asked why Dr Pachauri left the REVA in the car park on Friday, he replied: ‘I cannot comment on that.’

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 263

31 januari, 2010

And this editorial about IPCC and Pachauri from a paper that used to spread the Global Warming Hysteria.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7009653.ece

From The Sunday Times January 31, 2010

Bad science needs good scrutiny

Science and public policy can be uncomfortable bedfellows, as we saw last year with the sacking of Professor David Nutt, the government’s chief drugs adviser. Politicians, we know, can play fast and loose with “expert” evidence. But scientists, too, are neither infallible nor always pure of heart. Their findings must be open to scrutiny and challenge.

There have been two recent developments in which this newspaper has had a pivotal role. One concerned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

As is now conceded by the IPCC, a claim made in its influential fourth assessment report in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 “or perhaps sooner”, was wrong. The claim, based on an eight-year-old magazine report subsequently picked up by environmental pressure groups, had been challenged by scientists commissioned by the Indian government but their views were dismissed by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, as “voodoo science”.

If this was an isolated example, perhaps the matter could rest. But other sections of the IPCC’s report dealing with the impact of climate change are also in doubt. The scientific basis is thin for claims that global warming is responsible for a rise in the number or severity of extreme weather events such as hurricanes and was not based on peer-reviewed research, as we reported last week. Alarm bells should have rung much sooner when the IPCC began drawing on such “grey” science and claims by pressure groups to support its case.

We are not seeking to rubbish every claim by the IPCC or destroy the underlying arguments about climate change. The IPCC’s evidence on the physical science is extensively peer-reviewed and remains largely intact. But when scientists allow claims from pressure groups into the public arena, without checking the evidence, they let themselves and everybody else down.

That is also true of the case of Dr Andrew Wakefield and the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. For parents of children with autism, the idea that this was caused by the vaccine provided succour and the prospect of compensation. Many other parents refused to have their children vaccinated with MMR.

Dr Wakefield exploited these concerns ruthlessly, taking money from the parents’ lawyers for his researches, developing his own patented single measles vaccine and recruiting children for £5 a time at his son’s birthday party for experiments with, as the General Medical Council put it, “callous disregard” for their distress and pain. Some sections of the media have been criticised for spreading his claims but we should remember that they were first published in The Lancet after being peer-reviewed by scientists. Conversely, it was Brian Deer’s reporting for The Sunday Times which exposed this wrongdoing.

Dr Wakefield is finished in this country, thanks to the GMC, whatever his followers may think. Dr Pachauri is still head of the IPCC, although he presided over the use of dodgy science in its reports and ignored legitimate criticism of that science. He should go.

Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 262

31 januari, 2010

More on IPCC and Amazon gate.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece

From The Sunday Times January 31, 2010

UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim

Jonathan Leake

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri is fighting to keep his job after a barrage of criticism

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

This is the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. Two weeks ago, after reports in The Sunday Times, it was forced to retract a warning that climate change was likely to melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That warning was also based on claims in a WWF report.

The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

This weekend Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was fighting to keep his job after a barrage of criticism.

Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming — even though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world, remains strong.

The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.

In their report they suggested that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall” but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.

The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.

It said: “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state. It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.”

Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at Leeds University who specialises in tropical forest ecology, described the section of Rowell and Moore’s report predicting the potential destruction of large swathes of rainforest as “a mess”.

“The Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall,” he said.

“In my opinion the Rowell and Moore report should not have been cited; it contains no primary research data.”

WWF said it prided itself on the accuracy of its reports and was investigating the latest concerns. “We have a team of people looking at this internationally,” said Keith Allott, its climate change campaigner.

Scientists such as Lewis are demanding that the IPCC ban the use of reports from pressure groups. They fear that environmental campaign groups are bound to cherry-pick the scientific literature that confirms their beliefs and ignore the rest.

It was exactly this process that lay behind the bogus claim that the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt by 2035 — a suggestion that got into another WWF report and was then used by the IPCC.

Georg Kaser, a glaciologist who was a lead author on the last IPCC report, said: “Groups like WWF are not scientists and they are not professionally trained to manage data. They may have good intentions but it opens the way to mistakes.”

Research by Richard North

Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 261

31 januari, 2010

I had no time to post this yesterday so here it comes today.

“It was set up in 1988 by a small group of scientists all firmly committed to the theory of ”human-induced climate change”, and its chief purpose ever since has been to promote that belief.

The blatant bias of each of its four reports has been pointed out by scientists – notably the rewriting of key passages in its 1995 report after the contributing scientists had approved the final text. This provoked a magisterial blast from Professor Frederick Seitz, a former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, who wrote that in all his 60 years as a scientist he had never seen ”a more disturbing corruption” of the scientific process, and that if the IPCC was ”incapable of following its most basic procedures”, it was best it should be ”abandoned”.

“The centrepiece of the IPCC’s 2001 report was Michael Mann’s notorious ”hockey stick”, the graph purporting to show temperatures in the late 20th century soaring at an unprecedented rate – later exposed as a statistical artefact. Another new book, The Hockey Stick Illusion by A W Montford, brilliantly tells the bizarre tale of how Mann’s colleagues, calling themselves ”the Hockey Team” and now at the heart of the IPCC, managed to resurrect the discredited graph for inclusion in its 2007 report.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113582/Amazongate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html

Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC’s failures

The IPCC is beginning to melt as global tempers rise, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker

Published: 7:12PM GMT 30 Jan 2010

It is now six weeks since I launched an investigation, with my colleague Richard North, into the affairs of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the hugely influential body which for 20 years has been the central driver of worldwide alarm about global warming. Since then the story has grown almost daily, leading to worldwide calls for Dr Pachauri’s resignation. But increasingly this has also widened out to question the authority of the IPCC itself. Contrary to the tendentious claim that its reports represent a ”consensus of the world’s top 2,500 climate scientists” (most of its contributors are not climate experts at all), it has now emerged, for instance, that one of the more widely quoted scare stories from its 2007 report was drawn from the work of a British ”green activist” who occasionally writes as a freelance for The Guardian and The Independent.

Last week I reported on ”Glaciergate”, the scandal which has forced the IPCC’s top officials, led by Dr Pachauri, to disown a claim originating from an Indian glaciologist, Dr Syed Husnain, that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035. What has made this reckless claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report even more embarrassing was the fact that Dr Husnain, as we revealed, was then employed by Dr Pachauri’s own Delhi-based Energy and Resources Institute (Teri). His baseless scaremongering about the Himalayas helped to win Teri a share in two lucrative research contracts, one funded by the EU.

The source the IPCC cited as its ”scientific” authority for this claim, however (as Dr North first reported on his EU Referendum blog), was a propagandist pamphlet published in 2005 by the WWF, the environmentalist pressure group, citing a magazine interview with Dr Husnain six years earlier.

Dr North next uncovered ”Amazongate”. The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report, again citing the WWF as its authority, that climate change could endanger ”up to 40 per cent” of the Amazon rainforest – as iconic to warmists as those Himalayan glaciers and polar bears. This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain‘s two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging.

A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC’s report which cite similarly non-peer-reviewed WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority, and other researchers have been uncovering a host of similarly dubious claims and attributions all through the report. These range from groundless allegations about the increased frequency of ”extreme weather events” such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, to a headline claim that global warming would put billions of people at the mercy of water shortages – when the study cited as its authority indicated exactly the opposite, that rising temperatures could increase the supply of water.

Little of this has come as a surprise to those who have studied the workings of the IPCC over the years. As I show in my book The Real Global Warming Disaster, there is no greater misconception about the IPCC than that it was intended to be an impartial body, weighing scientific evidence for and against global warming. It was set up in 1988 by a small group of scientists all firmly committed to the theory of ”human-induced climate change”, and its chief purpose ever since has been to promote that belief.

The blatant bias of each of its four reports has been pointed out by scientists – notably the rewriting of key passages in its 1995 report after the contributing scientists had approved the final text. This provoked a magisterial blast from Professor Frederick Seitz, a former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, who wrote that in all his 60 years as a scientist he had never seen ”a more disturbing corruption” of the scientific process, and that if the IPCC was ”incapable of following its most basic procedures”, it was best it should be ”abandoned”.

The centrepiece of the IPCC’s 2001 report was Michael Mann’s notorious ”hockey stick”, the graph purporting to show temperatures in the late 20th century soaring at an unprecedented rate – later exposed as a statistical artefact. Another new book, The Hockey Stick Illusion by A W Montford, brilliantly tells the bizarre tale of how Mann’s colleagues, calling themselves ”the Hockey Team” and now at the heart of the IPCC, managed to resurrect the discredited graph for inclusion in its 2007 report. Montford’s book, if inevitably technical, expertly recounts a remarkable scientific detective story. And of course, it was incriminating leaked emails between members of the Hockey Team that were at the centre of the recent ”Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia.

Most disturbing of all are the glimpses the story gives of the inner workings of the IPCC, an institution now so discredited and scientifically corrupted that only those determined to shut their eyes could possibly defend it. This is now compounded by the recent revelations by Dr North and myself in these pages of how its chairman, Dr Pachauri, has built a worldwide network of business links which provide his Delhi institute with a sizeable income.

It is noticeable how many of those now calling for Dr Pachauri’s resignation, led by Professor Andrew Weaver, a senior IPCC insider, are passionate global warming believers. Fearing that Pachauri damages their cause, they want him thrown overboard in the hope of saving the IPCC itself. But it is not just Pachauri who has been holed below the waterline. So has the entire IPCC process. And beyond that – and despite the pleading of Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and the BBC that none of this detracts from the evidence for man-made global warming – so has the warmist cause itself. Bereft of scientific or moral authority, the most expensive show the world has ever seen may soon be nearing its end.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 260

31 januari, 2010

This is an update on my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 139

Now we have an update of the 30 year timeline of Cliamte Gate (1.1) thanks to Mohib Ebrahim plus four volonteers. Study it and read all the details of the biggest political and scientific scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria.

“When a first draft was published last December, many readers had excellent suggestions for improving it. So behind the scenes, Mohib and four more volunteers went to work. Thanks especially to Curt for revising and editing the entire timeline (as he’d done with the introduction), and to Tom, Stuart and Gene for help proofreading. It’s really been a monumental task and now, finally, for all those waiting for the chance to print and learn, here is the official edition. All pictures and links have been updated.”

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/finally-the-new-revised-and-edited-climategate-timeline/

Download the PDF here:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_banner.pdf

Download in A4 format as a PDF here:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_a4_full_size.pdf

Download in US letter size format as a PDF here:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_letter_full_size.pdf

Download in US Tabloid size format as a PDF here:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_tabloid_full_size.pdf

All downloads here plus other formats (A3, A2, A1 and A0, plus reduced sizes):

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 259

31 januari, 2010

First it was Climate gate, then Glacier gate, then Amazon gate. And now Mountain Gate. Based on VERY STRICT SCIENCE AND PEER REVIEW from anecdotes in a climbing magazine. And some more interviews and anecdotes from a dissertation.

Both of them “accidentally” climate change campaigners.

What a coincidence wouldn’t you say? Ah.. it’s so good to witness  pure science as it’s works.

This is IPCC peer reviewed “science”:

 

“However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps. “

“But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC’s use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: ”These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

”Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

”There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”

“Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC’s latest report, added: ”The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

”It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives”

But they missed the real story that the assertions made by the WWF paper are not in any way supported by the Nature paper and actively misrepresent its findings.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-professionals-write.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort

Published: 9:00PM GMT 30 Jan 2010

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.

This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.

But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC’s use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: ”These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

”Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

”There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”

The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government’s worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.

The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled ”Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming”.

It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.

The report also states that the section is intended to ”assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects”.

But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.

The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.

Mr Bowen said: ”I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes.”

The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.

It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.

One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.

In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.

In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.

When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.

The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.

A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel’s vice chairs. They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.

But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.

The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: ”The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed.”

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC’s latest report, added: ”The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

”It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives.”

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 258

31 januari, 2010

Below is as always an interesting article by Professor Philip Stott.

“For the moment, we must not underestimate the magnitude of the collapse. Academically, it is jaw-dropping to observe.

And, the political, economic, and scientific consequences will be profound.”

But I start with James Delingpoles comment to this article to which I only can say Hear Hear!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024416/climategate-time-for-the-tumbrils/

“I first met Professor Stott a couple of years ago. He’s emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London, and I tracked him down because in those days he was pretty much the ONLY senior scientific academic anywhere in Britain brave enough publicly to dispute the AGW ‘consensus.”

We had lunch. “There are many more scientists who think the way I do,” he told me. “But they don’t want to stick their heads above the parapet. They don’t want to lose their jobs.” We talked a bit about the loneliness of our position, how impossible it was to place dissenting articles anywhere in the media, how people who thought like us were treated like pariahs.

Now suddenly it has all changed utterly. And you know what? I’m in no mood for being magnanimous in victory. I want the lying, cheating, fraudulent scientists prosecuted and fined or imprisoned. I want warmist politicians like Brown and disgusting Milibands booted out and I want Conservative fellow-travellers who are still pushing this green con trick – that’ll be you, David Cameron, you Greg Clark, you Tim Yeo, you John Gummer, to name but four – to be punished at the polls for their culpable idiocy.

For years I’ve been made to feel a pariah for my views on AGW. Chris Booker has had the same experience, as has Richard North, Benny Peiser, Lord Lawson, Philip Stott and those few others of us who recognised early on that the AGW thing stank. Now it’s payback time and I take small satisfaction from seeing so many rats deserting their sinking ship. I don’t want them on my side. I want to see them in hell, reliving scenes from Hieronymus Bosch.

Yeah, maybe it isn’t the Christian way. But screw ‘em. It’s not as though they haven’t all been screwing us for long enough.”

http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html

Global Warming: the Collapse of a Grand Narrative

Saturday, 30 January 2010

For over a month now, since the farcical conclusion of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, I have been silent, partly through family commitments abroad in the USA, but also because, in this noisy world, in ‘The Clamour Of The Times’, it is on occasion better to be quiet and contemplative, to observe rather than to comment. And, as an independent academic, it has been fascinating to witness the classical collapse of a Grand Narrative, in which social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. It is like watching the Berlin Wall [pictured] being torn down, concrete slab by concrete slab, brick by brick, with cracks appearing and widening daily on every face – political, economic, and scientific. Likewise, the bloggers have been swift to cover the crumbling edifice with colourful graffiti, sometimes bitter, at others caustic and witty.

The Political And Economic Collapse

Moreover, the collapse has been quicker than any might have predicted. The humiliating exclusion of Britain and the EU at the end of the Copenhagen débâcle was partially to be expected, but it was brutal in its final execution. The swing of power to the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) had likewise been signified for some time, but, again, it came with precipitate ease, leaving even the American President, Barack Obama, with no doubts as to where the political agenda on climate change was now heading, namely to the developing world, but especially to the East, and to the Pacific Rim. The dirigiste tropes of  ‘Old Europe’, with its love of meaningless targets and carbon capping, will no longer carry weight, while Obama himself has been straitjacketed  by the voters of Massachusetts, by the rust-belt Democrats, by a truculent Congress, by an increasingly-sceptical and disillusioned American public, but, above all, by the financial crisis. Nothing will now be effected that for a single moment curbs economic development, from China to Connecticut, from Africa to Alaska.    

And, as 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.

The Scientific Collapse

And what can one say about ‘the science’? ‘The ‘science’ is already paying dearly for its abuse of freedom of information, for unacceptable cronyism, for unwonted arrogance, and for the disgraceful misuse of data at every level, from temperature measurements to glaciers to the Amazon rain forest. What is worse, the usurping of the scientific method, and of justified scientific scepticism, by political policies and political propaganda could well damage science sensu lato – never mind just climate science – in the public eye for decades. The appalling pre-Copenhagen attacks by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and his climate-change henchman, Ed Miliband, on those who dared to be critical of the science of climate change were some of the most unforgivable I can recall.

It is further salutary that much of the trouble is now emanating from India. Indeed, the nonsense written about the Indian Sub-Continent has been a particular nadir in climate-change science, and it has long been judged so by many experts on the region. My ex-SOAS friend and colleague, Dr. Robert Bradnock, a world authority on the Sub-Continent, has been seething for years over the traducing of data and information relating to this key part of the world. In June, 2008, he wrote:

“However, in my own narrow area of research, I know that many of the claims about the impact of ‘global warming’ in Bangladesh, for example, are completely unfounded. There is no evidence that flooding has increased at all in recent years. Drought and excessive rainfall are the nature of the monsoon system. Agricultural production, far from being decimated by worsening floods over the last twenty years, has nearly doubled. In the early 1990s, Houghton published a map of the purported effects of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Coming from a Fellow of the Royal Society, former Head of the Met Office and Chair of the IPCC, this was widely accepted, and frequently reproduced. Yet, it shows no understanding of the complex processes that form the Bengal delta, and it is seriously misleading. Moreover, despite the repeated claims of the World Wide Fund, Greenpeace, and, sadly, Christian Aid, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers is of completely marginal significance to the farmers of the plains in China, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. One could go on!”

The Media Collapse

One could indeed! But we may not need to do so for much longer. Why? Because the biggest collapse is in the media, the very ‘mechanism’ through which the greedy Global Warming Grand Narrative has promulgated itself during the last ten to twenty years.

The break in the ‘Media Wall’ began in the tabloids and in the ‘red tops’, like The Daily Express and the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, but it is today spreading rapidly – yet once more as theory predicts – to the so-called ‘heavyweights’ and to the BBC. In the past, uncritical and apocalyptic stories and programmes were given the highest prominence, with any sceptical comment confined to the briefest of quotations from some benighted, and often snidely-mentioned, sceptic squeezed in at the very end of the piece (“For balance, you know”). Today, the reverse is becoming true, with the ‘global warming’ faithful firmly forced on to the back foot. Yet, in our post-modern world, it is the journalistic language being employed that is the true indicator of a new media order. Listening to good old Roger Harrabin this morning, reporting on BBC Radio 4’s flagship ‘Today’ programme, was a revelation in this respect; the language, and even the style, had altered radically.

Potential Losers

The collapse is now so precipitate that there will inevitably be some serious losers caught out by it all. The UK Met Office could well be one, with the BBC rightly reviewing its contract with them. At the moment, Met Office spokespersons sound extraordinary, bizarre even. They bleat out ‘global warming’ phrases like programmed robotic sheep, although they are finding it increasingly difficult to pull the wool over our eyes. It is terribly 1984, and rather chilling, so to speak. It is obvious that the organisation is suffering from another classical academic state, namely that known as ‘cognitive dissonance’ [see here and here]. This is experienced when belief in a Grand Narrative persists blindly, even when the facts in the real world begin to contradict what the narrative is saying. Sadly, many of our public and private organisations have allowed themselves to develop far too great a vested interest in ‘global warming’, as have too many politicians and activists. These are increasingly terrified, many having no idea how to react, or how to adjust, to the collapse. It will be particularly interesting to witness how, in the end, the Royal Society plays its cards, especially if competing scientific paradigms, such as the key role played by water vapour in climate change, start to displace the current paradigm in classic fashion.

Certain newspapers, like my own DNOC, The Times, have also been a tad slow to grasp the magnitude of the collapse (although Ben Webster has tried valiantly to counter this with some good pieces); yet, even such outlets at last appear to be fathoming the remarkable changes taking place. Today, for example, The Times carries a brief, but seminal, critique of the ‘science’ from Lord Leach of Fairford.

What Will It Mean?

I have long predicted, and in public too, that the Copenhagen Conference could prove to be the beginning of the end for the Global Warming Grand Narrative. It appears that I may well have been right, and, indeed, I may have considerably underestimated the speed, and the dramatic nature, of the demise.

Where this all leaves our politicians and political parties in the UK; where it leaves climate science, scientists more generally, and the Royal Society; where it leaves energy policy; where it leaves the ‘Green’ movement; and, where it leaves our media will have to be topics for many later comments and analyses.

For the moment, we must not underestimate the magnitude of the collapse. Academically, it is jaw-dropping to observe.

And, the political, economic, and scientific consequences will be profound.           

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 257

31 januari, 2010

More on the total unreliability of the computer models which ALL THIS Global Warming Hysteria is based on.

I have written extensively about the climate models. How uncertain and unreliable they are, how their parameters are “tweaked” to fit this Global Warming Hysteria, how a lot of the important natural forces and parameters that are involved in “creating” weather and climate are not included etc.

These climate models who cannot predict the weather 2 weeks from now, or how the weather was 2 weeks ago.

And these are the models they want us to believe that they can “predict” the temperature within a tenth of a degree in 100 YEARS!

Now they discovered that water vapour does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE what the computer models predicted.

See also my posts

Not a single climate model could simulate realistically key features of the Indian monsoon

Climate Model biases are still a serious problem says IPCC scientist

GISS Climate Model already wrong after 5 years

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS

Climate computer models wrong on Mars, as on Earth

No climate model had ever been validated!

We can’t predict climate change

Why multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!

Mera om Klimat modellernas falsarium

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488

Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming

Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA.

2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.

——————————————————————————–

Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010.

And here is NOAA:s take on it:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 256

30 januari, 2010

A very interesting study about the Urban Heat Effect, which according to the Global Warming Hysterics doesn’t exist, in New York

At 0600 EST, ”the city was several degrees warmer than the suburbs, and up to 8°C warmer than rural areas within 100 km of the city.”

See also some of my previous post about the urban heat effect and New York:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 223

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 222

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 60.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N4/C1.php

New York City‘s Urban Heat Island

——————————————————————————–

Reference

Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W.D., Parshall, L., Lynn, B., Cox. J., Goldberg, R. Hodges, S., Gaffin, S., Slosberg, R.B., Savio, P., Dunstan, F. and Watson, M. 2009. Mitigating New York City’s heat island. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90: 1297-1312.

What was done

The authors compared ”the possible effectiveness of heat island mitigation strategies to increase urban vegetation, such as planting trees or incorporating vegetation into rooftops, with strategies to increase the albedo of impervious surfaces.”

What was learned

With respect to the magnitude of the problem they were seeking to address, Rosenzweig et al. report that ”surface air temperatures elevated by at least 1°C have been observed in New York City for more than a century (Rosenthal et al., 2003; Gaffin et al., 2008), and the heat island signal, measured as the difference between the urban core and the surrounding rural surface air temperature readings taken at National Weather Service stations, averages ~4°C on summer nights (Kirkpatrick and Shulman, 1987; Gedzelman et al., 2003; Gaffin et al., 2008),” with the greatest temperature differences typically being sustained ”between midnight and 0500 Eastern Standard Time (EST; Gaffin et al., 2008).” And on a day that they studied quite intensively (14 August 2002), they report that at 0600 EST, ”the city was several degrees warmer than the suburbs, and up to 8°C warmer than rural areas within 100 km of the city.”

With respect to mitigation strategies, the twelve researchers determined that ”the most effective way to reduce urban air temperature is to maximize the amount of vegetation in the city with a combination of tree planting and green roofs.” Based on modeling studies of these approaches, for example, they estimated that this strategy could reduce simulated citywide urban air temperature by 0.4°C on average, and 0.7°C at 1500 EST, while simulated reductions of up to 1.1°C at 1500 EST could be expected in some Manhattan and Brooklyn neighborhoods, ”primarily because there is more available area in which to plant trees and install vegetated roofs.”

What it means

These several findings reveal that New York City has already experienced an urban-induced warming equivalent to what is predicted to occur by the end of the current century as a result of business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions, and that planting additional vegetation throughout the city would likely moderate its thermal environment more than all of the greenhouse-gas emissions reductions the world’s governments are ever likely to make.

References

Gaffin, S.R., et al. 2008. Variations in New York City’s urban heat island strength over time and space. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 94: 1-11.

Gedzelman, S.D., Austin, S., Cermak, R., Stefano, N., Partridge, S., Quesenberry, S. and Robinson, D.A. 2003. Mesoscale aspects of the urban heat island around New York City. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 75: 29-42.

Kirkpatrick, J.S. and Shulman, M.D. 1987. A statistical evaluation of the New York City-northern Jew Jersey urban heat island effect on summer daily minimum temperature. National Weather Digest 12: 12.

Rosenthal, J., Pena Sastre, M., Rosenzweig, C., Knowlton, K., Goldberg, R. and Kinney, P. 2003. One hundred years of New York City’s ”urban heat island”: Temperature trends and public health impacts. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84 (Fall Meeting Supplement), Abstract U32A-0030.

Reviewed 27 January 2010

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 255

30 januari, 2010

“Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists. “

“Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.

Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?” “

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

January 30, 2010

Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.

Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.

Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.

Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”

Dr Pachauri replied: “Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month — as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates — early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.

“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”

Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 254

30 januari, 2010

Intresting interview with Roger Sedjo, a Washington-based economist, who was involved in the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd and 4th assessments between 1996 and 2007. He was also a lead author of one of the chapters in the 3rd assessment.

“And even if you are a sceptic, you have to ask yourself,Are people trying to manipulate the science in order to try and achieve a political aim?” I am concerned that scientists aren’t more worried about these mistakes. Things like this shouldn’t happen. If they were dealing with financial accounting, they would all be in jail. It borders on outright fraud.”

“A concern is that a majority of the management are advocates. What you have is an organisation tasked with looking at a scientific question, but the top management, almost entirely, subscribes to the more extreme position”

Also see

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/hes-toast.html

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264024

interview Magazine | Feb 08, 2010 

‘An Intentional Effort To Distort The Debate…Borders On Outright Fraud’

The Washington-based economist who was part of the team to be awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize weighs in

Ashish Kumar Sen

Roger Sedjo, a Washington-based economist, was involved in the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd and 4th assessments between 1996 and 2007. He was a lead author of one of the chapters in the 3rd assessment and part of the team to be awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Sedjo is also a senior fellow and the director of Resources for the Future’s forest economics and policy programme. Excerpts from an interview with Ashish Kumar Sen:

Is the uproar over an error in the IPCC report justified?

It has created a much bigger furore in India than it has here.

Should Dr Pachauri step down?

Should the head of an organisation be responsible for each piece of paper that comes out of his office? I should say not. On the glacier melting date, was the mistake inadvertent or by design? I cannot conceive of a publication coming out where they don’t pay careful attention to an important detail like a 300 years’ difference. Someone should have picked up on this because it changes the whole bottomline. It’s hard to imagine a mistake of that magnitude slipping through as a mistake rather than as an intentional effort to distort the debate. But I don’t see how it reflects on Pachauri. He has responsibility for looking into what apparently was sloppiness. But unless this occurs on a regular basis at the IPCC, I find it hard to understand why he should step down.

And the repercussions?

This is providing tremendous ammunition to opponents of climate science. And even if you are a sceptic, you have to ask yourself,Are people trying to manipulate the science in order to try and achieve a political aim?” I am concerned that scientists aren’t more worried about these mistakes. Things like this shouldn’t happen. If they were dealing with financial accounting, they would all be in jail. It borders on outright fraud.

Is the lobbying effort in Washington aimed at IPCC and Dr Pachauri?

Among opponents, there is a general disdain for the IPCC, but I have never heard talk in Washington about getting rid of Pachauri.

What is your assessment of the IPCC?

A concern is that a majority of the management are advocates. What you have is an organisation tasked with looking at a scientific question, but the top management, almost entirely, subscribes to the more extreme position: “We have a serious problem; it’s generated by humans and greenhouse gases; we understand the problem pretty well.” That seems to me to be an overstatement. Climate change is a scientific question and science is supposed to be addressed with a certain degree of scepticism.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 253

30 januari, 2010

“But however doomed the effort, it is worth the strain to re-summon the spectre of the Copenhagen festival. The prelude to the event was a blizzard, a windstorm, a tsunami of worldwide press attention. The myriad and extremely well-orchestrated voices of climate alarmism had warned the world of its importance. Copenhagen was make or break for the planet. It was do or die.”

“And then the summit met. Forty-five thousand of the most professionally worried people on the planet, jetted and limousined their way, with a blissful unconsciousness of the titantic carbon propulsion it took to get them there, into Copenhagen for two weeks. They yammered. They press-released. They fossil-awarded like mad. And they went home. Finis.

That was it.

Three days after the great gloom-bazaar, it was hard to find a sentient human being on this threatened planet who had a word to say, or a thought to waste, on Copenhagen.”

“If all of those voices of the environmental groups, the hectic NGOs, the potentates and activists, the missionary scientists truly believed their own press releases before the conference, then its culmination in frustration and impotence must have registered with devastating effect. But in the days after Copenhagen, they and the world seemed to be spinning quite as calmly as before. “

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/30/rex-murphy-so-whatever-happened-to-copenhagen.aspx

Rex Murphy: So, whatever happened to Copenhagen?

Posted: January 30, 2010, 10:00 AM by NP Editor

Rex Murphy

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

Q. How is the recently concluded Copenhagen climate conference like the Medieval Warm Period?

A. They both may be seen to disappear when it serves a noble purpose.

Well, I warned it was very little. But, then again, global warming is a very earnest, if not positively sullen topic, and to mine even an atom of a joke from all of the frenzied evangelism of self-appointed environmentalist groups, the grim coven that ran the now celebrated labs in East Anglia, or from our modern day catastrophist Savonarola, Al Gore, is too much even for the most deep-mining humourist.

But however doomed the effort, it is worth the strain to re-summon the spectre of the Copenhagen festival. The prelude to the event was a blizzard, a windstorm, a tsunami of worldwide press attention. The myriad and extremely well-orchestrated voices of climate alarmism had warned the world of its importance. Copenhagen was make or break for the planet. It was do or die. Either Copenhagen would prove to be a greater Kyoto, a summit that crafted binding resolutions on the carbon-belching nations of the world, or it would be but a little while that we passed the “tipping point,” and poor Mother Gaia and her shielding atmosphere would be sent inexorably on the path to ecological doom. Island states would be deluged, a new tropics would settle over our northern climes, millions would be displaced or worse and rogue mankind would have missed its last best chance to halt the sultry drift into global ruin. 

The buildup to the Copenhagen conference had better writers than the Book of Revelations (and certainly better press management). All that was missing from the drum-roll of anticipation for the summit was a walk-on part for The Great Whore of Babylon to add a little lurid colour to its vision of meteorological apocalypse.

And then the summit met. Forty-five thousand of the most professionally worried people on the planet, jetted and limousined their way, with a blissful unconsciousness of the titantic carbon propulsion it took to get them there, into Copenhagen for two weeks. They yammered. They press-released. They fossil-awarded like mad. And they went home. Finis.

That was it.

Three days after the great gloom-bazaar, it was hard to find a sentient human being on this threatened planet who had a word to say, or a thought to waste, on Copenhagen. If I knew the Latin for “What happened?” (and I am for once unwilling to Google-cheat for the knowledge) this is where I’d drop it. After all this splendid fanfare, after so glorious an overture — what happened to the symphony? 

If all of those voices of the environmental groups, the hectic NGOs, the potentates and activists, the missionary scientists truly believed their own press releases before the conference, then its culmination in frustration and impotence must have registered with devastating effect. But in the days after Copenhagen, they and the world seemed to be spinning quite as calmly as before.

Well, not quite as calmly.

The toxic radiations from Climategate, that sad stream of emails leaked on the eve of the great summit, had percolated through the media and to the wider audience at large. Those who took the trouble to read them caught a glimpse of the sullenness, rivalry, distemper and outright mischief that some of the scientists at the very centre of the whole global warming industry brought to their task.

The picture presented was one of pre-commitment to a point of view, of a gloomy, angry and ruthless determination to keep “outsiders” off their turf. Peer review, the very gold standard of science, was shown to be a closed circle. Journals that thought the approved way were fine: Others were to be derogated, taken off the mailing list. Science as a closed shop of the right-minded, science in alliance with activism, was the real revelation of Climategate. 

More followed Climategate, as all now know, not least the monstrous claims about the Himalyan glaciers (purported to be ready to melt away in 2035!). This is why the Copenhagen Conference for all its extravagant hype and buildup simply disappeared from the press and the public mind on the instant of its conclusion. Because, via Climategate, the world caught the first real glimpse of how politicized and manipulated this “greatest issue of our time” had been allowed to become. Saw as well how the sacred impartiality of science, and the great authority of peer review, had been suborned for something as political in its way as the average day’s outing in Question Period.

No one’s really talking about the failure of Copenhagen now because the ostensible threat to humanity was shown to be shrouded in hype. Al Gore and his crew simply don’t have now what we used to call “the face” to deliver another grand and imperiously moralizing lecture to the world and its carbon-consuming innocents after the travesty revealed in Climategate and the clutter of revelations that followed it.

National Post

Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV’s The National, and is host of CBC Radio’s Cross Country Checkup.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 252

30 januari, 2010

As a complement to my previous post.

“In the Obama worldview, fighting climate change will ”finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.” In the Osama worldview, it will ”bring the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.”

“The president and the Democrats running Congress fail to see the dangers that environmentalist extremism poses to the U.S. But bin Laden has concluded it is a powerful weapon that can destroy us.”

“Environmentalist extremism has made the leap from a politically-correct fetish of leftist utopians who resent capitalists to an economic weapon highly recommended by America‘s international Public Enemy No.1.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519625

The Greening Of Osama Bin Laden

Posted 01/29/2010 07:05 PM ET

Al-Qaida: Global warming fanatics have an unwelcome new ally: Osama bin Laden. Unlike enviro-leftists, the terror master recognizes that the green agenda can cripple the U.S. economy.

In the Obama worldview, fighting climate change will ”finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.” In the Osama worldview, it will ”bring the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.

The president spoke those words to Congress last week during his State of the Union message; the head of al-Qaida was delivering his latest rant for broadcast to his followers.

The president and the Democrats running Congress fail to see the dangers that environmentalist extremism poses to the U.S. But bin Laden has concluded it is a powerful weapon that can destroy us.

The Saudi-born patriarch of Islamist terrorism, from whatever cave he currently calls home, devoted his entire latest audiotape message to global warming. ”Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality,” bin Laden declared. ”All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.”

Bin Laden even bashed ex-President George W. Bush for opposing the Kyoto Protocol at the behest of big business; he must have gotten hold of the Democratic National Committee’s talking points.

How do we prevent the promised worldwide calamity of temperatures going up and up? ”Drastic solutions” are in order according to the reclusive al-Qaida chief, as opposed to ”solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change.”

The world must ”stop consuming American products,” he advised, and ”we should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible.”

That will have ”grave ramifications,” bin Laden admitted, ”but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America.” Doing so would have the added bonus of hurting U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, he added.

As George Mason University atmospheric physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute agricultural economist Dennis Avery point out in their book, ”Unstoppable Global Warming,” Kyoto would create some jobs, ”but far more would be lost through the economic stagnation and the higher taxes required to ration energy use.”

As Singer and Avery note, Americans ”have been reluctant to commit the United States to the cost of building an entirely new energy system when the old energy system was still working, the alternative fuel systems recommended by environmentalists were expensive and erratic, and the science of global warming was still uncertain.”

Of course, in the wake of last year’s Climategate e-mail scandal, in which hacked communications between climatologists revealed the intentional skewing of scientific evidence regarding warming, plus other tendentious misconduct, the science backing climate change alarmism is more uncertain than ever.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., former chairman of and now ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, argued on the Senate floor in November that ”developing countries like China and India will never be masochistic enough to subject their economies to the West’s climate neuroses. Meanwhile, Europe has proved with Kyoto that the only emissions quotas it will accept are those that don’t actually have to be met.

He added, ”the U.S. will not support a global warming treaty that will significantly damage the American economy, cost American jobs, and impose the largest tax increase in American history.

Inhofe spoke for many when he said that ”given the unemployment rate of 10%, and given all of the out of control spending in Washington, the last thing we need is another thousand-page bill that increases costs and ships jobs overseas, all with no impact on climate change.”

Environmentalist extremism has made the leap from a politically-correct fetish of leftist utopians who resent capitalists to an economic weapon highly recommended by America‘s international Public Enemy No.1.

Who wants to bet it’s only a matter of time before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad follows bin Laden’s recommendation and echoes the call to use global warming policies to topple the Great Satan from its position as the world’s lone superpower?

A bad treaty, after all, can be nearly as destructive as a nuke.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 251

29 januari, 2010

Well, this must be the ULTIMATE sign that the Global Warming Hysterics REALLY, REALLY are on the ropes. With an ally like Bin Laden who in the world need ANY enemies?

If I was a High Priest of this Political Cult, I would just pack my things and leave. And hide under a rock for the rest of my life cursing my misfortune.

Before Christmas I wrote:

In my post exactly a year ago I wrote:

“I am looking forward to 2009, the year when the biggest political and scientific scandal in modern time is going to implode – The Global Warming Hysteria.”

Well, it did happen.

So for 2010 I am looking forward to that the biggest political and scientific scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria – is not only going to implode, it is going to vanish into thin air.

Well, it went MUCH quicker that I thought.

‘AGW is real!’ insists Al Gore’s new soul mate Osama Bin Laden

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024291/agw-is-real-insists-al-gores-new-soul-mate-osama-bin-laden/

Strange but true – Bin Laden on Global Warming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/strange-but-true-bin-laden-on-global-warming/

Bin Laden to chair IPCC?

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/bin-laden-to-chair-ipcc.html

“Joining president Obama, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and, of course, the EU, R K Pachauri, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, warning of the dangers of climate change, is that star of stage and screen … bring on the one and only Osama bin Laden.”

The story here:

Bin Laden slams US on climate, economy in new tirade

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100129/wl_mideast_afp/qaedabinladentape

“DUBAI (AFP) – Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden lectured the US and other industrial nations on climate change, and urged a dollar boycott in response to American ”slavery,” in a fresh verbal assault broadcast Friday.

In the message aired on Al-Jazeera television, possibly timed to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, bin Laden said ”all industrial nations, mainly the big ones, are responsible for the crisis of global warming.”

”Discussing climate change is not an intellectual luxury, but a reality,” he said in the audio recording whose authenticity could not be immediately verified.

”This is a message to the whole world about those who are causing climate change, whether deliberately or not, and what we should do about that.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 250

29 januari, 2010

Isn’t it nice with all these “scientific” organisations that’s behind IPCC: s “science”.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/greenpeace-and-nobel-winning-climate_28.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/now-its-greenpeace-reports-cited-in-the-ipcc-ar4/

See also about WWF heavy involvement with IPCC as in Glaciergate:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/glacier-show-comedy-in-many-parts.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/les-derniers-jours-de-pachauri.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/amazongate-hits-india.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/corruption-of-science.html

Jan 28, 2010

Greenpeace and the Nobel-Winning Climate Report

Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.

Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace – an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.)

In one section of this Nobel-winning report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled ”Pacific in Peril (see Hoegh-Guldberg below). Here the report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).

When discussing solar energy elsewhere, the report references two Greenpeace documents in one sentence. Here it uses a Greenpeace paper as its sole means of documenting where the ”main wind-energy investments” are located globally (Wind).

On this page, the report notes that while some research suggests wind power will generate between three and five percent of global electricity by 2030, a more optimistic forecast places this number at 29%. The six times more favorable estimate comes from GWEC, 2006 – a 60-page, photo-rich report co-authored by Greenpeace and the Global Wind Energy Council. (The latter describes itself as ”the global wind industry trade association.”) In fairness to the IPCC, even it rejected Greenpeace’s numbers, choosing instead to use 7% in its analysis.

But the fact that this report relies on Greenpeace-generated copy isn’t the only reason for concern. Here is an IPCC graphic:

[h/t to Roger Pielke Jr. and Ben Pile]
The idea that 2,500 ”scientific expert reviewers” provided feedback about the report during its pre-publication phase sounds awesome. But many of those people aren’t scientists at all. They’re professional activists in the employ of environmental organizations.

The expert reviewers who had input into just one portion (Working Group III) of the IPCC report are listed in this 8-page PDF. They include three Greenpeace employees, two Friends of the Earth representatives, two Climate Action Network reps, and a person each from activist organizations WWF International, Environmental Defense, and the David Suzuki Foundation.

One of these expert reviewers is Gabriela von Georne – who holds a PhD in geology and works as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Germany. Von Georne is co-author of a 2008 report that employs colourful, less-than-clinical language. Carbon capture and storage ”will arrive on the battlefield far too late to help the world avoid dangerous climate change” it declares on page six.

(Incidentally, although this Greenpeace report begins with a declaration that it is ”based on peer-reviewed independent scientific research,” footnotes 48 and 53 cite only a non-peer-reviewed source to support statements of fact:

  • Hannegan, B, 2007. Testimony for Hearing of the Science, Technology and Innovation Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 110th Cong., 1st Sess. 7 November 2007.

Moreover, footnote 153 cites a Greenpeace-published document authored by von Georne herself. Greenpeace, it would appear, has a definition of ”peer-reviewed” that is as elastic as the IPCC’s.)

As a Greenpeace employee, von Goerne gives interviews to the media. In 2007 she expressed her organization’s policy preferences to MSNBC: ”What we see is a diversion of money away from renewables toward CCS and coal, and that’s not the way we want to see things move forward… [italics added]

A 2005 BBC article about a Swedish company exploring clean-coal technology, quotes her thus:

I don’t think [this company] is taking climate issues seriously. They want to move on with coal technology, which ultimately is a dead end. The best choice would be to concentrate on renewable energies…

And in 2004, when von Goerne was part of a three-person Greenpeace delegation that testified before a committee of Australia’s Parliament, her demeanor was so combative that she was admonished by the chair, who told her: ”We are not having an ideological argument.”

All of this suggests that von Goerne is no neutral, disinterested party. It’s difficult to believe that, in her role as an IPCC reviewer, she confined herself solely to science-based objections.

Nevertheless, according to this bio, during the same time she would have been performing her reviewer role for the 2007 Nobel-winning report, von Goerne was also serving as a lead author of an IPCC special report examining the issue of carbon sequestration.

The second Greenpeace ”scientific expert reviewer” is Steve Sawyer. A Greenpeace bio describes him as a ”seasoned campaigner on board Greenpeace boats and a tireless lobbyist.” In 2005 he spent his time ”lobbying governments and corporations on energy policies.”

Sawyer is a former director of Greenpeace USA, a former executive director of Greenpeace International, and has two children with former Greenpeace Antarctic campaign director Kelly Rigg. In 2007, he became the secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, the lobby group that produced the wildly-optimistic wind power estimate mentioned above.

Fond of dramatic statements, Sawyer has declared that ”Future generations will not forgive us if we delay” emissions cuts. He has warned that Manhattan is at risk of being ”under water” due to climate change. And then there’s this quote from a press release issued prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

It’s clear [the US and the UK]…intend to wage a reckless war which would make the world a much more dangerous place…If it wanted the world to be ruled by the cowboy with the biggest guns, the international community wouldn’t have created the UN…

In short, Sawyer’s career has focused on political activism and environmental lobbying. How does that qualify him to be an IPCC ”scientific expert reviewer”?

The third Greenpeace representative given official standing as an IPCC reviewer is Sven Teske. When a Greenpeace protest vessel shut down Europe’s largest coal port in 2005, Teske was on board. Described as a renewable energy expert, he declared:

Climate change is now the single biggest threat facing our planet…Greenpeace is here today to expose Europe’s dangerous addiction to coal.

Elsewhere, he insists that: ”Renewable energy is the true answer” to coal’s shortcomings [italics added]. According to this bio, Teske has a BSc in engineering and a masters in ”wind energy technology.” Curiously, a 1995 Greenpeace press release described him as a ”nuclear expert” [screengrab here].

In April 2009, Teske was one of two speakers at a ”Public Forum on Climate Justice” held in Ottawa, Canada. Although he resides in Amsterdam, a month later he was quoted in a Greenpeace press release calling for Canadian ”political leadership” on green issues. A month after that, he called Australia ”a global climate change pariah.”

Teske is a co-author of a Greenpeace publication titled ”New Zealand Energy Revolution: How to Prevent Climate Chaos”. It features a forward by (and photograph of) Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman.

In 2006, Greenpeace released another report in conjunction with the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (a solar power lobby group). Teske is described as the ”Greenpeace Co-ordinator and scenario analyst” in its credits and his name is one of two appearing at the end of that document’s forward.

This attractive, 50-page publication is an extended brochure of the sort distributed by solar energy marketing departments. Although it is data and graph-intensive, it contains a grand total of four footnotes. Although it mentions external documents in passing, no list of full citations is provided.

Thus, we read on page 14 that, ”According to a WHO study, as many as 160,000 people are dying each year as a result of climate change.” Should we care to double-check this claim, we’re on our own.

As incredible as it sounds, this publication/brochure is itself cited in the Nobel-winning IPCC report as evidence that a particular statement is true. Appearing in the list below as Greenpeace 2006, it is one of two references mentioned in a single sentence, as discussed above.

Which begs an important question: how did it get into the same room with serious scholars? Why would it even be under consideration by a scientific body tasked with producing an assessment of the latest scientific research?

There appears to be an interesting chronology here. First Teske is granted ”scientific expert reviewer” status by the IPCC. Second, a non-academic, non-peer-reviewed document in which he was closely involved gets added to the climate change research canon by virtue of it being cited by the Nobel-winning report.

Third, Teske co-authors a new Greenpeace report that receives an extra measure of prestige when it features a forward authored by the high-profile IPCC chairman. Fourth, in a final flourish, Teske – like his Greenpeace colleauge von Goerne – gets elevated to lead author status of yet another IPCC special report (on renewable energy) due to be published this year.

Where does Greenpeace stop and the IPCC begin? Sometimes it’s difficult to tell.

GREENPEACE-GENERATED LITERATURE CITED BY THE 2007 NOBEL-WINNING CLIMATE REPORT

  • Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
  • ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK
  • Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
  • Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
  • GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07
  • Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
  • Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
  • Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 249

28 januari, 2010

“Twenty years ago, Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine that it’s perfectly fine ”to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

The IPCC of Dr. Pachauri has turned out to be neither. Under his tutelage, it has continued to foster climate fraud in the face of contrary evidence. Scary scenarios are offered up, but little else. As his and then IPCC’s credibility melts away faster that the Himalayan glaciers, he should resign or be fired.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519317

United Nations’ Climate Chief Must Go

Posted 01/27/2010 07:00 PM ET

Global Warming: If we’re serious about restoring science to its rightful place, the head of the U.N.’s panel on climate change should step down. Evidence shows he quarterbacked a deliberate and premeditated fraud.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been forced to back off its now-discredited claim that the Himalayan glaciers would soon disappear. But it’s not true, the panel’s vice chairman, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, told the BBC, that it was simply a ”human mistake.”

The panel’s chairman, Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, who was forced to admit the claim had no basis in observable scientific fact, said its inclusion was merely a ”poor application” of IPCC procedures, acting as if the original source of the claim, Indian scientist Dr. Syed Hasnain, was a total stranger.

In fact, as Christopher Booker of the London Telegraph points out, Dr. Hasnain ”has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr. Pachauri was director-general.”

So after the 2007 assessment that included Hasnain’s claim, Pachauri was impressed enough to hire him as an employee. Pachauri should have been familiar with both his work and the fact the claim had not been peer-reviewed, and aware that it had been challenged by reputable geologists.

Before the 2007 report was published, Hasnain’s claim was challenged by another of its lead authors, Austrian glaciologist Dr. Georg Kaser. He described Hasnain’s prediction of glaciers vanishing by 2035 as ”so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing.”

So why was it included in the 2007 IPCC assessment? In an interview with the London Daily Mail on Sunday, Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the chapter on Asia, gave a disturbing answer. ”It related to several countries in the region and their water sources,” he said. ”We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

In other words, the motive was political, not scientific, in contradiction to the IPCC mission statement that says its role is ”to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socioeconomic information — the IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.”

Was money another motivation? Booker points out that Hasnain’s claim ”helped TERI win a substantial share of a $300,000 grant from one of America’s leading charities, along with a share in a 3-million-euro research study funded by the EU.”

Deception and manipulation are apparently established practices at the IPCC, just as they were with the researchers at Britain’s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Marc Morano at Climate Depot, who has done yeoman work exposing climate fraud, relates the witness of Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Christy served as an IPCC lead author in 2001 for the third assessment report and personally witnessed U.N. scientists trying to distort the science for political purposes.

”I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007.

Twenty years ago, Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine that it’s perfectly fine ”to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

The IPCC of Dr. Pachauri has turned out to be neither. Under his tutelage, it has continued to foster climate fraud in the face of contrary evidence. Scary scenarios are offered up, but little else. As his and then IPCC’s credibility melts away faster that the Himalayan glaciers, he should resign or be fired.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 248

27 januari, 2010

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And the Global Warming Hysterics DO ABSOLUTELY NOTING ABOUT REAL PROBLEMS WHICH PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM HERE AND NOW.

Instead they WASTE ALL THESE TRILLION OF DOLLARS ”fighting” something that MIGHT HAPPEN (IF the climate models are right – which they are not) IN 100 years – a temperature rise of 2-4 F.

So I thought I would give you a REAL LIFE experience of some REAL problems which the Global Warming Hysterics are not interested in:

It’s a comment in this post:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/amazon-flavor-gate-de-jour-leaves-a-bad-taste/

“hswiseman (14:03:51) :

I write this from the middle of the eastern China coastal Plain where particulate air pollution is out of control, water pollution is out of control, solid waste management is out of control, industrial conversion of Ag land is out of control, all of which is reduced to side show by fixation on the trivial warming effects of a trace gas.

The legitimate causes of pollution control and conservation have been hijacked by a scientific freak show, demanding that the entire world fiddle while substantial portions of the planet burn. Those forces (political and industrial) that have no interest in addressing reality will happily spar forever in the fantasy shadow game of carbon control.”

The same observation here:

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

That is the truth – the climate change industry is causing terrible damage by diverting attention from real pollution, the effects of which are blighting millions of lives. The only honest thing is to abandon the obsession with ”carbon” and get down to tackling real pollution. All the rest is talk.”

Here are some pictures by Lu Guang (卢广) from his documentary project “Pollution in China.”

Pictures here:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

5. Henan Anyang iron and steel plant’s (河南安阳钢铁厂) sewage flowed into Anyang River. March 25, 2008

 

14. A Large amount of the chemical wastewater discharged into Yangtze River from Zhenjiang Titanium mill (镇江市钛粉厂) every day. Less than 1,000 meters away downstream is where the water department of Danyang City gets its water from. June 10, 2009

16. Hebei Province Shexian Tianjin Iron and steel plant (河北省涉县天津钢铁厂) is a heavily polluting company. Company scale is still growing, seriously affecting the lives of local residents. March 18, 2008

And this is what I wrote 2 years ago and sadly it’s the same today:

Do you think the Nobel Price winners IPCC, Al Gore and the rest of the Global Warming Hysterics pack care?   Nah…they are very busy spending trillions upon trillions of dollars of your tax money on something much, much more important than saving lives here and now.

Here is part of what i wrote nearly 2 years ago in my post

Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism

See also:

World’s Scariest Words: ‘I’m an Environmentalist and I’m Here to Help’

Want to wreck the environment? Have a baby!

It is time to recognize environmentalism as a philosophy of guilt and sacrifice and to reject it in favour of a philosophy that proudly upholds the value of human life.

Why greens don’t want to ‘solve’ climate change

”Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion”

‘Grantsmanship’ – The Iron triangle between researchers, government and media That Distorts Global Warming Science

The church of green – You have to repent or be forever dammed!,

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!, 

The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria

“And when you are at it – the rest of the World too.

This is happening HERE AND NOW. People are being burnt alive and hacked to pieces. Gruesome? You bet! Horrible – yes. But desperate people do sometimes do desperate things.

Do you think the Nobel Price winners IPCC, Al Gore and the rest of the Global Warming Hysterics pack care?   Nah…they are very busy spending trillions upon trillions of dollars of your tax money on something much, much more important than saving lives here and now.

Namely, they are ”fighting” something that MIGHT HAPPEN (IF the climate models are right – which they are not, se my previous posts) IN 100 years – a temperature rise of 2-4 F.

Wow! That’s a worthy goal isn’t. I mean how cares about people killing themselves, dying of starvation or some ”obscure” disease that take tens of thousand of lives a year here and now. And you don’t need computer models to figure that out either – you just have to go out on the streets.

There’s to much population anyway – they are actually saying that. When you instead can ”fight” the great enemy CO2 lurking in a distant future.

All of this is led by the holly church of IPCC and it’s chief priest (and saint) Al Gore. Who is constantly spreading the message of near Gloom and Doom if we do not obey him and his church. And if you question this superstition you are immediately excommunicated and shunned.

And ALL the politicians and news media are worshiping and prostrating before their altar of carbon trading. Obediently following every whim and decree from the high church.

The problem is that the priesthood of Global Warming Hysterics are not exactly living as they preach. On the contrary – they live a very luxurious life and DO ALL THE THINGS that they preach and say the common man should not do.

Seems like fair and righteous deal doesn’t it? We do ALL the hard work and ALL the sacrifices and they take ALL our money.

At the same time as they are spending enormous sums of your tax money on their VERY important (except for themselves) nonsense mission. They do not forget to tell you ALL the time what a great burden they have so we should understand how REALLY important these people are. And what an important function THEY play in saving the planet. And how grateful we the people should be for that.

And that they can not be disturbed fulfilling this important mission by such trivial matters as people dying of starvation or curable diseases and civil wars etc.

But this is not a problem (that they are not living as they preach ) since news papers and TV are very obedient and loyally preach the message and sings the Gospel. And has since long forgotten what it meant to be a journalist. Or a politician in service of the public.

This my friends is the sad state of the ”civilized” world today. If you didn’t know otherwise you would think this is some scene from medieval times with it’s pagan rituals and worship. And with the letters of indulgence (carbon credits) paying for our carbon sins and repenting to Kyoto.

And I hold all politicians and so called scientists and so called journalists accountable for this sorry state of affairs because they took ACTIVE part in it and promoted it. And they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO STOP this madness for all these years.

We in the industrialized world would be reduced to subservient living. And the developing world efforts to give it’s citizens a decent living standard would be stopped in it’s tracks and they would be reduced to mass poverty.

Lo and behold isn’t that a worthy goal!. You toil and work hard to reduce your own AND everybody else’s living standard. Yeah that’s a motivator all right!

See the picture before you – mom and dad is proudly telling their children that they are working VERY, VERY HARD to REDUCE their own living standard, their children’s and the grandchildren’s.

We would be the first generation IN HISTORY who on purpose and willingly reduce our economic, social and living standard. AND FORCE the rest of the world to do the same regardless of WHAT THEY WANT!

This global mass madness is led by politicians, newspapers/TV and so called scientists. Because they are blindly following some computer models that cannot predict even the weather two weeks from now! Or accurately simulate how the weather was two weeks ago!

All in the name of reducing the increase of global temperature 2-4 F in 100 years.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 247

26 januari, 2010

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519049

Climate Flimflam Flaming Out

Posted 01/25/2010 07:02 PM ET

Environment: The United Nations makes a claim that can’t be supported by science, and U.S. researchers ignore temperature data from frigid regions. The crack-up of the global warming fraud is picking up speed.

With so much of the science behind climate change coming under attack, especially among scientists, it’s been a harsh winter for the global warming crowd:

• In late November, thousands of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were leaked to the public. The evidence strongly suggests that researchers colluded to prove the global warming scientific ”consensus” by rigging, burying and destroying data that ran counter to their political agenda.

Last week, the public learned that claims made by the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change were not based on science, but on speculation. Specifically, the IPCC’s 2007 report said the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 due to man-made global warming.

The claim, used at the U.N. Copenhagen climate change conference in cold and snowy December to rush through a restrictive greenhouse-gas-emissions treaty, was not based on a scientific study. It was based on a telephone call that a reporter had with a scientist who was speculating.

The IPCC has withdrawn the claim. Murari Lal, the scientist who included the contention in the U.N. report, admitted that he knew it wasn’t based on peer-reviewed scientific research.

• Also in the last week, it was revealed that U.S. researchers working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are excluding temperature data from cold regions for a database used by the U.N. in its global warming scare campaign.

Canwest News Service, a Canadian agency that also owns a chain of newspapers, reported Friday, ”In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

”Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

”The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.”

Canwest also reports that Americans Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, say that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has ”reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database” and has ”cherry-picked” the stations.

The NASA agency uses data from ”sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea — which has a warming effect on winter weather.”

In a paper published on the Science and Public Policy Institute Web site, D’Aleo and Smith say the ”NOAA … systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.

”The thermometers, in a sense, marched toward the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs.”

• Then, just last weekend, we find that same 2007 IPCC report included another phony claim: that ”the rapidly rising costs” of natural disasters since the 1970s is linked to global warming.

British newspapers reported Sunday that that assertion was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific paper when the IPCC report was issued. When the paper that the claim was based on was published in 2008, its authors said:

”We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Now the IPCC says it is ”reassessing the evidence.”

All threads of fiction unravel eventually, and the deterioration flies out of control as the end nears.

Is this what we are seeing with the contention that man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are causing the planet to overheat?

We can’t see into the future, but this myth has taken so many hits from the truth that its survival is in doubt.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 246

24 januari, 2010

I have written extensible about the scam called cap and trade, where BOTH BUYER ABD SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prise. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. 

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAM that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

The European model is a carnival of corruption, profiteering, speculation and multi-billion-dollar fraud. It’s done nothing to improve the environment while handing undeserved profits to big business and driving up the cost of energy to consumers.

The latest episode of “The Sopranos”, and a very illustrating example from Papua New Guinea, where Australian carbon traders literally at gunpoint forces local villages to sign.

And these guys spends billions of $ of our tax money.

Now at gunpoint!

“During the United Nations Copenhagen climate summit in December, fresh allegations emerged that unscrupulous carbon traders were buying up the rights to the carbon stored in forests in Papua New Guinea from indigenous landowners.

One PNG man told the December 12 SBS news he was forced to sign up at the point of a gun. “

“The governor of PNG’s Eastern Highlands province, Mal Kela Smith, told SBS the carbon traders are “just coming up from Australia looking for a quick quid and they see that they can get in with a few people and make some promises”.

“As far as I’m concerned, they are not very genuine people and they’re not really interested in the Papuan New Guineans.

“Most of the deals I’ve seen, the landowners are completely ignorant of what’s happening.”

www.greenleft.org.au/2010/823/42321

PNG: Carbon traders move in

Simon Butler

23 January 2010

During the United Nations Copenhagen climate summit in December, fresh allegations emerged that unscrupulous carbon traders were buying up the rights to the carbon stored in forests in Papua New Guinea from indigenous landowners.

One PNG man told the December 12 SBS news he was forced to sign up at the point of a gun.

Abilie Wape, the head of a landowner group in Kamula Doso, told SBS he had refused to sign a deal with Australian carbon trader Kirk Roberts. “And I told them: ‘I’m not your small boy. I am not going to listen to anybody. I represent the village people.

“‘If I sign then that means I am selling my birthrights away’.”

Wape said later, “the police came with their gun”.

“They threatened me. They forced me to get on the vehicle and we came to the hotel.

“They told me: ‘You sign. Otherwise, if you don’t sign I’ll lock you up, I’ll get the police and lock you up’. I was like a criminal … so I signed the document.”

Douglas refused to speak to SBS about the allegations.

Most of the carbon traders that have recently flooded into PNG are Australians. Although forest carbon trading has no international legal framework or recognition, traders hoped Copenhagen would endorse a market-based forest scheme called Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).

The promise of REDD is that owners of forests in the global South can be paid to stop deforestation as a way of reducing carbon emissions.

In theory, each tonne of forest carbon thus “saved” can be sold as carbon credits to companies overseas to “offset” their company’s carbon emissions. This will supposedly ensure that it is more profitable to keep forests standing than to cut them down.

Copenhagen ended without an agreement on REDD. But countries such as Australia may decide to go it alone and strike bilateral carbon trading deals with countries such as PNG and Indonesia.

The federal Rudd government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme allows 100% of Australia’s emissions cuts to be meet in carbon projects overseas. REDD projects could be among cheapest ways for Australian business to avoid cuts at home under the CPRS.

The idea that rich countries should pay for preserving forests in the global South isn’t a bad idea. Deforestation is a big contributor to carbon emissions.

But REDD critics, such as REDD-Monitor.org’s Chris Lang, have pointed out that a market-based scheme using forests in the South to offset First World emissions would simply allow the rich countries to claim emissions reductions on paper while polluting as before.

A January 7 statement by the Durban Group for Climate Justice coalition also condemned REDD as an “ineffective and unjust solution to climate change”.

“REDD’s focus on the mass production of pollution licenses for industries in rich countries would inevitably neglect the needs and rights of ordinary people throughout the world.

“In the South, REDD would transform the carbon in living trees into private property so that it can be awarded or transferred to private corporations in the North.

“In the worst case, it could inaugurate a massive land grab.

“In the North, meanwhile, REDD credits would enable fossil fuel-related corporations to maintain business as usual, to the detriment of communities affected by fossil fuel extraction and pollution.”

Even Marc Stuart, a founder of the British carbon trading firm EcoSecurities who supports an international forest carbon trading scheme, posted his own concerns about REDD on Cleantechblog.com last May.

“REDD … is the most mind twistingly complex endeavor in the carbon game. The fact is that REDD involves scientific uncertainties, technical challenges, heterogeneous non-contiguous asset classes, multi-decade performance guarantees, local land tenure issues, brutal potential for gaming and the fact that getting it wrong means that scam artists will get unimaginably rich while emissions don’t change a bit.”

The governor of PNG’s Eastern Highlands province, Mal Kela Smith, told SBS the carbon traders are “just coming up from Australia looking for a quick quid and they see that they can get in with a few people and make some promises”.

“As far as I’m concerned, they are not very genuine people and they’re not really interested in the Papuan New Guineans.

“Most of the deals I’ve seen, the landowners are completely ignorant of what’s happening.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 245

24 januari, 2010

This is YET ANOTHER good example, in a long row, of the “great science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria.

This is the “official science” which there is “consensus” about and which cannot be criticized or questioned. Or even worse – asking to see the raw data or the tweaking of this data.

This is what we, the common people, are supposed to pay TRILLION of dollars and reduce our living standard back to the Stone Age for.

And that “our” politicians want to RAM trough at ALL COSTS!

These corrupt people, the High Priests of the Global Warming Hysteria (to call them scientists would be an outrage against real scientists) should be removed. And that includes ALL the politicians who used this hysteria to promote their political agendas.

And building business empires on this scare.

“THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions. “

“The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: ”We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored. “

He found from 1950 to 2005 there was no increase in the impact of disasters once growth was accounted for. For 1970-2005, however, he found a 2% annual increase which ”corresponded with a period of rising global temperatures,”

Muir-Wood was, however, careful to point out that almost all this increase could be accounted for by the exceptionally strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005. There were also other more technical factors that could cause bias, such as exchange rates which meant that disasters hitting the US would appear to cost proportionately more in insurance payouts.

Despite such caveats, the IPCC report used the study in its section on disasters and hazards, but cited only the 1970-2005 results. “

Also see What Does Pielke Think About This?

“So not only did the IPCC AR4 WGII egregiously misrepresent the science of disasters and climate change, but when questions were raised about that section by at least one expert reviewer, it simply made up a misleading and false response about my views. Not good.

Also Castles Built on Sand and A Primer on Egregious Errors in IPCC WG2 on Disasters

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

From The Sunday Times January 24, 2010

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: ”More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”

Last month Gordon Brown, the prime minister, told the Commons that the financial agreement at Copenhagen ”must address the great injustice that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those that have done least harm”.

The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had ”suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: ”One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.”

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: ”We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn. Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, who is vice-chair of the IPCC, said: ”We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings. Despite recent events the IPCC process is still very rigorous and scientific.”

The academic paper at the centre of the latest questions was written in 2006 by Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at Risk Management Solutions, a London consultancy, who later became a contributing author to the section of the IPCC’s 2007 report dealing with climate change impacts. He is widely respected as an expert on disaster impacts.

Muir-Wood wanted to find out if the 8% year-on-year increase in global losses caused by weather-related disasters since the 1960s was larger than could be explained by the impact of social changes like growth in population and infrastructure.

Such an increase, coinciding with rising temperatures, might suggest that global warming was to blame. If proven this would be highly significant, both politically and scientifically, because it would confirm the many predictions that global warming will increase the frequency and severity of natural hazards.

In the research Muir-Wood looked at a wide range of hazards, including tropical cyclones, thunder and hail storms, and wildfires as well as floods and hurricanes.

He found from 1950 to 2005 there was no increase in the impact of disasters once growth was accounted for. For 1970-2005, however, he found a 2% annual increase which ”corresponded with a period of rising global temperatures,”

Muir-Wood was, however, careful to point out that almost all this increase could be accounted for by the exceptionally strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005. There were also other more technical factors that could cause bias, such as exchange rates which meant that disasters hitting the US would appear to cost proportionately more in insurance payouts.

Despite such caveats, the IPCC report used the study in its section on disasters and hazards, but cited only the 1970-2005 results.

The IPCC report said: ”Once the data were normalised, a small statistically significant trend was found for an increase in annual catastrophe loss since 1970 of 2% a year.” It added: ”Once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.”

Muir-Wood’s paper was originally commissioned by Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, also an expert on disaster impacts, for a workshop on disaster losses in 2006. The researchers who attended that workshop published a statement agreeing that so far there was no evidence to link global warming with any increase in the severity or frequency of disasters. Pielke has also told the IPCC that citing one section of Muir-Wood’s paper in preference to the rest of his work, and all the other peer-reviewed literature, was wrong.

He said: ”All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global warming plays a part but can’t find it. Muir-Wood’s study actually confirmed that.”

Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the Tyndall Centre, which advises the UK government on global warming, said there was no real evidence that natural disasters were already being made worse by climate change. He said: “A proper analysis shows that these claims are usually superficial”

Such warnings may prove uncomfortable for Miliband whose recent speeches have often linked climate change with disasters such as the floods that recently hit Bangladesh and Cumbria. Last month he said: “We must not let the sceptics pass off political opinion as scientific fact. Events in Cumbria give a foretaste of the kind of weather runaway climate change could bring. Abroad, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers that feed the great rivers of South Asia could put hundreds of millions of people at risk of drought. Our security is at stake.”

Muir-Wood himself is more cautious. He said: ”The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost partly because of climate change is completely misleading. ”We could not tell if it was just an association or cause and effect. Also, our study included 2004 and 2005 which was when there were some major hurricanes. If you took those years away then the significance of climate change vanished.”

Some researchers have argued that it is unfair to attack the IPCC too strongly, pointing out that some errors are inevitable in a report as long and technical as the IPCC’s round-up of climate science. ”Part of the problem could simply be that expectations are too high,” said one researcher. ”We have been seen as a scientific gold standard and that’s hard to live up to.”

Professor Christopher Field,director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution in California, who is the new co-chairman of the IPCC working group overseeing the climate impacts report, said the 2007 report had been broadly accurate at the time it was written.

He said: “The 2007 study should be seen as “a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.” However he confirmed he would be introducing rigorous new review procedures for future reports to ensure errors were kept to a minimum.

Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 244

24 januari, 2010

More on Pachauri , head of IPCC , and Glacier gate.

This is another good example of the “great science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria. 

This is the “official science” which there is “consensus” about and which cannot be criticized or questioned. Or even worse – asking to see the raw data or the tweaking of this data.

This is what we, the common people, are supposed to pay TRILLION of dollars and reduce our living standard back to the Stone Age for.

And that “our” politicians want to RAM trough at ALL COSTS!

These corrupt people, the High Priests of the Global Warming Hysteria (to call them scientists would be an outrage against real scientists) should be removed. And that includes ALL the politicians who used this hysteria to promote their political agendas.

And building business empires on this scare.

“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

Also see “The Science is Scuttled” – NASA climate page, suckered by IPCC, deletes their own ‘moved up’ glacier melting date reference how NASA is now purging embarrasing statements in view of the resent revelations of IPCC lying.

“And the purge begins.

Here’s the NASA Climate Change “evidence” page where they list a series of visual earth topics that support AGW as factual. In the sidebar they have heavy reference on IPCC AR4.

Scrolling down through the page you come across the section that talks about glacier melt. Here is the screencap of that section BEFORE (courtesy of Google Cache) and AFTER as it appears now:

Yellow highlight mine. Note not only did they cite the now famous false glacier melting alarm from IPCC AR4, they moved it up five years to 2030!”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified

By David Rose

Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.

‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.

‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’

One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’

When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’.

Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.

It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’

However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were ‘unable to get hold of the suggested references’, but would ‘consider’ this in their final version. They failed to do so.

The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ it asked.

The authors’ response said ‘appropriate revisions and editing made’. But the final version was identical to their draft.

Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

The damage to the IPCC’s reputation, already tarnished by last year’s ‘Warmergate’ leaked email scandal, is likely to be considerable.

Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was ‘skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments’.

Environmentalist Alton Byers said the panel’s credibility had been damaged. ‘They’ve done sloppy work,’ he said. ‘We need better research on the ground, not unreliable predictions derived from computer models.’

Last night, Dr Pachauri defended the IPCC, saying it was wrong to generalise based on a single mistake. ‘Our procedure is robust,’ he added.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 243

24 januari, 2010

I have written extensible in this blog about temperature measurements, raw and “adjusted” data, the tweaking and discrepancy that is going on, the cherry picking of stations, the urban heat effect etc. from the official temperature keepers.

Below is some very intresting analysis of long record GHCN stations data by Nic L. 

“What this shows is that on average the adjustment process more than quadrupled the trend in raw temperatures, increasing the trend of the mean from 0.0113 for raw data to 0.0536. Indeed, if the mean trend change of 0.0423 resulting from adjustments to the long record stations were typical of the effect of adjustments to station data generally, the adjustment process would account for a substantial proportion of the recorded global mean temperature increase over the twentieth century.” 

“The graph below shows that the mean 1900-2005 trend in the anomaly temperature raw data from the 484 rural stations was 0.0117, statistically completely insignificant. The mean of the trends of the individual series, as shown in the scatter plot below the temperature graph, is almost identical at 0.0102. These trends are under half those for all 1034 stations with long raw data records.”

Here are just some of my previous posts:

Temperature in USA is now 2009 the same as in 1895

Global Warming Appetizer – October 2009 3rd Coldest for US in 115 Years

Temperature measurements since 1701 Refute Human caused temperature fluctuations – Open letter from 67 German scientists

The Globe is Cooling and the temperatures keep going down

The Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 years

8 years of global cooling and 4 years of rapid global cooling

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data

Minus 60 C or not?

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have

The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data 

Temperature data – What it really means

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 234

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 225

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 223

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 222

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 211

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 207

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 204

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 169

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 162

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 160

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 108

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 107

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 88

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 60

All Oceans are steadily cooling

Global Ocean Heat Content dropping, in some cases rapidly

Annual North American temperature is FALLING at a rate of 0.78C/decade   Temperature data – What it really means.

NOAA ADMITS temperature ERROR and FAULTY equipment BUT THEY ARE STILL GOING TO KEEP THE FLAWED TEMPERATURE RECORD AND “NEW HIGHS” – 2

NOAA ADMITS temperature ERROR and FAULTY equipment BUT THEY ARE STILL GOING TO KEEP THE FLAWED TEMPERATURE RECORD AND “NEW HIGHS”

The analysis here:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/long-record-ghcn-analysis/

At Jeff’s request, I present here some findings from work I have carried out using long-record GHCN stations. I have defined these as stations with temperature data in both 1900 and 1999 and fewer than 240 months (20%) in that period with no data. The reason for looking at long record stations is primarily that one can have some confidence that trends over the last 100 years or so reflect actual changes in recorded temperature and are not affected by changes over time in the set of stations that are combined to produce an average.

The GHCN database contains temperature records from 7280 separate stations; 4495 of these are WMO stations and the remainder are non-WMO stations, whose station number includes the WMO number of the closest WMO station but also a non-zero modifier to distinguish them from that WMO station.

Although the geographical coverage of the 7280 GHCN stations is impressive, unfortunately many of them have short records, with only a minority having data before 1950 or after 1990, and fewer still having data before 1900.

The map below shows the location of the 1034 GHCN stations (not all of which are WMO stations) that meet my long record criteria in respect of their raw data.

It can be seen that the long record station set is dominated by the USA, but that there are a fair number of stations elsewhere with 100 year raw data records, with quite a wide geographical spread.

The variation over time in the total number of stations with raw data at GHCN is shown below.

Most of the long record stations have data for some years after 1999, but the number of stations reporting data collapsed by over 1000 in April 2006, when many Indian stations ceased reporting, following a previous sharp fall in the early 1990s.

Raw Data

So what story does the raw data from the 1034 long record GHCN stations tell? Shown below is the unweighted mean of the temperature anomalies for all data from those stations for each month from 1999 to 2005. The mean is slightly smoothed, hence the high Lag-1 serial correlation. The trend is fairly low, at 0.0269 Deg. C /Decade – which are the units I hereafter use for all trends. The confidence interval is over three times as high as the trend, which is accordingly far from being statistically significant. There is no pronounced peak in 1998, and the peak temperature occurred in the 1930s. As this data set largely represents temperatures in the USA, that is perhaps unsurprising.

 

Adjusted Data

For many of the long record stations, GHCN also presents homogeneity-adjusted temperature series, of which there may again be duplicates. Where there are duplicate series, the GHCN files do not indicate which of the duplicated raw series each adjusted series is based on, although often it will be possible to work this out.

Peterson’s 1997 Bulletin of the AMS paper “An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database, available at the GHCN website, gives a very useful summary of the adjustment process, as well as of many other aspects of the GHCN temp data. However, the adjustments appear to be primarily, if not exclusively, aimed at correcting for discontinuities. So far as I can tell, they would not correct for gradual distortions to data caused by, for instance, an increasing Urban Heat Island effect as a conurbation encroached on a previously rural station or the size of a town in which a station was located grew.

The number of GHCN stations with adjusted data peaked at just over 4,000, compared with just under 6,000 with raw data, but has fallen even more sharply in the last twenty years, with recent adjusted data only being available for about 250 stations. This is illustrated below

In order to get a clearer picture of the effects of the adjustment process, I calculated the trend in the combined raw data from all 764 stations which had long records of adjusted data, thereby ensuring a like-for-like comparison. The mean raw temperature anomaly record of those 764 stations is shown below.

What this shows is that on average the adjustment process more than quadrupled the trend in raw temperatures, increasing the trend of the mean from 0.0113 for raw data to 0.0536. Indeed, if the mean trend change of 0.0423 resulting from adjustments to the long record stations were typical of the effect of adjustments to station data generally, the adjustment process would account for a substantial proportion of the recorded global mean temperature increase over the twentieth century.

Rural Data

In an attempt to avoid possible inflation in station trends resulting from UHI effects, I also screened out from the 1034 GHCN stations with long raw data records all but stations marked as rural. That left 484 rural stations, of which unfortunately only 28 were outside the USA, located as per the below map.

The graph below shows that the mean 1900-2005 trend in the anomaly temperature raw data from the 484 rural stations was 0.0117, statistically completely insignificant. The mean of the trends of the individual series, as shown in the scatter plot below the temperature graph, is almost identical at 0.0102. These trends are under half those for all 1034 stations with long raw data records.

USA vs Rest of the World

Finally, I thought it worthwhile to divide the 1034 long record stations between USA stations (of which there are 832) and the 202 non-USA stations. The mean temperature anomaly of the USA stations, and the1900-2005 trend thereof (being 0.0144), is shown in the next graph.

By comparison, the mean temperature anomaly of the non-USA stations has a much higher 1900-2005 trend, of 0.0805, as shown in the below graph. This is the only one of the graphs that shows a statistically significant trend.

Why should the non-USA long record stations show a mean 1900-2005 decadal trend of 0.0805 whilst the USA ones show a mean trend of only 0.0144? Perhaps the USA has warmed by far less than other areas. But as the non-USA stations are also very largely northern hemisphere, with in many cases similar latitudes to those of USA stations, it is not obvious to me why that should be. However, there is one obvious possible explanation that is worth investigating further here: the UHI effect.

A majority, 456 out of 832, of the long record USA stations are classified as rural. Any many of the remainder may be in cities that had by 1900 already reached the size (relatively small, I believe) by which most of the UHI effect occurs. By contrast, only 28 of the 202 long record non-USA stations are classified as rural, and it may be that relatively more of the urban stations are in towns that only became sizeable post 1900. Could the bulk of the difference in trend (amounting to 0.7 deg. C over 1900-2005) between the long record USA and non-USA stations could be due to the UHI effect? At first sight, It seems conceivable. Having said that, the pattern of temperature movements over 1900-2005 is not the same for the USA and non-USA stations, and there is so much weather noise in the data (even when taking averages of hundreds of stations) that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions.

In an attempt to estimate how much of the difference between the trends of long record USA and non-USA stations might be due to the UHI effect, I shortened the qualifying period to 1900-1990. Doing so increased the total number of rural stations from 484 to 574. More importantly, it increased the number of non-USA rural stations from 28 to 86, albeit these are rather dominated by Australia, Canada and Siberia, as shown on the below map (the final graphic, you will be pleased to know J).

I took the mean of the individual station trends over 1900-1995 rather than the trend of the mean, as the anomalisation period is more variable with only a 90 year qualifying period. For the USA stations, the mean trend was -0.0024 (yes, a negative trend, albeit a completely insignificant one).

By comparison, the mean 1900-1995 trend of the 86 non-USA rural stations with 90+ year records was 0.0548. The mean trend over the same period for the 297 non-USA non-rural stations was only modestly higher than this, at 0.0606, although the geographical distribution of the rural and non-rural non-USA data sets is different. These results suggest that the UHI effect may account for part of the difference between twentieth century mean recorded temperature trends in the USA and elsewhere, but not the bulk of it.

However, these rural station results may not be representative of the rest of the world, and are almost certainly not statistically significant. Further, non-USA stations marked as rural may be more likely to be affected by non-climatic warming, or warming affected by their type of environment, than are rural stations in the USA. For instance, only 12% of USA rural stations are near the coast, next to a large lake or on a small island, whereas 41% of non-USA rural stations are. It is conceivable that such environments could be are associated with greater (or lesser) twentieth century warming than land bound ones, although I am not aware of any evidence to that effect.

In conclusion, the raw data from long record GHCN stations shows little apparent warming in the USA and moderate warming (on land) elsewhere, only part of which seems likely to be due to the UHI effect. The adjusted data shows much higher trends than the raw data for the same stations, and it is not clear why the homogeneity adjustments should on balance be significantly positive.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 242

23 januari, 2010

“The irony is that the head of an outfit devoted to climate change is promoting the enhanced recovery of a fossil fuel the use of which has, according to IPCC, led to global warming.

Equally remarkable is the fact that the chair of IPCC, which is advocating emissions trading along with other mitigation strategies, is himself involved in a commercial trading exchange involving carbon credits.

In other words, Pachauri as the climate czar first recommends certain policies for mitigating global warming. He then gets involved with a commercial entity — a climate exchange ( akin to a stock exchange) — which benefits from the adoption of those policies by governments.”

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/inconvenient-truth.html

Inconvenient truth

Posted by Richard Saturday, January 23, 2010

The Indian Mail Today again takes up the Pachauri story, under the heading: ”Inconvenient truth about Pachauri”.

Ajmer Singh, who wrote the earlier piece on ”conflict of interest”, this time covers some more of Pachauri’s commercial interests – his involvement in the Houston oil technology firm GloriOil and the proposed India Climate Exchange (ICX).

With GloriOil, the irony, writes Ajmer, is that the head of an outfit devoted to climate change is promoting the enhanced recovery of a fossil fuel the use of which has, according to IPCC, led to global warming. Equally remarkable, he adds, is the fact that the chair of IPCC, which is advocating emissions trading along with other mitigation strategies, is himself involved in a commercial trading exchange involving carbon credits.

In other words, Pachauri as the climate czar first recommends certain policies for mitigating global warming. He then gets involved with a commercial entity — a climate exchange (akin to a stock exchange) — which benefits from the adoption of those policies by governments.

Some of the murky tale of GloriOil is told here but Ajmer adds to the details, noting that the company — of which Pachauri is listed as a founder and scientific advisor —provides enhanced oil recovery technology to more than 100 oil wells in Texas.

Dr Pachaur’s Indian commercial venture, TERI Biotech, often claims that it was the pioneer in this field but here we are told that the technology was originally developed by India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC).

This comes from R V Marathe, director of the Institute of Reservoir Studies (IRS), an ONGC research laboratory at Ahmedabad. He confirms that MEOR technology was ONGC’s concept, stating: ”The technology was developed by using ONGC’s own infrastructure. Later on, we had collaborated with TERI.”

However, Dr Lal, director of TERI’s Environmental and Industrial Biotechnology Division, claims that the technology used in the US reservoirs has been ”customised” but, bizarrely, when asked about TERI’s commercial ambitions and ventures, his response was: ”I don’t know, ask the government.”

Here, though, the story gets even murkier as Ajmer reveals that the technology, which GloriOil was licensed to use, was given to it at what amounted to the knockdown price of £50,000 while the charge for implementation and field trials had only been just over £100,000. Given that TERI have been paid just over £4 million by ONGC for what amounted to extended field trials of the technology, GloriOil seems to have benefitted from an extremely generous deal.

Much more has yet to come out about Dr Pachauri’s raft of commercial ventures and his relationship with Big Oil, but today we have seen another corner of the carpet lifted, and had a quick peek inside. The full story of GloriOil, however, has yet to be told.

Nevertheless, Ajmer turns to what ”also appears to be a conflict of interest”, as he highlights Pachauri’s role as as chairman of IPCC, and his role as an adviser to the Chicago Climate Exchange ( CCX) and the proposed ICX, the first pilot greenhouse gas emissions trading programme in India.

Pachauri’s involvement is clear from the CCX website: ”To further this goal, an ICX technical design committee and advisory board is being formed. Dr R K. Pachauri has agreed to serve as the advisory board’s honorary chairman.”

The global market for carbon trading is estimated to be of the order of £75 billion and, given the potentially huge profits, it is not surprising that the participants who have committed to be part of the ICX technical design committee include leading corporations such as Ford India, Tata Motors, ITC, Reliance Industries, Reliance Power, Tata Power, Indowind Power Suzlon/ Senergy Global, IBM India and Motorola India.

Pachauri, writes Ajmer, has claimed that TERI is not a profit-making organisation, but works for the larger good of the society. However, the fact that he is the head of a key UN panel and has links with a number of commercial organisations and entities, casts a doubt on his claims.

Amjer thus concludes that his critics argue that TERI ought to make public its balance sheet, viz. the money it has earned from various sources, and the details of the manner in which it has been spent. However, the organisation currently publishes its accounts for public consumption only in percentage terms.

Surprisingly – or perhaps not – Pachauri did not respond to repeated queries from newspaper, either by telephone or e-mail. He may find, though, that ducking the hard questions does not make them go away – as he will see in The Sunday Telegraph tomorrow.

http://epaper.mailtoday.in/epaperhome.aspx?issue=2312010

Inconvenient truth about Pachauri

By Ajmer Singh in New Delhi

WITH ‘ Climategate’ and ‘ Glaciergate’ behind him, things have started getting hot for Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) and director general, The Energy Research Institute ( TERI).

Questions are now being raised over his association with some commercial ventures, such as one with an American oil company and another with a proposed India Climate Exchange ( ICX).

The irony is that the head of an outfit devoted to climate change is promoting the enhanced recovery of a fossil fuel the use of which has, according to IPCC, led to global warming.

Equally remarkable is the fact that the chair of IPCC, which is advocating emissions trading along with other mitigation strategies, is himself involved in a commercial trading exchange involving carbon credits.

In other words, Pachauri as the climate czar first recommends certain policies for mitigating global warming. He then gets involved with a commercial entity — a climate exchange ( akin to a stock exchange) — which benefits from the adoption of those policies by governments.

The oil company in question is US- based GloriOil — of which Pachauri is listed as a founder and scientific advisor — which provides enhanced oil recovery technology to more than 100 oil wells in Texas. The technology was originally developed by India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation ( ONGC).

Dr Banwari Lal, another TERI director, is also on the advisory board of GloriOil. The cofounder of GloriOil is New York merchant banking firm Global Technology Investments ( GTI).

According to TERI’s annual report: “ After the successful application of MEOR ( Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery) technology in India, a joint venture company between TERI and GTI was created for implementing this technology in the US oilfields.” Dr R. V. Marathe, director of the Institute of Reservoir Studies (IRS), an ONGC research laboratory at Ahmedabad, confirmed that MEOR technology was an original concept of the Indian PSU. “ The technology was developed by using ONGC’s own infrastructure. Later on, we had collaborated with TERI,” he said. He refused to comment on TERI’s claims and it applying ONGC’s technology in GloriOil.

Pachauri did not respond to repeated queries from M AIL TODAY on telephone and on mail.

However, Dr Lal, director of TERI’s Environmental and Industrial Biotechnology Division, claimed that the technology used in the US reservoirs was different from the one used in India.

It is a customised technology and the ONGC technology can’t be replicated there, he added. When asked about TERI’s commercial ambitions/ ventures, Lal refused to comment. “I don’t know, ask the government,” he said.

GloriOil’s website, however, acknowledges the fact that in 1997, ONGC had commissioned TERI to develop MEOR technology to improve the production of its mature fields.

According to senior ONGC officials, IRS had developed MEOR technology in 1994. Subsequently, Rs 40 lakh were paid to TERI for characterisation of the bacteria and Rs 85 lakh for implementation and field trials.

There also appears to be a conflict of interest in Pachauri as chairman of IPCC and his role as an adviser to the Chicago Climate Exchange ( CCX) and the proposed ICX, the first pilot greenhouse gas emissions trading programme in India.

Pachauri’s involvement is clear from the CCX website: “To further this goal, an ICX technical design committee and advisory board is being formed. Dr R. K. Pachauri has agreed to serve as the advisory board’s honorary chairman.” The European Union has a system in place since 2005 whereby all major manufacturing companies are given carbon emission quotas based on their past greenhouse gas emissions. If they are to increase their emissions, then they have to earn or buy carbon credits from companies which have surplus credits.

Thus, if company A, which has a certain number of carbon credits, puts up a facility based on, say, renewable energy which earn it carbon credits, it can sell them to company B, which may want to expand its business based on increasing emissions.

The idea is to make industrial activity greenhouse gas neutral.

The global market for carbon trading is estimated to be of the order of 75 billion pounds.

Given the potentially huge profits, it is not surprising that the participants who have committed to be part of the ICX technical design committee include leading corporations such as Ford India, Tata Motors, ITC, Reliance Industries, Reliance Power, Tata Power, Indowind Power Suzlon/ Senergy Global, IBM India and Motorola India.

Pachauri has claimed that TERI is not a profit- making organisation, but works for the larger good of the society. However, the fact that he is the head of a key UN panel and has links with a number of commercial organisations and entities, casts a doubt on his claims.

His critics argue that TERI ought to make public its balance sheet, viz. the money it has earned from various sources, and the details of the manner in which it has been spent.

However, the organisation currently published its accounts for public consumption only in percentage terms.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 241

23 januari, 2010

“Joseph D’Aleo, of Icecap.us, said the analysis found NASA ”systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.” The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

E. Michael Smith, a computer programming expert who worked with D’Aleo, said he found ”patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked liked dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations.” The more he looked, the more he found ”patterns of deletion that could not be accidental.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518890

A U.S. ClimateGate?

Posted 01/22/2010 07:33 PM ET

Hoaxes: Climate researchers and the Weather Channel’s founder accuse NASA of the same data manipulation as Britain’s Climate Research Unit. Were weather stations cherry-picked to hide the temperature drop?

We recently commented on how our space agency for two years refused Freedom of Information requests on why it has had to repeatedly correct its climate figures.

In a report on global warming on KUSI television by Weather Channel founder and iconic TV weatherman John Coleman, that reticence has been traced to the deliberate manipulation and distortion of climate data by NASA.

As Coleman noted in a KUSI press release, NASA’s two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, are accused of ”creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based.”

Joseph D’Aleo, of Icecap.us, said the analysis found NASA ”systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.” The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

E. Michael Smith, a computer programming expert who worked with D’Aleo, said he found ”patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked liked dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations.” The more he looked, the more he found ”patterns of deletion that could not be accidental.”

Stations in places such as the Andes and Bolivia have virtually vanished, meaning, according to D’Aleo, temperatures from these areas are now ”determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon.” He says it’s as if Minneapolis stopped reporting and its average temperature was extrapolated from readings in St. Louis and Kansas City.

Smith argues that the decrease in stations used and the selectivity of locations make NASA’s data and conclusions suspect. D’Aleo goes further, saying such cherry-picking and data manipulation are a ”scientific travesty” committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.

To us, it looks like just another example of ideologically driven climate deceit following the Climate Research Unit scandal and the fraudulent claim by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would soon vanish.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 240

23 januari, 2010

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013393219835692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop#articleTabs%3Darticle

JANUARY 23, 2010

A Glacier Meltdown

The Himalayas and climate science.

Last November, U.N. climate chief Rajendra Pachauri delivered a blistering rebuke to India’s environment minister for casting doubt on the notion that global warming was causing the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.

”We have a very clear idea of what is happening,” the chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the Guardian newspaper. ”I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

Then again, when it comes to unsubstantiated research it’s hard to beat the IPCC, whose 2007 report insisted that the glaciers—which feed the rivers that in turn feed much of South Asia—were very likely to nearly disappear by the year 2035. ”The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers,” it wrote in its supposedly definitive report, ”can be attributed primarily to the [sic] global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.”

It turns out that this widely publicized prediction was taken from a 2005 report from the World Wildlife Fund, which based it on a comment by Indian glacier expert Syed Hasnain from 1999. Mr. Hasnian now says he was ”misquoted.” Even more interesting is that the IPCC was warned in 2006 by leading glaciologist Georg Kaser that the 2035 forecast was baseless. ”This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude,” Mr. Kaser told the Agence France-Presse. ”It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

On Wednesday, the IPCC got around to acknowledging that the claim was ”poorly substantiated,” though Mr. Pachauri also suggested it amounted to little more than a scientific typo. Yet the error is of a piece with other glib, and now debunked, global warming alarms.

Among them: that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the United States (it was 1934); that sea levels could soon rise by up to 20 feet and put Florida underwater (an 18-inch rise by the year 2100 is the more authoritative estimate); that polar bears are critically endangered by global warming (most polar bear populations appear to be stable or increasing); that—well, we could go on without even mentioning the climategate emails.

For the record, most Himalayan glaciers do seem to be retreating, and they have been ”since the earliest recordings began around the middle of the nineteenth century,” according to a report from India’s ministry of environment and forests. The reasons are complex and still poorly understood, and we’re glad to see responsible scientists acknowledge as much. If more of them could help the IPCC get its facts straight, we might put more stock in its reports.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 239

22 januari, 2010

“Later, Pearce obtained a copy of Hasnain’s original article and discovered it did not mention 2035 as a date the Himalayan glaciers would disappear, as he told Pearce on the phone. The article also said it applied only to a portion of the Himalayan glaciers.

There the story lay until 2005 when the World Wildlife Federation, a key player in the climate change movement, cited the New Scientist account in its own report. From there it was picked up and embellished as part of the 2007 IPCC by Professor Murari Lai, who oversaw the report’s section on glaciers.

Neither Hasnain’s original Indian magazine article, Pearce’s account of it in the New Scientist nor the WWF’s citation qualifies as peer-reviewed scientific research. Yet there is this unsubstantiated speculation in an official U.N. document being used to justify draconian restrictions on the world economy as well as a global redistribution of wealth, all in the name of saving the planet.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518615

The IPCC’s Abominable Snowmen

Posted 01/20/2010 06:52 PM ET

Global Warming: The scientists who said that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 have admitted the claim has as much credibility as sightings of the mythical Yeti. It’s their fraudulent claims that are melting away.

We hesitate to call it Glacier-gate, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. body tasked with scaring us to death about global warming, has admitted that the claim in its 2007 report about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing was not based on any scientific study or research. It was instead based on one scientist’s speculation in a telephone interview with a reporter.

The IPCC claimed: ”Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

As it turns out, the earth hasn’t been warming at all, at least not in the last decade, and reputable scientists have said it may continue to cool for decades to come. Even if it was warming, glaciologists insist, the sheer mass of Himalayan glaciers made such a prediction laughable.

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, notes: ”Even a small glacier, such as the Dokriani glacier, is up to 120 meters (394 feet) thick. A big one would be several hundred meters thick and tens of kilometers long.”

According to Dowdeswell, the average glacier is 300 meters thick, so to melt one even at the rate of five meters a year would take half a century. ”That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now,” he says, ”so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”

The current maximum observed rate of glacier melt worldwide is two to three meters a year.

The IPCC claim has been traced to an article published in 1999 in an Indian magazine by Syed Hasnain, a little-known scientist then based at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, India. Journalist Fred Pearce heard of the article and interviewed Hassan for a piece in the popular journal, the New Scientist.

Pearce is quoted in the London Times as saying: ”Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing these numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer-reviewed or formerly published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status, so I reported his work on that basis.”

Later, Pearce obtained a copy of Hasnain’s original article and discovered it did not mention 2035 as a date the Himalayan glaciers would disappear, as he told Pearce on the phone. The article also said it applied only to a portion of the Himalayan glaciers.

There the story lay until 2005 when the World Wildlife Federation, a key player in the climate change movement, cited the New Scientist account in its own report. From there it was picked up and embellished as part of the 2007 IPCC by Professor Murari Lai, who oversaw the report’s section on glaciers.

Neither Hasnain’s original Indian magazine article, Pearce’s account of it in the New Scientist nor the WWF’s citation qualifies as peer-reviewed scientific research. Yet there is this unsubstantiated speculation in an official U.N. document being used to justify draconian restrictions on the world economy as well as a global redistribution of wealth, all in the name of saving the planet.

Lai now says: ”If Hasnain says officially he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

It should be removed regardless because it is based on the anecdotal suppositions of a single scientist.

Like the infamous ”hockey stick” graph purporting to show sudden and man-induced warming, and the Climate-gate e-mails showing the efforts by researchers associated with Britain’s Climate Research unit to ”hide the decline” in global temperatures, the Himalayan glacier claim, like the IPCC report itself, is science fiction and not science fact.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 238

20 januari, 2010

“The joke on the internet these days is ”What do Tiger Woods and Phil Jones of East Anglia University in Britain have in common? They both got hit in the head by a model.”

 “The models’ error was not, perhaps, too surprising. As Barnett points out, they do not include vital ”forcing” mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.”

“It is difficult to identify a subset of models that consistently does well in many different regions and over a range of different timescales.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_the_truth_hurts_wh.html

January 18, 2010

Climategate: The Truth Hurts When It Hits You in the Head

By Dexter Wright

The joke on the internet these days is ”What do Tiger Woods and Phil Jones of East Anglia University in Britain have in common? They both got hit in the head by a model.”

In 2007, Professors David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and Fred Singer wrote a scientific paper in the International Journal of Climatology, which compared Global Climate Models (GCMs) with real observed data. GCMs were theoretically designed to forecast how greenhouse gases (GHGs) are warming the planet. 

There are certain rules that must be followed in scientific investigations in order to ensure that the results and conclusions are not erroneous. Basically, the process requires an investigator to operate under multiple hypotheses so that he is not blinded to facts that might contradict one of his hypotheses and leave him with a dead end. An investigator should start by working from the known to the unknown, from the simple to the complex, and always bend the theory to fit the facts — not the other way around. This is exactly how the four scholars led by Professor Douglass conducted their investigation into the accuracy of the GCMs.

The GCMs were touted by the now-discredited Dr. Jones as accurate predictions of how the planet is responding to GHGs, but no serious published work had been done to compare these GCMs with real observations to find out if the theoretical models agreed with the established facts. The results of these comparisons done by Prof. Douglass and his team were found to be significantly divergent. The paper states the following:

Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean.

In English, that says that the models could not be trusted. This news publicly enraged the gang led by Dr. Jones. They fired off more than 29 e-mails concerning this one paper. But the real story is that these findings did not surprise them. In one of the recently uncovered Climategate e-mails from Dr. Fred Pearce to Dr. Keith Briffa, dated the 13th of October, 1996, Dr. Pearce delivers the bad news that the data does not agree with the models.

The models’ error was not, perhaps, too surprising. As Barnett points out, they do not include vital ”forcing” mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.

This statement means that as far back as 1996, the Jones Gang knew that the GCMs were producing significant errors and problems. This resulted an inability to reconcile the forecasts with reality. They seemingly knew that specifically excluding solar and El Niño influences would cause the forecast to be untrustworthy. But apparently they wished to keep these problems a secret. So to accomplish this, they chose to deal with the problem in a surprising way, as the e-mail further states:

Of course we don’t have to believe the proxy data.

So now are they suggesting that they alter or ignore the data rather than bend their theory to fit the facts? In other words, are they completely disregarding the scientific method?

When trying to come up with a response to Prof. Douglass’s International Journal of Climatology paper, Dr. Ben Santer wrote to Dr. Jones and admitted that the basic premise of the work done by Prof. Douglass and his collaborators was correct. They had run head-first in to the cold, hard truth (ouch), as revealed in Sater’s e-mail, dated the 12th of December, 2007, when he stated the following:

It is difficult to identify a subset of models that consistently does well in many different regions and over a range of different timescales.

What Dr. Santer is saying here is that clearly, the GCMs are broken, but that even a broken clock is right twice a day. As any forecaster at the National Hurricane Center will tell you, the only forecast models that they trust are models that consistently perform well. When lives are on the line, you don’t take chances by using an unreliable forecast model.

So in response to their dilemma of having to deal with the truth, the Jones Gang seems to abandon all scientific methods and decides to proceed down the rabbit hole and embrace the tactics of attorneys. In law school, they teach the students that if the law is on your side, argue the law; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; but if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, then you have no choice but to try to discredit the witness.

The difference between scientists like Prof. Douglas and lawyers like Al Gore is that scientists seek the truth, while lawyers find the truth to be a simple matter of convenient choice to be used or obscured as needed. 

The choice that the Jones Gang appears to make is to impugn the reputation of these scholars by referring to them as charlatans and pondering how to get them fired, as is detailed in this e-mail Dr. Tom Wigley sent on the 10th of December, 2007, to Dr. Santer:

… what Douglass has done would cause him to lose his job.

It is true that five hundred years ago, when a scientist challenged the prevailing accepted view of things, he would lose his job (and even get locked up like Galileo), but this is the twenty-first century! The inquisition is over…or is it?

The apparent plotting seems to take shape as this cabal begins to scheme and set traps for Prof. Douglass’s collaborators, as is suggested in this e-mail from Dr. Wigley, dated the 29th of December, 2007:

Dear all,

I was recently at a meeting in Rome where Fred Singer was a participant. He was not on the speaker list, but, in advance of the meeting, I had thought he might raise the issue of the Douglass et al. paper. I therefore prepared the attached power point — modified slightly since returning from Rome. As it happened, Singer did not raise the Douglass et al. issue, so I did not use the ppt. Still, it may be useful for members of this group so I am sending it to you all.

Please keep this in confidence. I do not want it to get back to Singer or any of the Douglass et al. co-authors.

If this were some floor fight in Congress, where the ”honorable” members are duking it out over some piece of legislation, this kind of language could be expected, but these are supposedly scientists. Men of science are supposed to be ethical and motivated only by the pursuit of truth. These e-mails seem to paint a very different picture of the Jones Gang.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 237

19 januari, 2010

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152595/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-climate-change-campaigners

TAXPAYERS FOOT BILL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE CAMPAIGNERS 

Tuesday January 19,2010

BRUSSELS bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5million of taxpayers’ money last year to promote the theory that human activity is causing global warming, it emerged yesterday.

The European Commission handed out huge cash sums to Climate Action Network, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund. In one case, British and other European taxpayers paid out more than £700,000 to Friends of the Earth Europe – more than half the pressure group’s 2009 budget.

The payouts came to light after questions by UKIP Euro MP Godfrey Bloom. He said the cash was perpetuating unfounded claims about global warming.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas insisted that the groups’ aims and objectives were in tune with EU policy.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 236

19 januari, 2010

As an update on my previous post, V K Rana , India‘s senior-most glaciologist, wants an apology from Pachauri, head of IPCC, over his smears of his science.

Well, that’s the bare minimum.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/Glaciologist-demands-apology-from-Pachauri-for-voodoo-remark/articleshow/5477796.cms

Glaciologist demands apology from Pachauri for ‘voodoo’ remark

19 Jan 2010, 2101 hrs IST, PTI

NEW DELHI: India‘s senior-most glaciologist V K Raina today said the chief of the UN climate body should apologise to the scientist fraternity for 

dubbing their work on melting of Himalayan glaciers as ”voodoo science”.

Raina’s demand comes even as the UN body, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) headed by R K Pachauri, deliberates on retracting its statement on Himalayan glaciers melting.

The IPCC had dumped our report that the glaciers have not retreated abnormally. Now, with the truth out in open, the IPCC should dump its own report which was based on mere speculation,” Raina told PTI.

He was reacting to the revelations that the UN panel’s predictions that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 stemmed from a 1999 article in a scientific journal which relied on an estimate made by a glaciologist Syed Iqbal Hasnain and not based on a peer review.

IPCC must be answerable to all the scientists and experts associated who stand vindicated that glaciers melting is not being happening at the abnormal pace as declared by it, Raina noted.

”It only shows that IPCC has based its arguments on speculations and did not verify it before making it public,” the former deputy director general of the Geological Survey of India said.

Raina, in his report, had maintained that glaciers have ”not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years and the reports of the glaciers demise are a bit premature.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 235

18 januari, 2010

More on Pachauri, head of IPCC, and his business empire – Sorry, it should officially be a “Non Profit Charity Organization”.

Ana as an update on my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 231

Interesting isn’t it, that the guy who was speculating, and after passing thru a “science” magazine  and WWF, ends up as Hard Irrefutable “science” in IPCC:s  4 AR ; IS NOW ACTUALLY WORKING FOR Pachauris company TERI.

What a coincidence wouldn’t you say?

And that TERI got a $500,000 grant as a result of these speculations.

Another coincidence wouldn’t you say?

“Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as ”voodoo science”. “  

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-theres-money-in-them-glaciers.html

Pachauri: there’s money in them glaciers

Posted by Richard Monday, January 18, 2010

Syed Hasnain (pictured), the scientist at the centre of the growing controversy over melting Himalayan glaciers (not), is now working for Dr R K Pachauri’s TERI as head of the institute glaciology team, funded by a generous grant from a US charity, researching the effects of the retreat.

Highlighted in The Sunday Times yesterday, Dr Hasnain was the scientist responsible for claiming that the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. This was picked up by the New Scientist and then by a 2005 WWF report, and subsequently published as a definitive claim in the IPCC’s 2007 fourth assessment report, masterminded by Dr R K Pachauri.

But, while Dr Hasnain, who was then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, has admitted that the New Scientist report was based on ”speculation” and was not supported by any formal research, he is now a direct beneficiary of that speculation.

Using Dr Hasnain’s claim that the Himalaya glaciers ”will vanish within forty years as a result of global warming…resulting in widespread water shortages,” Pachauri’s ”alarmism” was bolstered by the WWF report which stated:

As apocalyptic as it may sound, it needs to be underlined that glaciers need to be studied for a variety of purposes including hazard assessment, effects on hydrology, sea level rise and to track climatic variations. There are several problems associated with retreating glaciers that need to be understood in order to proceed to the next stage of quantifying research and mitigating disaster.

With the case for more research thus established, Pachauri’s institute, TERI, approached the wealthy Carnegie Corporation of New York through a consortium led by the Global Centre for funding to carry out precisely the work to which his own ”independent” report had drawn attention.

In November 2008, they were successful, being awarded a $500,000 grant for ”research, analysis and training on water-related security and humanitarian challenges to South Asia posed by melting Himalaya glaciers.” This helped Dr Pachauri set up the TERI Glaciology team, putting at its head now professor Syed Iqbal Hasnain.

The Global Center is an Icelandic-based private institute with links to the office of the president of Iceland, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson. Its aim is to establish ”a major research and training program involving scientists from South Asia, Europe and the Americas,” of which Dr Pauchari’s TERI India is a central part.

Thus, this month, on 15 January, Iceland president Grímsson and Dr Pachauri, together with a team from Ohio State University, launched their collaborative programme, declaring that TERI and the Carnegie Corporation of New York had ”joined hands” to work in the fields of glaciology and soil science.

The purpose of the joint effort, they said, was ”to improve understanding of the effects of climate change on the Himalaya and the manifold consequences that follow for the possibilities of water management and food production on the plains below.”

The research fund is also to be topped up from the $108,000 proceeds of the Nehru Prize awarded to Grímsson this month.

Nevertheless, Dr Hasnain does not seem always to be upholding his earlier ”speculation”. He was ”on message” in November 2009 but, on the first day of the two-day conclave on ”Indian Himalayan glaciers, change and livelihoods” in October 2009, he told his audience that scientists projected ”a 43 percent decrease in glacial area on average by the year 2070 and 75 percent decrease by the end of 21st century at the current warming rate” – a very far cry from disappearance in 2035.

However, with the addition of EU funding, Dr Hasnain can afford to be more candid. He has been able to set up a major research facility at Latey Bunga, Mukteshwar, with several outstations in what is now a well-resourced operation.

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”.

Still, with $500,000 in the bank, and EU money flowing into the coffers, the report has served its purpose and he can afford now to walk away from it.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022694/syed-hasnain-rk-pachauri-and-the-mystery-of-the-non-disappearing-glaciers/

“So, to recap: in the course of a garbled phone conversation a scientist accidentally invents a problem that doesn’t exist. This gets reported as if gospel in an influential Warmist science magazine and repeated by a Warmist NGO, before being lent the full authority of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report which, as we know, can’t be wrong because it is vetted by around 2,500 scientists. Then, on the back of this untrue story, the scientist gets a cushy job at the institution whose director is also in charge of the IPCC.

Nice work if you can invent it, eh?”

http://www.ptinews.com/news/474134_Himalayan-glacier-issue–Ramesh-says-India-vindicated

India being vindicated in Himalayan glacier issue’

——————————————————————————–

New Delhi, Jan 18 (PTI) As the controversy over retreating Himalayan glaciers took a new turn, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh today said India stood vindicated with a UN body moving to retract its own ”alarmist” warning that the glaciers would melt by 2035 due to climate change.

Ramesh slammed as ‘alarmist’ the warning by Rajendra Pachauri’s Nobel-prize winning Inter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the glaciers would vanish and said it was without any scientific basis.

Pachauri, who is the IPCC Chairman, washed his hands of the controversy saying he has ”absolutely no responsibility

”The health of the glaciers is a cause of grave concern but the IPCC’s alarmist position that the glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence,” Ramesh told reporters.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/glacial-falloutand-ipcc.html

18 January 2010

Glacial Fallout and the IPCC

The IPCC’s error with respect to Himalayan glaciers has all of a sudden gained enormous traction. Here is a quick round up of the latest.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, says that the Panel is revisiting the erroneous claims on glaciers:

”We are looking into the issue of the Himalayan glaciers, and will take a position on it in the next two or three days,” Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told Reuters in an e-mail.

What this might mean isunclear since the AR4 is disbanded and it is not clear that the IPC has any policies or procedures for revisiting or addressing errors in previously published reports. Depending on how the IPCC responds, there likely will be other issues to be addressed, including of course the IPCC’s egregious errors on disasters and climate change.

In Indian media, Pachauri also appears to have disavowed any responsibility for the IPCC error, while India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh claims to have been vindicated in his dispute with Pachauri and the IPCC:

India’s Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh Monday said “I was right on the glaciers” while maintaining that the Himalayan glaciers are ”indeed” receding, which is a cause for great concern, but the view that these rivers of ice would melt down completely by 2035 due to global warning is ”alarmist” and without any scientific basis.

”It is a clear vindication of our position. (But) It is a serious issue. (Himlayan) glaciers are serious issues for India. Most of the Himalayan glaciers are in a poor state, but the report that suggested that the glaciers will vanish completely by 2035 is alarmist and misplaced,” Ramesh told reporters in New Delhi.

He maintained that the causes for the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas needs to be carefull studies.

Ramesh was referring to the study by the Nobel prize winning group – United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 had – that claimed that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

The Rajendra Pachauri-led UN panel had warned that the melting of glaciers would have far-reaching consequences for India. However, new evidence has emerged to suggest that the IPCC may have been mistaken.

The IPCC’s claim was based on an article in a London-based science journal which had borrowed the statement from India’s glaciologist Syed Iqbal Hasnain. “The study was not made on any scientific evidence,” a very happy sounding minister.

WWF-India Climate Change and Energy Programme chief Shirish Sinha admitted that there are ”limitations to scientific models used for such studies.”

”We need to look at new data and study. The larger issue is the coming of scientific data which is not validated,” said Sinha.

The report was based on compilation of papers. We regret the report that was put out. The information used in the report was not validated and the predictions were based on scientific models. What WWF has seen is that smaller glaciers are more vulnerable but larger ones are not that vulnerable,” Sinha has been quoted as saying by CNN-IBN television channel.

A little-known scientist Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, Syed Husnain who first issued the doomsday warning, has admitted that it was based on a news story in a science journal.

Pachauri, however, washed his hands off the report saying Husnain was not working with him but in the New Delhi-based Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) when he published it

”Husnain was with JNU when the report was published in 1999. I am not responsible for what he did in his past, can’t say anything now. Have to assess facts first,” Pachauri replied when asked if the misleading report was an embarrassment for The Energy and Resources Institute.

Hasnain now works for Pachauri at TERI.

WWF Australia has issued a statement apologizing for the error in its report and distancing itself from the IPCC. Here is an excerpt from the statement:

. . . In this case, we relied upon a published article rather than the original report for the information we cited in our own document. Referring to this article without double-checking the primary source was a mistake inconsistent with our high standards and one we sincerely regret. . .

How can the IPCC justify not having peer-reviewed this statement before including it in their report?

A: This is a question for the IPCC.

Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 1/18/2010 10:05:00 AM

THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE SCANDAL

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152422/The-new-climate-change-scandal

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 234

18 januari, 2010

Here is a very interesting analysis of the central England temperature (CET) dataset  (records since 1659). They have looked at the 10 largest temperature changes for a single year, the 10 largest for a 5 year period, the 10 largest for a 10 year period, and so on up to a 60 year period.

And, surprise surprise – OF ALL these 10 highest in the different time periods (80 in total) 2 was from this decade (2002 and 2006, both in 8 place).

If you take the largest single year temperature change the “most recent one” was in 1922 (5th place).

If you take the largest 5 year temperature change the “most recent one” was in 1990 (4th place).

If you take the largest 10 year temperature change the “most recent one” was in 1995 (6th place).

And so on.

And nearly all of the top ones are either from the 18th century or the 19th century.

Weren’t we in IMMEDIATE AND EMINENT DANGER OF GLOBAL CATASTROPHE (said 3 months ago) according the high priests of the Global Warming Hysteria?  

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/central-england-temperatures-unprecedented-warming-during-last-decade.html

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 233

18 januari, 2010

More on Pachauri, head of IPCC, and his business empire – Sorry, it should officially be a “Non Profit Charity Organization”.

And more from Roger Pielke, Jr regarding Pachauri, IPCC and his Business Empire and conflict of interest.

Plus a very good comment on the corruption with ALL the money “floating around”.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/ipcc-and-conflict-of-interest-anything.html

17 January 2010

IPCC and Conflict of Interest: Anything Goes

The Sunday Telegraph has an interesting story on TERI-Europe and Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, uncovering what TERI admits are accounting ”anomalies” — never a good thing to hear when financial accounting is concerned. I will have more to say on that, but in this post I’d like to focus on a very interesting statement in the article on the UN and IPCC policies for conflict of interest:

Because Dr Pachauri’s role at the IPCC is unpaid – although he does receive tens of thousands of pounds in travel expenses – he is exempt along with other panel members from declaring outside interests with the UN.

As far as I have been able to discern, the IPCC has no policy governing conflict of interests. This is remarkable, given the importance of the IPCC to international climate policy as well as the importance that has been given in recent years to conflicts of interest in scientific advice. The question that needs to be put to the IPCC is: why should it be exempt from adhering to conflict of interest policies that are deemed appropriate in every other important area of scientific advice?

Last month I posted up the standards of conduct regarding conflict of interest for the IPCC’s parent bodies: the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization. Based on what the Sunday Telegraph has reported the leadership of the IPCC falls through a bureaucratic loophole and is not accountable to UN or WMO conflict of interest policies. In fact, it appears that there are no such policies governing the IPCC — which is remarkable.

Instituting such policies will be difficult as any reasonable conflict of interest policies will necessarily lead to some very uncomfortable questions about its current chairman, as well as others in leadership positions. There is no doubt based on publicly available information that Dr. Pachauri has material conflcits of interest as IPCC chair. At the same time, unless the IPCC sets forth such policies, it will continue to hang exposed like a virtual pinata, getting whacked repeatedly and justifiably for its ”anything goes” approach. For the IPCC the better course is to clean up its act sooner rather than later, as uncomfortable as that might be in the short term.

Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 1/17/2010 09:38:00 AM

———————————————————————– 

Paul said…

The UN is hopelessly corrupt … from Oil for Food to human trafficking, to it’s members living like little kings in developed countries (Haiti comes to mind); it has the perfect structure for predators to profit from with no accountibility. The UN is third world corruption come to our shores.

Are you surprised then, that with trillions to be made from carbon trading (money from thin air) that the parasites wouldn’t be congregating. ”The science” has become hopelessly mixed up with politics, unaccountable bureaucracy, and corporate greed … so the Pachauri tale is just the tip of the iceberg. The UK Telegraph team are just getting started.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/way-money-goes-round.html

Roger, let’s not be naive! AGW is a fast track to incredible profits for those on the right side of the trade … to think that this won’t corrupt every aspect of the ”science” is to use rose coloured glasses. AGW science is to the carbon trade as Research is to big pharma … can you imagine big pharma functioning without strict oversight to keep it hones?. Yet, the AGW science has no such checks and balances with a who’s who of corporate and private interests salivating at the profit potential.

Just think, politicians get billions to ”redistribute for votes”; corporations like Goldman Sachs make billions just in transaction fees; NGOs get billions for doing the work of Gaia; Scientists get billions (79 so far) in grants; bureaucrats get more power and wealth doing the work of saving the planet; and every single ”green” business gets in on the feeding frenzy.

Conflict of interest? You think?

Sun Jan 17, 11:26:00 AM MST 

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 232

17 januari, 2010

And more on Pachauri, head of IPCC, and his business empire – Sorry, it should officially be a “Non Profit Charity Organization”.

It’s very interesting with all this money floating around, passing through several layers before ending up in all these “Non Profit Charity Organizations”.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-sunday-telegraph-part-1.html

“Since being elected to the IPCC chairmanship five years earlier, he has coincidentally built up a worldwide network of business interests. He has been appointed to more than 20 positions, ranging from directorships and advisory roles to major banks and investment firms to serving as the first head of Yale University‘s new Climate and Energy Institute.

Dr Pachauri insists that the millions of dollars he receives for these posts are all paid not to him personally but to his Delhi-based institute. But during the same period he has also presided over a massive expansion of TERI’s own empire, which now has five overseas branches, in North America, Japan, South-East Asia, Dubai and Europe.

Considerable mystery surrounds the financial affairs of the TERI group since its annual reports do not include its accounts.”

“Why Dr Reisinger’s money was paid through TERI Europe, via an unnamed department of Cambridge University – and why the Government has been so secretive about details of this payment – thus remains as mysterious as much else about the financial affairs of TERI Europe.

The one thing all this made obvious, however, was that TERI Europe’’s income and expenditure in recent years were both much greater than the figures it declared to the Charity Commission.

When we put this to Ms Kumar, as a director and company secretary of TERI Europe, she admitted that our questions had brought to light ”anomalies” in the charity’s accounts. Its accountants have now been called in to produce a revised version.

The primary responsibility for ensuring that TERI Europe’s affairs are in good order and comply with the requirements of the Charities Acts lies not just with the directors but with its board of trustees.

These include not only Dr Pachauri himself but also two other notable figures in the global warming story. One is Sir John Houghton, a former head of the UK Met Office who played a crucial part at the top of the IPCC through much of its existence. A third is Sir Crispin Tickell, the former diplomat who was responsible in 1988 for converting Mrs Thatcher to a belief in the dangers of global warming. This led to the setting up by Houghton of the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, which has continued to play a key role in the IPCC to this day.

If the Charity Commission’s investigation confirms these anomalies in the charity’s accounts, its eminent trustees will be at the forefront of those asked to provide an explanation.

One interesting fact to emerge from our enquiries to the IPCC secretariat in Geneva is that, for his extensive work as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pauchuri receives no salary but only expenses.

Just what Dr Pachauri himself earns from TERI, of which he describes himself to the Sunday Telegraph as ”a full-time salaried employee”, is not publicly revealed. Indeed, on Indian TV recently, in response to an article we published three weeks ago, he curiously claimed that ”nobody in TERI gets any money for anything he or she does as part of his or her job”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7005963/Taxpayers-millions-paid-to-Indian-institute-run-by-UN-climate-chief.html

Taxpayers’ millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief

Millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money is being paid to an organisation in India run by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial chairman of the UN climate change panel, despite growing concern over its accounts.

By Robert Mendick

Published: 9:30PM GMT 16 Jan 2010

A research institute headed by Dr Pachauri will receive up to £10 million funding over the next five years from the Department for International Development (DfID).

The grant comes amid question marks over the finances of The Energy and Resources Institute’s (TERI) London operation. Last week its UK head called in independent accountants after admitting ‘anomalies’ – described as ‘unintentional’ – in its accounts that have prompted demands for the Charity Commission to investigate.

The decision to resubmit accounts follows a Sunday Telegraph investigation into the finances of TERI Europe, which has benefited from funding from other branches of the British Government including the Foreign Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Dr Pachauri, TERI’s director-general, has built up a worldwide network of business interests since his appointment as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2002. The post, argue critics, has given him huge prestige and influence as the world’s most powerful climate official.

The decision by DfID to fund Dr Pachauri’s institute, based in Delhi, will add to growing concern over allegations of conflict of interest with critics accusing Dr Pachauri and TERI of gaining financially from policies which are formulated as a result of the work he carries out as IPCC chairman – a suggestion he strongly denies.

But Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor who now chairs the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank which challenges the prevailing scientific view on climate change, said: ”It is now a wholly legitimate concern to ask questions about possible conflicts of interests. The IPCC is a very influential body and he is obviously very involved in its leadership.”

Ann Widdecombe, one of only a handful of MPs who have openly declared themselves climate sceptics, said: ”I would have thought that in the interests of transparency and for the avoidance of doubt he probably should not perform both roles. It makes me uneasy.”

Because Dr Pachauri’s role at the IPCC is unpaid – although he does receive tens of thousands of pounds in travel expenses – he is exempt along with other panel members from declaring outside interests with the UN.

But he is paid an undisclosed salary by TERI while the institute has also received payments from a number of organisations and businesses he has advised in recent years including 100,000 euros (£88,400) from Deutcshe bank, $80,000 (£49,000) from Toyota Motors and $580,000 (£357,000) from Yale University, where he serves as head of its new Climate and Energy Institute.

The deal with DfID was announced in September at the British Council in Delhi with Dr Pachauri and Development Secretary Douglas Alexander in attendance. According to a press release issued by the British High Commission at the time, the ”partnership will enable TERI to improve knowledge, policy analysis and development practice across a broad range of issues critical to growth, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability in India”.

Dr Pachauri, who lives in a mansion in Delhi on the most valuable stretch of residential real estate in India, declared at the time: ”This partnership will assist in creating capacity within TERI to undertake efforts by which poverty can be addressed through resource efficient solutions.”

Asked last week what the money was actually for, a DfID spokesman said it would help ”bring electricity and clean energy to millions of the world’s poorest people”.

The spokesman added: ”TERI is a globally respected institution. Their accounts are externally audited and annually submitted to the Government of India. As is routine, DFID is undertaking a full Institutional Assessment of TERI as part of our due diligence process.”

Mystery surrounds the financial affairs of TERI, which now has five overseas branches in North America, Japan, South East Asia, Dubai and Europe, since it does not make its accounts public even though it is a not for profit organisation. Its annual report only shows two pie charts representing its main areas of income and expenditure although these include no figures.

After two weeks of requests by the Sunday Telegraph, TERI revealed income for 2008 to 2009 of £10.7m, up from £6.8 million the year before. DfID said the first year funding of £2 million amounted to about 15 per cent of TERI’s annual turnover.

TERI Europe has also attracted British Government and private funding and although no overall figures have been made available for the value of the contracts, they are reckoned to be worth substantial sums over several years.

But latest available Charity Commission accounts show income of £8,000 and expenditure of £3,000 in 2008 while separate accounts lodged at Companies House show a little over £60,000 in cash at the bank in June 2008.

Ritu Kumar, who runs TERI Europe, said in response to inquiries by this newspaper she had called in independent accountants Mazars.

Dr Kumar wrote: ”As a result of this, Mazars has advised us that there are anomalies in the accounts filed with the Charity Commission. As soon as we learned of these anomalies, which were unintentional on our part, we informed the Charity Commission and immediately asked the accountant to prepare revised accounts, which will apply the correct accounting treatment.”

In a letter published in today’s Sunday Telegraph, Dr Pachauri denies any conflict of interest. He writes: ”I am proud of my association with various organisations, of which I am happy to provide a complete list, but such associations are limited to me providing them with advice essentially on clean technologies and sustainable practices. There is no question of them influencing the functioning of TERI, the IPCC or myself.

”There is no conflict between these roles and my position as chairman of the IPCC. I advise several organisations on sustainable energy and related subjects, and any remuneration that is due to me from these organisations is paid to TERI, not to me.

”This is not for reasons of tax evasion or money laundering, but, to keep within the practices of TERI, of which I am a full-time, salaried employee. No part of these payments is received by me from TERI either directly or indirectly.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>