IPCC report based on speculation
First we had the emails detailing how contradictory evidence was suppressed from reports that were the basis of the IPCC report and now this;
THE peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports – that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming – was based on a “speculative” claim by an obscure Indian scientist.Most of their predictions are speculative, based on computer projections that reflects the data entered by people who have the “faith” If the data is speculative then so is the IPCC report and yet the results are crammed down our throat every day by government and media who are of the same “faith”, as proven. Man is causing the change! Climate change is a given but man’s contribution isn’t and if we are to accept that then what of the billions of dollars being spent propping up careers in AGW.
This – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment//
puts the emails in context, and makes Bolt look silly.
An extract –
“The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
Bolt on climate change reads like McCarthy on Communism…..
The other point that is in contention is that it is cheaper to try to prevent global warming than it is to accept it as a natural process and attempt to cope with it.
The MSNBC attempted whitewash of ClimateGate fails to put the emails and other documents into context.
John P. Costella B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed. has written a comprehensive review in which he places the emails into context with contemporaneous events.
It’s a long and depressing read – unlike MSNBC he provides links to the documents he quotes as well as a repository of all the CRU documents so his conclusions can be evaluated by those reading his analysis.
I’ve read most of the CRU material and have to say I have nothing but contempt for those involved in the disgraceful actions detailed by the leaked emails and programmer’s records.
ClimateGate combined with the current investigations into the head of the IPCC’s conflict of interests and the revelations regarding the inclusion of non-peer reviewed ‘guestimates’ into the 4th IPCC report have reduced the IPCC to a laughing stock.
It’s time to scrap the lot and start again without the UN’s wealth redistribution ideology.
There is no evidence to support the IPCC’s contention CO2 is a major driver of climate change – much of the warming claimed by the IPCC is attributable to a warming bias introduced into the surface temperature record via GHCN’s ‘homogenisation’, changes in cloud and land cover and natural warming post the ‘Little Ice Age’.
The current rate and extent of climate change is not remarkable – there are many examples of faster and more dramatic changes during the current warm interval between ice ages.
As Harry Buttle points out, the misguided attempt to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cost many times more than the cost of adaptation to climate change.
Even if all human activities ceased tomorrow it would be hundreds of years before the carbon cycle could permanently sequester enough CO2 to reduce atmospheric levels to that claimed to have existed before industrialisation.
If the science of AGW is “settled’ why are the believers stretching some facts, hiding others and distorting data. The East Anglia emails show a tendency to only release data that supports AGW.
Whether the emails prove anything is not the point; what is relevant is the unprofessional attitude that, in my mind, leaves the vast body of evidence tainted ..what am I to believe?
And this from the Dept of Climate Change
Major reports are normally peer-reviewed. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the peer-reviewed literature on climate change every 5–6 years. The reports are subject to an intense peer-review process involving hundreds of scientifi c experts and government reviewers.
This unprecedented level of peer and government review makes this compendium of climate change science one of the most scrutinized documents in the history of science.
“…unprecedented level of peer and government review…”
The ClimateGate material reveals what a sham peer review in so called climate science has become.
The CRU crew expected, nay, demanded all papers on climate change being considered for publication in scientific journals be submitted to them for review.
If the editor of a journal had the temerity to request reviews from scientists not in their inner circle they conspired (successfully) to bully the journal’s publishers and have the editor removed.
When their ‘friends’ at a journal alerted them a contrarian paper was going to be published they conspired to access pre-publication copies of the paper and then have its publication date delayed so they could cobble together an opposing paper.
They had a list of like minded people who could be trusted to “say the right things” when ‘peer reviewing’ their papers, including members of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
Often their papers would be published with much fanfare in the same issue as the original papers which they opposed, a facility not offered to any other authors.
Members of BoM are also implicated in a conspiracy to deny lawful FOI requests for raw climate data, even though the data should have been made publicly available as a consequence of the publishing rules of many scientific journals.
As an aside, the emails detail a successful attempt by one of the clique to have another awarded a prestigious American Geophysical Union Fellowship (using a bodgied up CV) with a clear demand the favour was to be returned as revealed in this email from Michael Mann of hockey stick infamy:
“On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem with some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year (wink)?
I’ve looked over the current list of American Geophysical Union Fellows, and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who aren’t as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate.
Anyway, I don’t want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you’d be willing to help organize, I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year.
I’m looking forward to catching up with you some time soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry’s choosing (wink).”
As John Costella observes:
“ClimateGate has shattered that myth [of scientific rigour in climate science]. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their “old boys’ club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”. Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.
As an increasing number of highly qualified scientists slowly began to realize that the “climate science” community was a facade—and that their vitriolic rebuffs of sensible arguments of mathematics, statistics, and indeed scientific common sense were not the product of scientific rigor at all, but merely self-protection at any cost—the veil began to drop on what has already become clear as the greatest scientific fraud in this history of mankind.
This is one of the darkest periods in the history of science.”
This is one of the darkest periods in the history of science.”
Not to mention government and media.
It’s over boys, let’s move on.