|
|
|
|
 |
MalcolmR
 |
|
In this thread I'll start by posting quotes from Russian climate scientists followed by a summary of key points I presented in another TOV thread. Then I'll continue exposing the UN IPCC's fraudulent claims of catastrophic effects.
Russian climate scientists confirm we're in an overall cooling trend. Quote: "Mr Tishkov, deputy head of the Geography Institute at Russian Academy of Science, said: 'What we have been watching recently is comparatively fast changes of climate to warming, but within the framework of an overall long-term period of cooling. This is a proven scientific fact."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1260132/Russian-weatherman-strikes-blow-climate-change-lobby-announcing-winter-Siberia-coldest-record.html
Another quote from the article quoting Russian climate experts: "From the scientific point of view, in terms of large scale climate cycles, we are in a period of cooling.
The last three years of low temperatures in Siberia, the Arctic and number of Russia mountainous regions prove that, as does the recovery of ice in the Arctic Ocean and the absence of warming signs in Siberia."
Posting on another TOV thread recently I exposed the UN IPCC's fraudulent claims of increasing temperature and unusually high atmospheric CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels. Both these core UN IPCC claims are fraudulent falsities. For details refer to the thread incorrectly and falsely entitled: 'The Global Climate: Yes, It's Still Warming'.
In that thread's third post I summarised the UN IPCC's core falsities as, quote: "The UN IPCC’s many very serious breaches of scientific integrity and scientific peer review and its dishonesty are at the heart of its core climate claims and many supporting alarming projections. Specifically, as detailed in later sections of this report, fraud underpins the UN IPCC’s claims. Examples include:
• its core temperature claim was fabricated by a junior scientist while bypassing and initially preventing peer review by scientists until exposed by scientific detective work. Yet Earth’s two accurate global temperature records (weather balloons, later supplemented by satellites) show no net warming since 1958. Satellite measurements show that UN IPCC predictions of tropospheric warming are wrong;
• tampering of Earth’s three ground based temperature records to falsely show warming when there has been no warming. Specifically, the climate Research unit (CRU), a key source of UN IPCC ground based temperature data is corrupt. USA’s NASA and NOAA now face claims of tampering and corrupting their records of ground based temperature data. The original ground based measurements reveal no net warming since 1890;
• its core claim on atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels was falsified and unscientifically fabricated. It omitted reliable records showing higher levels of CO2 during the last 180 years;" End of quote.
Note in particular that thread's first page, fourth last post, including: 'Corruption of ground-based temperature records used by the UN IPCC
Reference for this fact: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf [Accessed, January, 2010.]'
After this summary, my subsequent posts detailed the temperature and CO2 fraud.
Thereafter my posts revealed further falsities in UN IPCC claims of catastrophic effects of its fabricated warming. These included:
- the UN IPCC's claim about destruction of the Amazon rainforests was simply lifted from a WWF activist's brochure - unscientific;
- student and hikers as source of UN IPCC’s claims about mountain ice alarm - unscientific; and,
- UN IPCC alarm over storms has been fabricated - unscientific.
These posts were supported with links.
After presenting information completely debunking that thread's title, I decided to stop contributing to that thread's false and unfounded title. Hence, I'll now continue exposing UN IPCC fraud and falsities on this new thread.
Malcolm
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
UN IPCC's unfounded claims of rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather.
Christopher Pearson reports that the UN IPCC had in its report said the world had, quote, ‘suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970’s’, it ignored warnings from other scientists in the field, basing the findings on an unpublished paper that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny. According to Pearson, when published, the paper cautioned, quote: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses.”
(Reference: Christopher Pearson, The Weekend Australian, Sa.30, 2010, ‘Don’t trust the weatherman’s forecasts’. As above http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dont-trust-the-weathermans-forecasts/story-e6frg6zo-1225824634542)
The IPCC concocted false evidence on the increased likelihood of bad weather events as the planet has warmed. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/castles-built-on-sand.
html and http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html.
Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon in his book entitled 'The Deniers' and Kiwi investigative journalist Ian Wishart in his book entitled 'Air Con' detail many examples of UN IPCC fraud about damage due to weather.
Malcolm
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded predictions of devastating African agriculture.
Christopher Pearson reports, quote: ‘The IPCC report also warned that global warming could devastate African agriculture. This was on the strength of non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific research from a sustainability lobby group. Combined with the claims on extreme weather events, it underpinned the claims for $100 billion for African nations from First World countries at Copenhagen’.
(Reference: Christopher Pearson, The Weekend Australian, Saturday, January 30, 2010, ‘Don’t trust the weatherman’s forecasts’. As above http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dont-trust-the-weathermans-forecasts/story-e6frg6zo-1225824634542)
That was the UN's failed tactic to drive votes for its failed Copenhagen protocol. Had the UN succeeded the Copenhagen treaty would have enabled:
- UN to establish a financial tax world-wide - without vote by citizens;
- UN to impose severe limits on energy use - without vote by citizens;
- nations ceding national sovereignty to UN - without vote by citizens.
Refer also to Christopher Booker writing in the UK paper The Telegraph, Feb 13, 2010, 'African crops yield another catastrophe for the IPCC'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231386/African-crops-yield-another-catastrophe-for-the-IPCC.html
Note Booker's claim that the UN IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, was deeply personally involved in this UN IPCC falsity.
Malcolm
.
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded claims on coastal activity in Latin America.
Christopher Pearson reports, quote: ‘The iPCC report also cited what’s politely termed advocacy research from the WWF as sole authority for findings on coastal developments in Latin America. A WWF report and a conference paper delivered in 2002 but still not published as the only citations for findings on mud flows and avalanches linked to melting glaciers’.
(Reference: 35 Christopher Pearson, The Weekend Australian, Sa.30, 2010, ‘Don’t trust the weatherman’s forecasts’. As above http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dont-trust-the-weathermans-forecasts/story-e6frg6zo-1225824634542)
Malcolm
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded exaggeration of risks to Australian climate.
Christopher Pearson discusses scientists in England being contacted by a representative of WWF with the aim of exaggerating the (unfounded) risks to Australian climate.
(Reference: Christopher Pearson, The Weekend Australian, Sa.30, 2010, ‘Don’t trust the weatherman’s forecasts’. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dont-trust-the-weathermans-forecasts/story-e6frg6zo-1225824634542)
In a future post I'll discuss the Stern Review’s falsities about (unfounded) Australian climate risks that were used to generate alarming headlines - and later quietly withdrawn by Stern.
Malcolm
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded alarm contradicted by eminent scientists—experts in their field.
in his book entitled ‘The Deniers’, one of Canada’s most respected environmentalists, Lawrence Solomon reveals that in topics including sea level, polar ice caps, glaciers, storms, diseases, atmospheric CO2 levels, temperature, sun, atmospheric CO2 levels and ice cores he interviewed at least one top scientist, and usually more from each field. These included UN IPCC scientists. They consistently contradict UN IPCC claims.
(Reference: Solomon, L, 2008. ‘The Deniers: The World-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud And those who are fearful to do so’. Richard Vigilante Books, USA)
Along the way Solomon found there is no scientific consensus supporting the UN IPCC. Scientists noted that more scientists disagreed with the UN IPCC’s conclusions and claims than agreed. Scientists revealed shoddy UN IPCC processes including suppression of scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC’s seemingly predetermined outcomes, biased processes and use of non-experts and non-scientists including activists passed off as experts.
It is clear that the UN iPCC is not scientific and has no grounds for alarm over Earth’s modest natural cyclic global warming that ended around 1998. Solomon appears to have started researching his book with little expectation of finding much. instead he uncovered a large number of top scientists contradicting UN IPCC reports and exposing the UN IPCC’s shoddy science and unscientific work. Only now are we realising that so many UN iPCC claims were not written by scientists at all.
New Zealand investigative journalist Ian Wishart similarly exposes glaring UN IPCC falsities, unfounded claims for alarm and absurdities. These include the UN iPCC Chairman’s major falsities, repeated in public after he had been advised his statements were false.
(Reference: Wishart, I, 2009. Air Con - The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming. Howling At The Moon Publishing, New Zealand.)
As an aside, Solomon’s interviews of eminent scientists and economists reveals the British government’s Stern Review contains unfounded exaggerations. These indicate the Stern Review, like UN IPCC reports, is unfounded and aimed at promoting unfounded alarm to achieve a political agenda. The Stern Review Report released on October 30th, 2006 was used to propel climate alarm in Australia.
Separately, an independent expert group of scientists, statisticians and economists (including former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson) completely and soundly discredited the Stern Review soon after its release. The critique showed basic assumptions and data used by Stern were unsupported and wildly exaggerated to create alarming unfounded outcomes.
(Reference: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/World%20Economics%20-%20Stern%20Review,%20Part%201.pdf and, http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/ WE%20Riposte%20to%20Critique.pdf)
The Stern Review has recently returned to the headlines. Richard Gray, in The Sunday Telegraph reports, Su.31.01.10, quote: “information was quietly removed from an influential government report on the cost of climate change after its initial publication because supporting scientific evidence could not be found.
(Reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111618/Stern-report-was-changed-after-being-published.html)
The Stern Review on the economics of climate change, which was commissioned by the Treasury, was greeted with headlines world-wide when it was published in October 2006.
It contained dire predictions about climate change impacts in different parts of the world.
But it can be revealed that when the report was printed by Cambridge University Press in January 2007, some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.
Among the claims that were removed in the later version of the report, which is now also available in its altered form online, were claims that North West Australia has been hit by stronger tropical typhoons in the past 30 years.
Another claim that southern regions in Australia have lost rainfall due to rising ocean temperatures and air currents pushing rain further south was also removed.
Claims that eucalyptus and savannah habitats in Australia would also become more common were also deleted.
The claims were highlighted in several Australian newspapers when the report was initially published, but the changes were never publicly announced.
A figure on the cost of US Hurricanes was also changed after a typographical error was spotted in the original report. The original stated in a table the cost of hurricanes in the US would rise from 0.6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 1.3%.
The later report corrected the error so the increase was from 0.06% to 0.13%. A statement about the correction appeared in a postscript of the report and on the Treasury website.
The Stern Review has been instrumental in helping the UK government draw up its climate change policies while it has also been cited by leading organisations such as the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its assessment reports on climate change.”
Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times, Su.31.01.10, quote: “Lord Stern’s report on climate change, which underpins government policy, has come under fire from a disaster analyst who says the research he contributed was misused.
(Reference: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009710.ece)
Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at Risk Management Solutions, a US-based consultancy, said the Stern report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and the frequency and severity of disasters such as floods and hurricanes.
The Stern report, citing Muir-Wood, said: “New analysis based on insurance industry data has shown that weather-related catastrophe losses have increased by 2% each year since the 1970s over and above changes in wealth, inflation and population growth/movement.
“if this trend continued or intensified with rising global temperatures, losses from extreme weather could reach 0.5%-1% of world GDP by the middle of the century.”
Muir-Wood said his research showed no such thing and accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence”.
The criticism is among the strongest made of the Stern report, which, since its publication in 2006, has influenced policy, including green taxes.”
Malcolm
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Volcanic production of CO2 dwarfs human production. Duh.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
Quote:
"Conclusion: Three Million Volcanoes "Can't be Wrong"
Irrespective that other authors may neglect to allow for volcanogenic CO2, volcanoes represent an enormous CO2 source that is mostly submarine, and this is strongly supported by the isolation of water acidification to only those seas, oceans and reservoirs with direct volcanic input. Furthermore, volcanic activity beneath both ice caps and localised to the regions of most intense melting has demonstrated an obvious cause of stronger Spring melts at the Poles. The NorthWest Passage was evidently opened up by powerful volcanic activity under the Arctic Ice along the Gakkel Ridge (Sohn et al., 2008; Reves-Sohn et al., 2008), while West Antarctic melting (as opposed to thickening of ice throughout the rest of Antarctica) can be explained by recent volcanic activity beneath the ice (Corr & Vaughan, 2008). Moreover, there are simply too many volcanoes to deny that the atmospheric concentration of the most erupted gas next to water is predominantly controlled by the balance or lack thereof between volcanic activity and photosynthesis."
End quote.
Check the paper's many scientific references.
Note the significance of volcanic activity in the Arctic (North-West Passage) and parts of West Antarctica. Note the thickening of ice elsewhere in Antarctica.
When will those advocating human causation start to respect Nature?
Malcolm
PS:
How do I:
- provide one click URL's?
- bold text?
- colour text red?
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Hurricanes, anyone?
They're reducing.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/03/12/great-depression-global-hurricane-activity-reaches-new-lows/
Depending on your time horizon, hurricane activity is reducing - or in reality it increases, decreases, increases, decreases, increases, decreases ...... it varies naturally.
Naturally.
Malcolm
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded deliberate hurricane panic contradicting science.
Hurricane/cyclone expert Professor Chris Landsea, a Contributing Editor for the UN IPCC’s second major report (1995) and its Third Assessment Report in 2001 was invited to participate in the UN IPCC’s latest report (2007). Yet, according to Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon, another UN IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth, with the support of UN IPCC Chairman Pachauri, made false public statements of increasing hurricane activity that knowingly contradicted the scientific evidence. The statements triggered unfounded alarm. Solomon, page 30.
(Reference: Solomon, L, 2008. ‘The Deniers: The World-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud And those who are fearful to do so’. Richard Vigilante Books, USA)
It appears the wording of the public release could have been deliberately alarming yet cleverly not specific. The effect though in the media was alarming.
Trenberth has been named in the Climategate scandal as lamenting the lack of warming and apparently wanting to hide it.
Landsea resigned from the UN IPCC because it was corrupting science. Landsea saw back in 2004 that the UN IPCC’s science was problematic and had the courage to say so. Solomon, page 34-42.
After the unscientific and unfounded fearful hurricane media release had done its job in spreading alarm, the UN IPCC dropped its use. Solomon pages 35 and 36.
Damage done, falsity and fraud spread, unfounded alarm triggered and fomented. That's the UN IPCC's mode of operation. Fraudulent.
Malcolm
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
On the topic of fraudulent data manipulation, it seems some congressmen are on the ball. Senators Barrasso and Vitter:
Here's their letter questioning data manipulation at NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/SenBarrassoLetter.pdf
Please ask yourself, why does Al Gore's 'science adviser' James Hansen of GISS prefer to use temperature measurements from ground based stations when far more accurate measurements from satellites (corroborated by weather ballon measurements) are available? Yet Hansen refuses to use satellite data (from NASA's satellites) or weather balloon data for measuring the troposphere.
Note that the core of the UN IPCC's claim of catastrophic manmade global warming is warming of the troposphere.
Could it be that Hansen refuses to use NASA own satellite data because satellites and weather balloons have found no net warming of the troposphere? None.
Could it be because measurements from ground based stations have been corrupted? (Refer to an earlier post on the thread entitled "The Global Climate: Yes, It's Still Warming".)
At that post there's a link to the excellent, detailed report by two respected meteorologists who expose the fraudulent manipulation of data by NASA and NOAA.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comments
I posted a summary of the report's key findings.
At the risk of triggering pjlk apoplectic, TOV'rs may find this link of general interest:
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/6698-senators-demand-explanation-of-nasas-flawed-climate-data?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangefraud%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Fraud+news%29
Although this may trigger pjlk into launch mode for orbital liftoff, it may be useful for TOV'rs open and able to think for themselves:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/
Malcolm
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded alarm over disease contradicts science.
Paul Reiter, arguably the world’s most eminent scientist on insect-borne diseases and a member of the UN IPCC has condemned the UN IPCC’s practices as unscientific and dishonest. Solomon’s interviews of Reiter (pages 183-190) expose disturbing behaviour by the UN IPCC. The UN iPCC’s alarming claims about mosquito borne disease were unfounded.
(Reference: Solomon, L, 2008. ‘The Deniers: The World-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud And those who are fearful to do so’. Richard Vigilante Books, USA)
Quote, Reiter: “I know of no other scientist with any long record in this field who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the iPCC”; Solomon continues: ‘Reiter says that using climate models to predict the spread of mosquito-borne
diseases, as the IPCC does, reflects a dangerous ignorance; Solomon, again quoting Reiter: ‘These (UN IPCC) claims, says Reiter, reflect an astounding ignorance of disease history”;
Reiter: “The paucity of information” in the IPCC reports “was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject. Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire careers as environmental activists. One of these activists has published ‘professional’ articles as an ‘expert’ on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalisation, to allergies, and West Nile virus to AiDS”.
Solomon, quoting Reiter: ‘According to Reiter, the (UN IPCC) contributing authors included exactly one “professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on health effects of cell phones)”.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded alarm in UN IPCC reports was often inserted by activists, not scientists.
As Professor Reiter says above, activists lacking qualifications wrote key statements in the UN IPCC reports. Yet the same statements passed the UN IPCC's ‘peer review’.
it has been reported that: ‘There are Dozens’ of instances where WWF reports have been cited as the sole authority for contentious claims. The World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is not a scientific body, but a lobby group so to have its information as the sole basis for the IPCC to decide on climate change is poor scrutiny of the information.’
More to come in a future post.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded alarm about Australia's Great Barrier Reef.
Brave scientists and dive operators have, in recent months, been reported in The Australian newspaper as speaking out by saying the reef is in fine health.
(Reference: Jamie Walker, We.03.02.10, ‘Report undercuts Kevin Rudd’s Great Barrier Reef wipeout’, The Australian newspaper. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/report-undercuts-kevin-rudds-great-barrier-reef-wipeout/story-e6frg6nf-1225826128644)
Now there is growing scepticism about unfounded gloomy alarm. Parts of the Great Barrier Reef have bleached in previous summers and in record cold temperatures during the winter of 2008. Scientific reports and observations show that bleaching is an entirely normal adjustment by the coral to natural weather variations.
Lord Monckton confirms this to be correct.
(Reference: Lord Christopher Monckton - material used in American presentation, October, 2009)
On the subject of reefs, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper reports, quote: “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.”
(Reference: Richard Grey, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort, 30.01.10. ‘UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article’, The Sunday Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-andmagazine-article.html)
That's 'science' according to the UN IPCC.
Malcolm
:)
|
TonyEX
|
|
Damn! Leave it to the Russkies to attack Al Gore's business.
Haven't the Russkies figured out capitalism?
Global Warming is a BUSINESS, NOT SCIENCE.
Quick, someone get Putin a bigger piece of the pie so he's gag Dr. Tishkov and the Geography Institute at Russian Academy of Science"!
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded alarm about human food production.
Quoting from Dr RW Bradnock, former editor (1994-1995) of the Geographical Journal):
“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!”
(Reference: http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/6/9_Guest_Essay:_A_Christian_Critique.html)
Note that Houghton to whom Bradnock refers above is a past chair of the UN IPCC Working Group. He has been quoted as justifying going beyond science to foment alarm and fear. I'll share the quote in another future post.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
How's this for an example of UN IPCC science?
UN IPCC cites press article on rotting food and cold showers, etc after heatwave.
Refer to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/gate-du-jour-ipcc-ar4-references-nytstory/ showing the UN iPCC report cited a newspaper article, apparently not peer reviewed. The article is: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/08/nyregion/aftermath-heat-waveneighborhoods-cold-showers-rotting-food-then-lights-then.html?pagewanted=1
Remember, national policies on global warming are supposedly based on UN IPCC reports.
Mmmmmmm
Does that sound like science to you? Or politics?
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded alarm about sea levels.
Canadian environmentalist, Lawrence Solomon, ‘iPCC Beyond the Himalayas’, writes, quote: “Sea-levels: This week, the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency revealed that the IPCC blundered in its 2007 report in claiming that 55% of the Netherlands lay below sea-level. IPCC scientists who were evidently out of their depth had added the area of the Netherlands below sea-level to the area susceptible to flooding, not realising that these areas overlap. To the embarrassment of the Dutch Environment Minister, her department then based Dutch environmental policy on the IPCC’s mangled stats of her country. The correct stat: 20% of The Netherlands is susceptible to flooding should global warming cause sea levels to rise.”
(Reference: Lawrence Solomon,
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/06/lawrence-solomon-ipcc-beyond-the-himalayas.aspx)
For generations, the Dutch have managed their low-lying land. That fact seems to be seen by
the UN IPCC as a source of alarm. Yet in reality it confirms human ability to successfully adapt
to an ever-changing Earth. It provides hope in managing natural climate change.
That the UN IPCC can even fabricate alarm out of alarm’s antidote—hope—displays the UN IPCC’s skills in fabricating unfounded alarm.
Malcolm
.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded UN IPCC alarm propagates other unfounded alarm.
This is clearly occurring. Last year I attended a lecture by a palaeontologist promoting peril in Nepal from the claimed rapid retreat of Himalayan glaciers. He relied upon UN IPCC reports. He was inadvertently reinforcing the UN IPCC’s myth and spreading unfounded alarm.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Unfounded UN IPCC alarm propagates other unfounded alarm.
This is clearly occurring. Last year I attended a lecture by a palaeontologist promoting peril in Nepal from the claimed rapid retreat of Himalayan glaciers. He relied upon UN IPCC reports. He was inadvertently reinforcing the UN IPCC’s myth and spreading unfounded alarm.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Zero scientific evidence for catastrophes.
Lord Monckton references Schulte, 2008 in stating of the “539 global climate change papers”, “evidence for catastrophe was presented by 0”. None.
Australia's Minister for Climate Change, Senator Wong, said, quote: “climate change is real and human beings are contributing to it, and people like senator Minchin, who have never believed in climate change, will jump on anything in order to justify their position.”
(Reference: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/18/2794830.htm. Title: Wong defends UN over climate mistake)
Clearly it is the UN IPCC that will, and does, jump on anything in order to justify its position.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
More than 20 cases of unsubstantiated UN IPCC alarm in the UN IPCC’s report were based on activists’ claims unsubstantiated by peer review—with more dubious claims and attributions throughout the report.
From the Telegraph (Booker) comes this, quote: “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.”
(Reference: Booker, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113582/Amazongate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html [Accessed, January 30, 2010])
From The Sunday Telegraph (Grey) newspaper, Britain, quote: “it can be revealed that the iPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.”
(Reference: Richard Grey, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort, 30.01.10. ‘UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article’, The Sunday Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-andmagazine-article.html)
Malcolm
PS: See an update on the UN IPCC's widespread use of non-peer reviewed activist and media material on another TOV Political Lounge thread: Facts on the Fabricators of Climate Alarm. UN IPCC's 2007 report used 5,587 non-peer-reviewed sources.
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
UN IPCC does not work for national governments - it works for its UNEP agenda.
From the same American mainstream media source cited previously, ABC Network, quote: “when the IPCC recently set up a special working group to address natural disasters, the US government nominated ecologist Pielke. The iPCC declined to appoint him.”
Yet the UN iPCC claims to serve governments.
(Reference: G Traufeiter, Can Climate Forecasts Still Be Trusted? Confidence Melting Away: Doubts Grow in Climate Change Debate http://abcnews.go.com/ print?id=9685251 [Accessed January 29, 2010])
There is a significant number of credible scientists who have resigned from the UN IPCC in disgust at the UN IPCC’s politicisation of ‘science’ and/or who have spoken out publicly condemning the UN IPCC as unscientific. it is clear the UN iPCC does not follow its own protocols for appointing scientists to its panel. Refer to ‘Thriving with Nature & Humanity’, page 11: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/nature-and-humanity.pdf
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Another UN IPCC scientist, New Zealand's Vincent Gray, has blown the lid on the UN IPCC's scam.
He's been speaking out passionately about the UN IPCC's unscientific falsities for years. Now he's had enough. He's exposed that even the UN IPCC's core 'greenhouse gas' radiative effect 'theory' is nonsense.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5583
and
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/12704
THE FLAT EARTH
All the computer models of the climate assume that the earth can be considered to be flat, the Sun to shine with equal intensity, both day and night, with a constant surface temperature. This idealized situation has been portrayed in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the attached graph, based on the paper
Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78 197-208.
(Trenberth is one of those named in Climategate and has been exposed by Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon for fabricating unfounded hurricane and storm alarm contrary to the data showing no changes in storm activity.)
This paper, and all the models, assume that the energy is "balanced"; that the energy entering equals the energy leaving. The individual figures on this graph are all assumed to be correct to the last Watt per square meter, but reading the paper, it is evident that all of them are subject to unknown errors which can only be "estimated qualitatively", rather than be subjected to proper statistical treatment. This means they have been able to "adjust" the figures so that there is a "balance".
Recently they have had a change of heart, in
Trenberth K.E., J.T.Fasullo and J.T. Kiehl 2009. Earth's Global Energy Budget Bull. Am. Met. Soc.89 311
This paper does a complete assessment of the energy entering and leaving the earth and comes up with the amended graph (attached).
All this is very strange. In the first graph they made the earth look as if it was curved; but all the quantities went up and down, just the same so they are treating the earth as flat.
In the second graph the earth is flat as a pancake and seems to have been run over by a cosmic steamroller.
Some of the figures, thus involved with direct measurement of input an out put energy, have figures claimed to be correct to the first place of decimals. but his time, they have run out of fudge for all the rest. The paper is full of their attempts to try and increase their "qualitative estimates" of inaccuracy of all of the figures, and they seem to have given up their capacity to do enough. As a result the energy is no longer "balanced" and the earth is now "estimated" to have warmed by 0.9W per meter squared every year from March 2000 to May 2004.
Since the earth has undoubtedly been cooling over this period, this paper is proof that the original flat-earth concept is wrong.
It should be obvious, anyway. The earth actually rotates, the sun only shines in the daytime, the temperature is highly variable and no part of the earth ever has a "balance" between input and output energy.
A proper mathematical treatment would be very complicated. It would consist of a massive integration exercise, where the net energy of each increment of the earth's surface is calculated, involving the changes each time in all the parameters given in the attached graphs. The data do not exist for such an exercise, and perhaps never will.
In the meantime we must make do with the methods that have been developed by weather forecasters over the past few centuries and hope that these can be extended slowly to permit more reliable and more extensive forecasts and even some indication as to whether emissions of greenhouse gases are altering the climate
The greenhouse theory as now formulated is now in ruins and its consequences must be abandoned
Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington, NZ
"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact". Charles Darwin"
Malcolm
:)
|
HONDA AFVM
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Damn! Leave it to the Russkies to attack Al Gore's business.
Haven't the Russkies figured out capitalism?
Global Warming is a BUSINESS, NOT SCIENCE.
Quick, someone get Putin a bigger piece of the pie so he's gag Dr. Tishkov and the Geography Institute at Russian Academy of Science"!
|
Well, the EARTH just sent us into a COOLING. The Iceland Volcano is going to drop the temp for a few months don't ya think................"It's not nice to fool with mother nature".
I am SO SICK of these F@#king Left wing "The Seas are boiling" nut jobs. I wish they would just all move to Montana and build their bike trails, Green Space, lite rails and have their own little world, leave me the F#$K alone!.
BYE BYE LOSERS!
|
TonyEX
|
|
HONDA AFVM wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Damn! Leave it to the Russkies to attack Al Gore's business.
Haven't the Russkies figured out capitalism?
Global Warming is a BUSINESS, NOT SCIENCE.
Quick, someone get Putin a bigger piece of the pie so he's gag Dr. Tishkov and the Geography Institute at Russian Academy of Science"!
|
Well, the EARTH just sent us into a COOLING. The Iceland Volcano is going to drop the temp for a few months don't ya think................"It's not nice to fool with mother nature".
I am SO SICK of these F@#king Left wing "The Seas are boiling" nut jobs. I wish they would just all move to Montana and build their bike trails, Green Space, lite rails and have their own little world, leave me the F#$K alone!.
BYE BYE LOSERS!
|
I got a feeling that soon we'll be hearing that we must do some carbon trading to offset the cooling caused by the volcano.
Just like the real estate TV shows on sunday AM. Two, three years ago they had a show with a british accented narrator that "previewed estates"...
Today they got a a show with a british accented narrator that "previews foreclosed estates"....
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Harry Truman was likely the best read American president of the last century. He said: "The only thing new in the world is the history you haven't read".
In other words it's all happened before.
The catastrophic, irreversible global freezing scare of the mid-1970's was said to be due to combustion of fuels containing carbon producing particulates (soot) that would blanket out the sun. Yeah, right.
The aim is to tax the ubiquitous and essential use of energy.
The only thing new in the world is the history you haven't read.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
It is an indictment of Australian Senator Wong that when Senator Steve Fielding asked her three simple, basic questions on climate, Senator Wong and her advisers could not provide scientific proof - they have no proof humans caused global warming.
One of Senator Wong’s responses to Senator Fielding’s questions apparently included the statement that ocean temperatures are rising. That is not correct. Scientists accompanying Senator Fielding pointed out that Argo measurements show oceans appear to be cooling.
Yet Senator Wong leads the Australian government's claims of global warming to push its grab for carbon trading.
(Reference: Scientists Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks, William Kininmonth, August 11, 2009. Minister Wong’s Reply to Senator Fielding’s Three Questions on Climate Change – Due Diligence http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/7-carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf and David Evans, June 17, 2009. The Wong-Fielding Meeting on Global Warming http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2292&preview=true and David Evans, July 245, 2009. Ocean Warming: The new Bluff in Climate Alarmism http://sciencespeak.com/NoOceanWarming.pdf)
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Lead Author and Editing Reviewer of UN IPCC Chapter claiming human causation of warming has no scientifically measured real-world evidence humans caused global warming.
in recent months I have been corresponding via e-mail with Professor David Karoly. David is one of the close knit group of authors and reviewers of the UN IPCC’s single chapter attributing global warming to human production of CO2 in each of its 2001 and 2007 reports. David was a Lead Author of the 2001 report’s chapter and a Review Editor of the 2007 report’s chapter which built on the 2001 report’s chapter.
Late last year, I asked David for scientifically measured real-world proof that human production of CO2 caused global warming. He has not provided any proof - because there is none.
Senate parliamentary records dated June 18, 2009 reveal David Karoly received $1.9 million in grants from the federal government to research climate change. The Project Title of his grant is, ‘improving understanding of climate change and its impacts in Australia through detection and attribution of climate change.’
Despite the UN IPCC’s inferences of thorough, proper scientific research by 4,000 scientists (a blatant falsity) and despite billions spent by governments worldwide there is no proof. Despite millions spent by Senator Wong’s government, the UN IPCC Lead Author and Review Editor of the chapter attributing global warming to human causes has no scientifically measured proof.
The total of grants awarded by the government to the University of Melbourne (where David works) is many millions of dollars. An exact figure is difficult to determine because such grants can be found under various grants from various government departments. Totalling those listed in the Senate on June 18th, 2009 produces $7,140, 360.
Other institutions have been formed specifically by universities to secure grants for climate change ‘research’. At the time of its formation, for example, the University of NSW’s then Vice-Chancellor said the UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre was established specifically to target funding in this flourishing industry reliant on government grants.
Yet no one has found any scientifically measured, real-world evidence that human production of CO2 caused global warming.
That’s because Nature has clearly demonstrated that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels do not warm the planet.
Remember, after one removes tampering of ground-based temperature records used by the UN IPCC, there has been no net global warming in scientific records covering the period from 1890 to the present.
Over 90,000 scientific measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels made during the last 180 years shows current atmospheric CO2 levels are below levels at times during the last 180 years.
Note: many of those measurements were made by Nobel prize winners in science awarded their prizes by their peer scientists.
Malcolm
PS:
Note: the Nobel Peace Prize shared by Al Gore and the UN IPCC was awarded by a political process in the Norwegian parliament.
What will you choose to believe - politics or science. The choice is yours.
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Data obtained from the UN IPCC itself exposes UN IPCC processes as unscientific.
McLean’s outstanding documents have been listed previously and in ‘Thriving with Nature & Humanity’, pages 13, 14.
The UN IPCC’s charter limits UN IPCC investigations to seeking human causes of global warming. The original site providing the charter was suddenly withdrawn from use after this became a topic of discussion by climate realists.
It can now be found in internet archives at: http://web.archive.org/web/20071113023321/http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm [Accessed early January, 2010]
The charter is significant. It shows the UN IPCC is not seeking to fully understand natural causes of warming.
A logical extension of the charter is that failure by UN IPCC bureaucrats to find evidence of human causation would mean the body has no future - and thus bureaucrats would be out of a job. Thus the UN IPCC has to either find proof (none exists) or go out of business.
Another alternative to preserve employment of bureaucrats, politicians and scientists, of course, is to consciously or unconsciously fabricate perceptions of human causation, magnified by fear and guilt to drive alarm and provide political pressure.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
Although UN IPCC Chairman Pachauri repeatedly implied 4,000 scientists endorse the UN IPCC’s core claim that human CO2 warmed Earth, only five (5) endorsed the claim. There’s doubt they were even scientists.
See McLean’s five references previously cited. McLean's articles cannot be sensibly refuted since he merely presents UN IPCC data on UN IPCC reporting processes. With the data obtained from the UN IPCC itself.
Australia's Prime Minister has assisted the UN IPCC in spreading this falsity.
In correspondence with Australia's Prime Minister, Mr Rudd (Th.18.09.08, We.10.12.08, Tu.26.05.09 and many subsequent related emails and paper letters) including the provision of McLean’s papers, I advised Mr Rudd of his error. To my knowledge, Mr Rudd has made no retraction.
Now, after three years of claiming that climate change is the "greatest moral crisis" we face and that to do nothing would be a "failure of leadership" and "political cowardice", Mr Rudd suddenly dumps his cap-n-trade scheme.
Malcolm
:)
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
