The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers

All the years I’ve been in TV news, I’ve observed that every story has a tipping point. In news, we know when it has reached that point when we say it “has legs” and the story takes on a life of its own. The story may have been ignored or glossed over for weeks, months, or years until some new piece of information is posted and starts to galvanize people. The IPCC glacier melt scandal was the one that galvanized the collective voice that has been saying that the IPCC report was seriously flawed and represented a political rather than scientific view. Now people are seriously looking at AR4 with a critical eye  and finding things everywhere.

Remember our friends at World Wildlife Fund? Those schlockmeisters that produced the video of planes flying into New York with explicit comparisons to 9/11?

911tsunami-large

The caption in the upper right reads: “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.”

Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.

A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

Here’s an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report:

  • Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: http://www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]
  • Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.
  • Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
  • Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
  • Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as "Allianz" above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]
  • Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
  • Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf.
  • WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
  • WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
  • WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.
  • Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland

Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:

  • Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
  • Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76

Not only should Pachauri resign, the Nobel committee should be deluged by world citizenry demanding they revoke the Nobel prize granted to the body that produced this document.


Sponsored IT training links:
Join 70-271 online course and improve your 70-294 test score up to 100% using certified 640-460 material.


About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC. Bookmark the permalink.

323 Responses to The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers

  1. Patrick Davis says:

    This was one of my very first thougts when I read about the IPCC using rubbish graphics from Wikipedia and then the Himalayan glaciaer “error”. I mean, what else could possibly be wrong in IPCC reports/statements etc?

  2. As the tip of the Climategate iceberg melts away, we see an international alliance of politicians, scientists and publishers using public funds to manufacture “scientific certainty” of CO2-induced global warming.

    Nearby was the world’s new saviour – Mr. Al Gore.

    That’s how it looks from here,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  3. Mark says:

    Typo in third paragraph. “… are supposed to relay on…” should be “…are supposed to rely on…”

    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]

  4. DirkH says:

    It looks like the WWF has removed all the linked documents. They’re quick.

  5. DirkH says:

    Sorry! They’re simply desorganized. This one works:
    http://www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf

  6. Phil's Dad says:

    I think I would give the last two more credence than any of the sixteen preceding ones.

  7. Craig Moore says:

    If Alfred Nobel were still alive, he might say this is dynamite. Will there be a recall?

  8. Richard Sharpe says:

    Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to relay on peer

    s/relay/rely/

  9. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) says:

    the temps are dropping and so will the house of cards built by the cagw team!

  10. tokyoboy says:

    I wonder exactly how many WWF “papers” show up in the reference lists over the whole WGs 1, 2 and 3 Reports…….

  11. TheGoodLocust says:

    I came across this from NASA:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

    Their chart description amusingly says the antarctic has been losing ice since 2002, but it actually shows it gaining mass for several years before losing mass.

  12. Jer says:

    I find that most of the links are now inactive. Wondering if this is happening because of the attention. It seems like IPCC referenced material ought to be available.

    Jer

  13. PaulH says:

    @Patrick Davis: It might be easier to list what the IPCC got right.

    Frankly, if the IPCC were to declare that water is wet I would insist on independent verification from a non-UN/non-WWF affiliated organization before believing it.

  14. Tom G(ologist) says:

    “Not only should Pachauri resign, the Nobel committee should be deluged by world citizenry demanding they revoke the Nobel prize granted to the body that produced this document.”

    And the one given to Gore – The imbecile’s imbecile.

  15. pat says:

    from a bishop hill comment re Dr Murari Lal:

    From the WWF web site:

    Climate Witness Science Advisory Panel (SAP)

    Prof. Dr Murari Lal, specialises in global and regional climate variability, scenario development, regional environmental change, sectoral vulnerability assessment (water, biodiversity and agriculture), landscape ecology, biophysical remote sensing – GIS applications, ecosystem modeling, regional adaptation & mitigation potential, water resource management; Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India

    http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/about_cw/cwscientists/

    About Prof. Murari Lal
    Lead or Co-ordinating Author on several chapters of IPCC Assessment Reports
    http://4dweb.proclim.ch/4dcgi/proclim/en/Detail_Person?lalm.newdelhi

    About Halcrow Consulting:

    “Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India”
    http://www.halcrow.com/html/documents/pdf/india/halcrow_india_environment_brochure.pdf

    Carbon Trading is part of the Environment Division, now that is a surprise.

    From the CRU website we see the WWF funds the CRU. I wonder where a charity gets the money to fund climate research?
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    The WWF funds the CRU

    Murari Lal->WWF->CRU

    Murari Lal-> Halcrow Consulting->Carbon Trading

    How about we skip the middle man:

    Carbon Trading-> Halcrow Consulting-> WWF->CRU->IPCC

    And simplify.

    Carbon Trading->WWF->CRU->IPCC
    Carbon Trading->CRU->IPCC
    Carbon Trading->IPCC

    Carbon Trading->IPCC->Carbon Trading

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    In light of the continuous stream of revelations about the IPCC, it is worth a second look at the IPCC’s Organization webpage:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

  17. Mick J says:

    This article at the London telegraph reports the senior Chinese CC man as saying the science is not settled, the reaction is interesting and also the comment that such a statement undermines the BASIC countries seeking of remuneration from the West!
    Now that is a surprise!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html
    The four countries have joined forces to intensify pressure on the United States and Europe to fulfil promises to cut their emissions and give more than $10 billion (£6.2 billion) to those countries worst affected by climate change by the end of this year.

    Environment ministers from the four countries voiced their frustration at the US for failing to lead the way with carbon emission reductions despite being responsible for much of the emissions most scientists believe to be the cause of global warming.

    But Mr Xie, China’s vice-chairman of national development and reforms commission, later said although mainstream scientific opinion blames emissions from industrial development for climate change, China is not convinced.

    “There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude,” he said.

    “It is already a solid fact that climate is warming. The major reasons for this climate change is the unconstrained emissions produced by the developed countries in the process of industrialisation. That’s the mainstream view [but] there are other views. Our attitude is an open attitude”.

    India and South Africa’s environment ministers appeared to be baffled by his comments.The Indian delegrate, Jairam Ramesh, said he did not believe his Chinese counterpart had meant what he said, while South Africa’s minister Buyelwa Sonjica said she could not “second guess” what Mr Xie had meant by his comments.

    They appeared to undermine the new group’s main argument, that Western developed countries should pay for poor countries to switch to low carbon models because its emissions had caused climate change.

  18. _Jim says:

    When I see “WWF”, so help me, I still think “World Wrestling Federation” …

    .
    .

  19. DirkH says:

    This one:

    http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf

    examines temperatures in the mediterranean. Most of it is done with IPCC GCMs so it’s all computer fairytale anyway. They compute a temp anomaly of +2 deg C reached between 2026 to 2060. Which is ludicrous IMHO but, well, how can you argue against a fairytale.

  20. David says:

    Couldn’t agree anymore, i noticed that the Australian finally started reporting on this. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-caught-out-again-on-climate-claims/story-e6frg6n6-1225823075213

  21. Halfwise says:

    It is easy to get confused between the World Wildlife Fund and World Wrestling Entertainment. Here is how to tell them apart: One gets crowds wildly excited with staged antics, bizarre plot lines and unbelievable hype. The other stages wrestling exhibitions.

  22. JER0ME says:

    Isn’t it funny how most dam breaks start with one little leak………

  23. K. Bray in California, High up, USA says:

    I removed an extra space before “file” and it seems to work.

    http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf

  24. Roger Carr says:

    Tom G(ologist) (18:37:25) : And the one given to Gore – The imbecile’s imbecile.

    That may be the lad’s only defense, Tom, but it will be difficult to make it stick.

    imbecile — a person with limited mental capacity who can perform tasks and think only like a young child

  25. KimW says:

    “When I see “WWF”, so help me, I still think “World Wrestling Federation””

    The pity of it is, that the highly scripted antics in the WWF ring, now seem to bear more resemblence to reality than the pontifications of the IPCC in AR4.

  26. R Dunn says:

    Too bad they lost that lawsuit years ago over the initials “WWF.” I think the World Wrestling Federation would have been a more credible source.

    It’s not science, it’s entertainment.

  27. K. Bray in California, High up, USA says:

    That’s the first time I have seen that image of NYC with the airplanes and I feel like vomiting… Who are these guys???!!!

  28. Andrew30 says:

    pat (18:37:29) : ;

    Yes, pat I put that there.

    This list of documents goes beyond just one carbon trader.

    So was the money and influence from more then one carbon trader being channeled through the WWF to both the CRU and the IPCC?

    Has the WWF become no more than and money and influence launderer for Big Carbon?

  29. Wowbagger says:

    The opinion is settled.

  30. Patrick Davis says:

    “David (18:48:51) :

    Couldn’t agree anymore, i noticed that the Australian finally started reporting on this. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-caught-out-again-on-climate-claims/story-e6frg6n6-1225823075213

    While coverage like this is good to see in the Australian MSM, we need to see more of it on the idiot box for it to be noticed.

    Hummm, thinking about that for a moment….won’t happen, too much cricket, tennis, cycling etc etc on TV to be bothered with real news.

  31. Mike Bryant says:

    The IPCC is a laughingstock… Any climate scientist with even an ounce of credibility left must wash his hands of CAGW TOMORROW…
    Monday, January 25, 2010…

    Any scientist or scientific organization that doesn’t speak up quickly will be considered part of this laughable hoax…

    The clock is ticking guys…

  32. JRR Canada says:

    Image.. an earthen dam as the seepage first turns to a torrent.As Jerome notes.The false authority of the IPCC and the Agenda are crumbling,the fraud is dead.Far sooner than I imagined while reading the CRU tape letters.Way too funny.Their sacred earth has a sense of humour,something these lying eco-nazi types really lack.2010 is the new end of the world,for the nutjobs who tried to claim science when they spout religion.Note to nutjobs..science can and will be verified/falsified not made up to suit your belief.Post modern science sure got old fast.

  33. bugs says:

    [snip - lose the label, and you can post it again]

  34. Just The Facts says:

    For those of you who haven’t seen the offensive WWF 9/11 video, which the WWF has tried to suppress:
    http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/9/crazy-9-11-wwf-ddb-commercial-1180487.html

    Here’s WWF’s admission and apology:
    http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2009/WWFPresitem13559.html

    If you donate to WWF you are funding alarmist propaganda, not preserving wildlife.

  35. Patrick Davis says:

    “K. Bray in California, High up, USA (19:04:15) :

    That’s the first time I have seen that image of NYC with the airplanes and I feel like vomiting… Who are these guys???!!!”

    Have you seen the animation with polar bears falling out of the sky? That’s a corker too.

  36. L Gardy LaRoche says:

    BEN PILE guest posting on Pielke Jr site

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-laundered-literature-guest-post-by.html

    What attracted our attention most, however, was this claim

    According to the IPCC, climate change could halve yields from rain-fed crops in parts of Africa as early as 2020, and put 50 million more people worldwide at risk of hunger. [Pg. 2]

    We looked to see if it was true. All we could find in the IPCC report was this:

    In other [African] countries, 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 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003). [IPCC WGII, Page 448. 9.4.4]

  37. rbateman says:

    Suddenly, out of the blue this
    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
    have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

    I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
    Cheers

    Phil

    takes on a life of it’s own.
    Makes you wonder who was responsible for getting all that WWF stuff in AR4.

  38. Ric Werme says:

    I think one kind of news story “gets legs” is one simple enough to be covered in the minute or two that can be allocated on the nightly news. Trying to explain why rising CO2 leads to warming (or why there’s no warming despite rising CO2 of course) requires a lot of time.

    The UN relying on a WWF magazine article that was wrong fits in the newscast. To explain all the steps and how screwed up the final product is takes quite a bit more time, but the complete story isn’t necessary.

    Throw in a director who insists it’s just one little mistake, and now you have conflict to provide some human interest beyond the scientific and environmental interest.

  39. DJ Meredith says:

    As Michael Mann would quickly point out, the issue is a result of a simple typo, and doesn’t change the science.

    The IPCC standard is not “peer-reviewed”, it’s “BEER-reviewed”.

    WWF it would seem would also be more accurately described as World Wide Fibbers.

  40. D Boon says:

    @TheGoodLocust

    You’re reading the chart wrong. The growth becomes negative (or in other words Antartica is losing ice) since mid 2006, not since 2002.

    At least according your link (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html)

  41. a jones says:

    Yes

    As I observed elsewhere this is a great scientific, financial and political fraud. And as with all frauds once the dominoes start to topple the collapse accelerates with terrifying speed.

    So fast that I at least can hardly keep up.

    And although there is immense inertia in those who have invested so heavily in the fraud, from the political activists to the Meeja to the politicians themselves once there is sufficient impetus in the avalanche they have to give way. The politicians will say they were deceived but acted in good faith, the Meeja never apologises for anything, and the activists will say they were only trying to get a point across, see WWF announcement over glaciers.

    Yet possibly for the first time we are seeing what t’internet and the WWW can really do.

    The Indian press is hot on the story, something we would have never known even a few years ago.

    Isn’t modern technology a wonderful thing?

    And if you want to commit an old style worldwide fraud like this then you are a little late, today the world talks instantly around the globe: and a very good thing too.

    Because in the end this fraud was exposed by small toilers in the vineyards around the world slowly but surely putting the pieces together. Via the WWW. Lots of pieces but lots and lots of toilers. Some greater than others, some less, some mistaken, some misguided and some with only a small contribution to make.

    No matter, that is the way of the world, and they gradually built their case, brick by brick, into a formidable body of knowledge that confounds the fraudsters, forgers, charlatans and mountebanks and the financiers, scoundrels and politicians who sought to profit from it.

    Now these corrupt creatures are learning they are not the masters of the universe anymore. Nor since it has seen the writing on the wall for many years is the Meeja.

    Science, natural philosophy, is a wonderful thing, and not the exclusive province of so called experts however highly paid.

    So it is a brave new world my friends and I hope a better one.

    But I am afraid like original sin fraud, forgery, and self serving politicians will always be with us and no doubt they will change their tune too. Adaptation or evolution do you think? We can debate that in due course.

    For the moment let us rejoice in the confusion of those charlatans and mountebanks who not only deceived the world but are now found out.

    Or good riddance to bad rubbish as gran’mere used to say.

    Kindest Regards

  42. D Boon says:

    Amusing how 1 minute after posting I now see what you meant. My apologies for TheGoodLocust…

  43. yonason says:

    Shrinking Glaciers, Shrinking Arctic; Science so simple that even Mark Twain could do it.
    http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/life_mississippi/18

    “Therefore, the Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. It was eleven hundred and eighty after the cut-off of 1722. It was one thousand and forty after the American Bend cut-off. It has lost sixty-seven miles since. Consequently its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present.
    ……….
    In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period,’ just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

  44. rbateman says:

    in NW California, just out of the snowline, USA

    K. Bray in California, High up, USA (19:04:15) :

    Those people are tasteless and rather crass, never ones to let a good crisis or disaster go to waste.

  45. Not Amused says:

    Holy ripped nylons, Batman !

    *spews coffee all over keyboard*

    Opinionated propaganda piece (otherwise known as AR4) is finally getting revealed for what it is.

    Where’s George Carlin when we need him ?

  46. Just The Facts says:

    Patrick Davis (19:20:42) :
    “Have you seen the animation with polar bears falling out of the sky? That’s a corker too.”

    That’s this one from Plane Stupid:

    Warmists have had no shame and they will receive the comeuppance that they deserve…

  47. Sean Peake says:

    What is it with people from Toronto? First Steve M and now Donna L? I’m going to have to step up here and do my bit for our city.

  48. Kaboom says:

    Of course, the WWF is now distancing itself from the problem, as well.

    This is the erratum:

    “CORRECTION
    On page 29 of the following report WWF included the following statement:
    “In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the
    year 2035 is very high.'”
    This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.
    The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New Scientist magazine carried the article “Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities” in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the
    International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.

    This statement should also be disregarded as being unsound.
    WWF regret any confusion this may have caused.”

    Heh. “unsound”. The WWF staffer who had to write this must have been choking on bile….

    See the full WWF glacier .pdf at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf

    Pathetic creatures.

  49. David Ball says:

    The wheels were long gone, the bus is now being torn to shreds. The MSM has to take notice eventually, don’t they?

  50. Capn Jack says:

    Now normally I hang around here looking for mythological beasts, merminks and such.

    But how kool is this, we arrgh finding missing links

    http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/business_industry/climate_savers/%20index.cfm

    Leads to an apology and yeti foot prints.

    similarly

    http://www.wwf.org.au/%20publications/acg_solutions.pdf

    more abominable foot prints but no report sightings

    unless the links are broken.

    But we are seeing a mass Yeti exodus.

    Moderators snip if you like.

    We call them Yowies in Oz.

  51. janama says:

    It’s finally getting time on Australia’s ABC at last.

    here’s Andy Pittman admitting that the sceptics are winning. The reason? because sceptics are heavily funded and they don’t have day jobs [[ rolleyes ]]

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2800538.htm

  52. Max Hugoson says:

    I hope someone downloaded all those originals.

    This DOES SMACK of complete COLLUSION/CONSPIRACY. The “eyeblink” rapid removal of these links shows these people are SCARED feces-less.

    Max

  53. Jack says:

    Is China getting ready to pull the plug?

    “China admits ‘open attitude’ over warming

    By Amy Kazmin in New Delhi

    Published: January 24 2010 18:48 | Last updated: January 24 2010 18:48

    China appeared to cast doubts on Sunday on the scientific consensus on the underlying causes of global warming, with a senior official saying that Beijing had an “open attitude” towards what he described as “disputes in the scientific community” on the issue.

    “There is a view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself,” Xie Zhenhua, vice-chairman of China’s National Development and Reforms Commission, told a press conference in New Delhi. “We have to keep an open attitude.””

  54. pat says:

    24 Jan: India Times Blog: ‘Pachauri must quit’ campaign builds
    UK newspapers including the ‘Telegraph’ and the ‘Times’ have now come out with the revelation that R K Pachauri used bogus claims of glaciers melting by 2035 to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
    Pachauri’s institute TERI was awarded two mammoth grants worth 310, 000 & 2.5 million pounds respectively. The first grant was awarded to TERI by the New York-based Carnegie Endowment Centre to research the potential security and humanitarian impact of glacial melt on the Himalayas.
    The second grant was given to TERI by the EU to assess the impact of Himalayan glacial melt. ..
    http://www.timesnow.tv/Pachauri-must-quit-campaign-builds/articleshow/4337039.cms

  55. Steve Goddard says:

    WWF – losing hearts and minds, 20 million at a time.

    Here is a video showing off WWFs best scientists.

  56. Leon Brozyna says:

    So the IPCC is, in reality, a front for the WWF. Sounds like it’s long overdue to wheel out RICO.

  57. Antonio San says:

    Well wasn’t the UK Met Office chairman an ex-WWF?

  58. Ben W. says:

    “WWF strongly condemns this offensive and tasteless ad and did not authorize its production or publication. It is our understanding that it was a concept offered by an outside advertising agency seeking our business in Brazil. The concept was summarily rejected by WWF and should never have seen the light of day. It is an unauthorized use of our logo and we are aggressively pursuing action to have it removed from websites where it is being currently featured. We strongly condemn the messages and the images portrayed in this ad. On behalf of WWF, here in the US and around the world, we can promise you this ad does not in any way reflect the thoughts and feelings of the people of our organization.”

  59. DirkH says:

    “Steve Goddard (19:51:36) :

    WWF – losing hearts and minds, 20 million at a time.

    Here is a video showing off WWFs best scientists.”

    The kid at 2:09 has a globe with the oceans painted red; that must be earth after the oceans boiled off.

  60. Steve Goddard says:

    Some remarkable falsehoods from the WWF US Youtube channel.

    “Scientist project that the summer sea ice cover of the Arctic Ocean might be lost within a decade. Half of the heat produced on earth is created in the Arctic, resulting in accelerates climate change. ”

  61. philincalifornia says:

    My first thought was:

    More pics of Donna and less of Choo Choo Pachauri please ….

  62. D. Patterson says:

    Petition appears at 10 Downing Street Website:

    We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate
    Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body. More details

    Submitted by Mike Haseler – Deadline to sign up by: 24 February 2010 – Signatures: 2,990

    You must be a British citizen or resident to sign the petition. Please enter your name only; signatures containing other text may be removed by the petitions team.

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/

  63. Andrew30 says:

    “THE UN climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. “

    “The 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 became a contributing author on the IPCC report on climate change impacts.”

    But poof, the Wikipedia page for Risk Management Solutions disappeared 14 days ago.

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

    Risk Management Solutions
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

    00:04, 18 January 2010 Juliancolton (talk | contribs) deleted “Risk Management Solutions” ‎ (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Unambiguous advertising for a non-notable business. Provided references are to minor trade awards with no outside audience. Flagrant promotional PoV, claiming to b)


    Risk Management Solutions is run by:

    Hemant Shah, President & Chief Executive Officer

    Hemant Shah is President and CEO of Risk Management Solutions. Since co-founding RMS in 1989, Hemant has become widely recognized within the global insurance industry as a proactive and influential leader….

    Hemant serves on the Board of Overseers of St. John’s School of Risk Management and Actuarial Science (College of Insurance), is a Director of the RAND Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, a Director on the Board of RAND’s Institute for Civil Justice, and a Director of the Singapore-based Institute for Defense and Strategic Studies. “


    In case you missed that, Hemant Shah is a Director at a division of the RAND Corporation (http://www.rand.org) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND ).

    The RAND Corporation is a major (some might say the major) global policy player. It includes people like: Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld.

    This Carbon thing could be a very well organized long term strategy that has been botched up by some rank amateurs that thought they could think on their own. It is clearly bigger than a few ‘climate scientists’, the WWF or the IPCC.

    I bet the boss, whomever that might be, is furious.

  64. vigilantfish says:

    Sean Peake (19:36:37) :

    What is it with people from Toronto? First Steve M and now Donna L? I’m going to have to step up here and do my bit for our city.

    ————-
    Donna Laframboise’s blog does not take comments, so just wanted to post a great big thanks to her here in case she comes and checks the comments here. Great job! Thanks for doing the e-equivalent of footwork in exposing the lousy basis for many of the IPCC’s AR4’S claims.

    Sean – start by voting out our hyper-green city council members. Thank God Miller’s time is almost over! :-)

  65. Daniel H says:

    I worked at WWF as a programmer back in my early 20s and I was still sort of naive about global warming and environmentalism in general. The job was located at their Washington, DC headquarters and I was hired to create a new database for their “Climate Savers” program. The idea was to keep better track of the enormous revenue streams that they’d extort from Fortune 500 companies in exchange for not waging organized media campaigns against them (Nike, HP, Dupont, etc).

    Their Climate Change Department was staffed by creepy fanatics who would run around screaming about how Bush stole the election and other crazy things about whales and “climate justice”. I was young and didn’t know what to make of it all so I just shrugged it off. Anyway, the head of the Climate Change Department was this freaky woman named Jenifer Morgan. We just called her “the forehead” because of her massive forehead[1]. She threatened to leave DC if Bush was not impeached for war crimes. She kept her promise and got transfered to Bonn, Germany along with her personal assistants.

    Last I heard, she no longer works for WWF but continues to fly all around the world on behalf of her new environmentalist NGO.

    The WWF headquarters building was a state of the art corporate complex with lots of plants but of course they kept the AC cranked up full blast during the hot DC summer months. In the basement there was a modern gym that employees were encouraged to use so I started using it after work. A lot of these guys who were “campaigners” would blatantly hit on me but I’d just ignore them and keep to myself. Later I stopped going to the gym after I personally witnessed some sort of lurid gay sex going on in the locker room.

    I left WWF shortly thereafter.

    Anyway, the shocking fanaticism and hypocrisy that I’d witnessed made me curious to learn more about the issue of climate change and what it was all about. That was when I officially became a skeptic.

    True story.

    I’m not surprised about that sick 9/11 exploitation campaign they ran because many of them were openly anti-American and seemed to think Bush was the Anti-Christ. The young activists were mostly rich white kids whose parents were well connected with DC politics and/or old money families. They grew up in privileged environments completely insulated from the world at large. For some reason they were all obsessed with people like Noam Chomsky. That’s pretty much it.

    Whew…It felt good to get that off my chest! :-) Any questions?

    1. http://www.feem-web.it/potsdam/images/morgan.jpg

  66. Marlene Anderson says:

    Judging by the funds WWF is able to lavish on outside organizations that are pro-CAGW, there seems a suspicious surplus of money for a charity that solicits donations to operate. Methinks they’re a political organization and their tax-free status as a charity needs to be challenged. There’s an unscrupulous beast lurking behind the face they show the public and they need a thorough investigation by the government tax collectors.

  67. D. King says:

    janama (19:44:28) : Great link

    ELEANOR HALL: You say you are losing the debate. How worried are you about that?

    ANDY PITMAN: It think it is potentially catastrophic….

    These guys really talk like this.

  68. Neo says:

    The science is “settled”

  69. John A says:

    Craig Moore (18:26:28) :

    If Alfred Nobel were still alive, he might say this is dynamite. Will there be a recall?

    Believe me, Nobel knew all about dynamite.

  70. John F. Hultquist says:

    Please fix the “it’s” in the text. One or two in comments isn’t a problem but the one in the post ought to be correct. (third line from top)

  71. Just The Facts says:

    Here’s a video of Rajendra Pachauri using the Himalayan glacier melt story as a primary talking point last year:

  72. Ross M says:

    It’s not just WWF references, I see many others that link to non peer reviewed data… Some of them link to press releases and blog posts. The information may well be factual but it is sloppy to not reference the source but some webpage.

  73. Remember that an illustrious patron of the WWF has expressed a wish to be reincarnated as a deadly virus, in order to reduce human population. Neither the patron nor the WWF have expressed “regret over any confusion this may have caused”. So their meaning is clear.

    I’m an Australian and a monarchist…but the loathsome Duke of Edinburgh and his WWF should be treated as self-declared enemies of humanity.

  74. Quote: Leon Brozyna (19:58:30) :

    “So the IPCC is, in reality, a front for the WWF.”

    Or perhaps a front for the internationalized world’s new saviour – Mr. Al Gore!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  75. John Blake says:

    The UN was founded in 1946 in bad faith, under extremely false pretenses, by Soviet agents-of-influence including FDR’s senior adviser Harry Hopkins and a treasonous State Department apparatchik named Alger Hiss. Since Dag Hammarskjold’s 1964 assassination the organization has consistently lurched far Left, celebrating vile Islamic anti-Semites, innumerable Statist creeps and thugs, while winking at Cambodian and Rwandan democides, Iranian and North Korean nuclear arsenals, racist satrapies from South Africa to Zimbabwe and parts east. Over the last fifty years, we literally cannot name a single instance of positive UN intervention; natural disasters from Haiti to Malaysia, mass-murder in Darfur, promote only graceless junkets to 5-star hotels at safe removes.

    Allied with Kyoto asininities, Climategate, ongoing revelations of Green Gang propagandizing that would make Goebbels blush, after Copenhagen no UN-affiliated body has any slightest remaining credibility. IPCC’s peculating double-dealer Rajendra Pachauri should resign forthwith as chief bagman for Al Gore’s subversive Cap-and-Taxing gang of thieves.

    By AD 2018, Ban Ki-moon’s stupefyingly corrupt and incompetent UN will likely have been disbanded like Woodrow Wilson’s beloved League, not with a bang but a whimper. Once Warmists can no longer shroud their death-eating Luddite ideology under a guise of “settled science”, reptilian elites will have to coil around alternative venues.

  76. Just The Facts says:

    Here’s another video of Rajendra Pachauri using the Himalayan glacier melt story as a primary talking point last year:

    Rajendra Pachauri seems very well informed about a subject he claims he was completely disassociated from…

  77. Dave N says:

    janama:

    The comment from Pitman about scientists efforts in the IPCC report being done out of hours and for no pay, is going to backfire, for one of two reasons:

    Either he is lying, in which case they *are* being funded and so the lack of it can’t be used as an excuse for “losing” to skeptics (and I question how well most of the skeptics are being “funded” anyway), or a lack of funding for scientists efforts in the IPCC reports means that they have little or no motivation for diligence.

    For the latter, policy makers having to rely on reports in that situation is nothing short of appalling. I can see the headline now: “Lead author of IPCC reports claims that reports are put together by volunteers in their spare time”

    Pitman can’t have it both ways.

  78. Dr. Bob says:

    I’m reposting this comment because if true, it’s very important. An IPCC lead author part of a carbon trading group? That’s f-ed up!

    “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.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

    Is it this Dr Murari Lal?

    From the WWF web site:

    Climate Witness Science Advisory Panel (SAP)

    Prof. Dr Murari Lal, specialises in global and regional climate variability, scenario development, regional environmental change, sectoral vulnerability assessment (water, biodiversity and agriculture), landscape ecology, biophysical remote sensing – GIS applications, ecosystem modeling, regional adaptation & mitigation potential, water resource management; Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India

    http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/about_cw/cwscientists/

    About Prof. Murari Lal
    Lead or Co-ordinating Author on several chapters of IPCC Assessment Reports
    http://4dweb.proclim.ch/4dcgi/proclim/en/Detail_Person?lalm.newdelhi

    About Halcrow Consulting:

    “Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India”
    http://www.halcrow.com/html/documents/pdf/india/halcrow_india_environment_brochure.pdf

    Carbon Trading is part of the Environment Division, now that is a surprise.

    From the CRU website we see the WWF funds the CRU. I wonder where a charity gets the money to fund climate research?
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    The WWF funds the CRU

    Murari Lal->WWF->CRU

    Murari Lal-> Halcrow Consulting->Carbon Trading

    How about we skip the middle man:

    Carbon Trading-> Halcrow Consulting-> WWF->CRU->IPCC

    And simplify.

    Carbon Trading->WWF->CRU->IPCC
    Carbon Trading->CRU->IPCC
    Carbon Trading->IPCC

    Carbon Trading->IPCC->Carbon Trading

  79. Zorro says:

    Really, you just couldn’t make this stuff up.
    Delete buttons and shredders will now be in overdrive.

  80. John F. Hultquist says:

    Many reports are not what they seem. On the SPPI site there are quite a number of very similar “State Climate Profiles” here:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/state_climate_profiles.html

    They also once had a paper describing how these were produced with the paid help of a consulting group that restricted the input and the resulting documents. Right now I can’t find that paper. However, those of you in the USA may have a “State Climate Profile” you haven’t read, but you should.

    A bright light was put on that consulting group and it disbanded, I think. That was reported on WUWT. Can anyone locate any of this.

  81. John Whitman says:

    So where are the missing US news reports on this? Knock Knock

  82. John Whitman says:

    So where are the US news reports on this? Knock Knock

  83. mark in austin says:

    this is amazing…how many more bombshells can we hear like this? i hope this does the IPCC in because it is getting beyond ridiculous at this point.

  84. mark in austin says:

    Dr. Bob…that truly is disgusting. This is looking like the worst sort of good ole boys club imaginable…..this has represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth to those who are leading this charade. i read somewhere that Al Gore is estimated at about 100 million now whereas 9 years ago upon leaving office his net worth was estimated at around 2 million.

  85. Roger Carr says:

    JRR Canada (19:16:56) : Post modern science sure got old fast.

    Witty and wise, JRR.

  86. Daniel H says:

    @John Blake

    “By AD 2018, Ban Ki-moon’s stupefyingly corrupt and incompetent UN will likely have been disbanded like Woodrow Wilson’s beloved League, not with a bang but a whimper”

    Yeah I agree it just hasn’t been the same ever since Boutros Boutros Boutros Boutros Gali was kicked out. Koffee Enema was really the downfall of the UN despite his apparent (unearned) popularity. They should have locked him up after that disgraceful Oil for Food scandal where he embezzled all those billions while the people of Iraq starved under Saddam.

  87. Andrew30 says:

    Dr. Bob (20:40:57) :

    It it true.

    PS.
    Statisticians involved with IPCC Assessments

    http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/ipcc.html

    Includes:
    Claudia Tebaldi, Rand Corporation

    The rest appear to be from from schools and govenment organizations.

  88. TimiBoy says:

    ABC Newsradio talked about Christopher Monckton’s Australian visit today. They had a sound bite of him speaking, and did not give time to any Warmists. He stated that “550 million years ago we had CO2 concentrations 10-20 times what they are now, but the Oceans didn’t acidify.”

    Lovely! See you Friday night, Chris!

  89. mr.artday says:

    “And came forth the fingers of a man’s hand writing on the wall. And this is the writing that was written. Mene mene tekel upharsin. Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.” From “Belshazzar’s Feast” by William Walton.

  90. Johnhayte says:

    “In 2001, the EF of central and eastern Europe (CEE) was 3.8 ha/capita, and of WE 5.1 ha/capita (WWF, 2004)”

    A reference from the concluding statements of IPCC report. Is it wrong?

  91. mark in austin says:

    mr artday…that is from the book of Daniel…did WIlliam Walton just paraphrase it? I am not familiar with the extra biblical reference

  92. Mike McMillan says:

    At last, a paper publisher whose scientific standards I can meet.

    Does WWF do novels, too ?

  93. Ric Werme says:

    K. Bray in California, High up, USA (19:04:15) :

    That’s the first time I have seen that image of NYC with the airplanes and I feel like vomiting… Who are these guys???!!!

    The main WUWT story on the airplane ad is at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/02/earth-awareness-run-amok-wwf-advertising-company-apparently-produced-911-respect-the-planet-video-in-june-2009/

  94. Steve Oregon says:

    You’ve heard of too big to fail.
    This whole IPCC story appears to be too big to report.
    It will take out so many officials there’s probably chatter about fear of destabilization.

    Quote: Leon Brozyna (19:58:30) :

    “So the IPCC is, in reality, a front for the WWF.”

    and Greenpeace.

    Check out this google search

    greenpeace ar4 site:www.ipcc.ch

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=greenpeace+ar4+site%3Awww.ipcc.ch&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=

    Results 1 – 10 of about 115 from http://www.ipcc.ch for greenpeace ar4. (0.45 seconds)

    The IPCC was long ago corrupted by activists who had first infiltrated many government agencies at all levels.

    This has been their MO for many years.

  95. Sonicfrog says:

    All i have to say is :-)

  96. par5 says:

    Here’s a list of reviewers for WGIII: Mitigation

    B. Hare, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
    K. Jardine, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
    K. Mallon, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
    T. Gulowwsen, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
    N Mabey, World Wide Fund for Nature (UK)
    F. MacGuire, Friends of the Earth (UK)

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/453.htm

    still searching…

  97. Nelson says:

    Goldman Sachs has big tie-ins to WWF and stands to make billions if carbon exchanges flourish. A couple of WWF board members from GS:

    http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/board/index.html#linden (Lawrence H. Linden is the Founder and Trustee of the Linden Trust for Conservation, which uses state-of-the art financial advice and monetary support to build environmental markets and to structure and execute deals in conservation finance)
    http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/board/index.html#litterman (Robert Litterman of New York, New York, is Chairman of the Quantitative Investment Strategies group of Goldman Sachs Asset Management – ground zero for any carbon trading program at GS!)

    I also find it curious that General Electric (seller of all things green under its big “ecomagination” push and promoter of Obama/AGW/cap-and-trade via NBC/MSNBC) has a board member and a senior executive that serve as directors at WWF:

    http://www.ge.com/company/leadership/bios_bod/rochelle_lazarus.html
    http://www.ge.com/company/leadership/bios_exec/pamela_daley.html

    So IPCC is a front for WWF which in turn might be a front (or at least a tool) of GS and GE which have literally tens of billions in revenue on the line.

    Perhaps I’m just being cynical. Maybe the GS and GE executives that represent a big portion of WWF’s board really are just concerned for pandas and don’t even think about how it might personally benefit them, their employers or other companies on whose boards they serve…

    As always, follow the money.

  98. brent says:

    The lead author of the Asia section of the report, Prof Murari Lal, said IPCC changed rules for the fourth assessment report to include non-peer-reviewed literature. Is that so?

    That’s not true. It wasn’t the first time. It is there in the established procedures of IPCC that we can use non-peer-reviewed literature, what we call grey literature. It is there on our website. Where we use grey literature, we are required to closely check sources and verify the authenticity of our information. That’s where the failure took place. That should never have happened.

    http://tinyurl.com/yzopalu

  99. Mark.R says:

    LONDON: The United Nations climate science panel faces a new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in 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. The report’s author later withdrew the claim because the evidence was too weak. The link was central to demands at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit by African nations for compensation of $100 billion from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions. The Sunday…
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Natural-disasters-not-linked-to-global-warming/articleshow/5496259.cms

  100. Ray says:

    When you check who was/is behind WWF, there is no surprise there.

    Did you know that former Nasi and Bilderberg founder, HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was the first WWF president (1962-1976)? Also, former president of WWF was HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, well known geneticist that would love to come back as a virus to kill most people on earth?

  101. TerryBixler says:

    Steve Goddard (19:51:36) :
    That is child abuse. Beyond belief, but seeing is believing. We have all been diminished by these zealots.

  102. par5 says:

    and more reviewers for AR4 WGIII: Mitigation

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf

    G. Von Goerne, Greenpeace (Germany)
    S. Sawyer, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
    S. Teske, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
    D. Pols, Friends of the Earth (Netherlands)
    C. Pearce, Friends of the Earth (UK)
    G. Volpl, WWF International (Brazil)

  103. Mike McMillan says:

    from the janama (19:44:28) link
    ANDY PITMAN: As far as I understand it, there is two paragraphs that have been questioned in a 1600-page document and I would like any of your listeners to have every written any document of 1600 pages long, two years ago, that after two years they haven’t found one or two paragraphs that they might with to rewrite.

    Obviously translated from the original Cantonese with transcription errors by the Senegalese typist. We always knew scientists couldn’t spell, but this reads like the instruction sheet that comes with a $4 pocket calculator.

  104. DirkH says:

    “Daniel H (20:19:30) :

    I worked at WWF as a programmer back in my early 20s …”

    Alter Falter, as we say in Germany, and it means “Old Butterfly”… well that was the literal translation. A better one would be “I’m gobsmacked”.

  105. J.Peden says:

    that after two years they haven’t found one or two paragraphs that they might with to rewrite.

    For a mere $1 million I would have checked the sea level rise table early in the SPM4, where two columns of 4 numbers each were both incorrectly added, naturally coming out more toward supporting AGW.

  106. J.Peden says:

    brent:

    That should never have happened.

    Mann’s hockey stick should have never happened. No one reviewed Mann’s ‘materials and methods’ before McIntyre and Mckitrick did. One argument: Mann first claimed he couldn’t find his data and methods, then etc.. But if he couldn’t find them, then he’s saying no one else ever had them either. Or does every reviewer erase their review?

  107. Roger Knights says:

    @John Blake:

    You should check out an impressive long-ago (1973) book about the UN by Shirley Hazzard, disillusioned ex-employee: Defeat of an Ideal: A study of the self-destruction of the United Nations

  108. D. Patterson says:

    par5 (22:34:22) :

    and more reviewers for AR4 WGIII: Mitigation

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf

    G. Von Goerne, Greenpeace (Germany)
    S. Sawyer, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
    S. Teske, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
    D. Pols, Friends of the Earth (Netherlands)
    C. Pearce, Friends of the Earth (UK)
    G. Volpl, WWF International (Brazil)

    Readers should not how Greenpeace was a front group financed in part by Soviet KGB intelligence, and by various post-Soviet communist organizations. The Greenpeace and WWF membership reads like an alumni asssociation of Soviet and communist front group members. A Greenpeace photographer was a fomer member of the communist Beider-Meinhof terrorist group trained by the STASI secret police of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). He was arrested by Dutch intelligence services for his communist terrorist activities.

    Following the political, business, financial, and social relationships between their organizations and members leads into a worldwide network of networks having a common goal of imposing one world governance and curtailment of human rights to self-determination. Whether it is Pachauri at the UN-IPCC, Maurice Strong formerly at UNEP and presently in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Bill Ayres with the communist Weathermen terrorists or the Annenberg Challenge, or the self-declared postmodern scientist better known as Phil Jones at CRU; there is a trail of evidnece which which links these groups and individuals to a common cause that is responsible for the current controversy regarding the science of global Warming or Climate Change and or lack of scientific integrity.

    Follow the money, follow the political associations and activities, and gain an understanding of the differences between genuine science and the scientific method versus the pseudo-science of postmodern science and their politicized adherents.

  109. Mark T says:

    I’m curious: why is it that up till now, nobody has noticed these WWF papers cited by the AR4?

    Mark

  110. TonyB says:

    Anyone interested to see campaigning groups at work in the heart of govt can go to my article here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896

    From Item 28 on there are various quotes that demonstrate the political/ideological impetus of such groups as Friends of the Earth and the Green Party. The UK Green Party by the way is the latest manifestation of the UK Communist party. A notable candidate for them for election to govt was William Connelly-late and unlamented gatekeeper to the Climate section of Wikipedia.

    We must not forget the campaigning element is very tied up with ideology and politics and Science is merely a tool to be abused and used on the way to their objectives. This has tended to obscure the reasons for the existence of such as WWF in the first place, which were invariably honourable and constructive. Such groups have been hijacked by activists and diminished themselves in the process.

    Tonyb

  111. Recipy says:

    I think this has no bearing on IPCC-WG1:

    I have checked WG1 chapters 2, 4, 5,6, 9, & 10 (which I have a personal interest in) and there are no WWF citations in those. So, the scientific basis (i.e. IPCC-WG1) is on more solid ground.

  112. mikelorrey says:

    Recipy (00:33:42) : edit

    “I think this has no bearing on IPCC-WG1:

    I have checked WG1 chapters 2, 4, 5,6, 9, & 10 (which I have a personal interest in) and there are no WWF citations in those. So, the scientific basis (i.e. IPCC-WG1) is on more solid ground.”

    Do.searches.for.other.advocacy.group.names.as.well.as.non-scientific.publications.

  113. Not Amused says:

    It would be interesting to find out if any authors of the AR4 report currently receive, or have received funding from the WWF.

    Anyone know a good Sherlock Holmes-like researcher/journalist ?

  114. Sam Lau says:

    From Mike McMillan (22:41:03) :
    [i]Obviously translated from the original Cantonese with transcription errors by the Senegalese typist. We always knew scientists couldn’t spell, but this reads like the instruction sheet that comes with a $4 pocket calculator.[/i]

    As a Cantonese speaker, I have to say that this is not Cantonese structure :P. I have read some Form 1/2 (grade7-8) writing, and I feel that the speaker is worse then that. Weird that he can write 1600-page long report with only a couple or errors. :P

  115. Sam Lau says:

    should be ‘a couple of errors’ instead of ‘a couple or errors’, thanks.

  116. Contrarian says:

    Anthony,

    “Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only.”

    Actually, their rules allow non-peer-reviewed sources:

    “Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following
    additional procedures are provided.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

    See Annex II at the end.

    They obviously have expanded that loophole far beyond “information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities.” And it is certainly at odds with the oft-repeated claims of their defenders that the IPCC’s conclusions rest on peer-reviewed science.

  117. Vincent says:

    janama,

    “here’s Andy Pittman admitting that the sceptics are winning. The reason? because sceptics are heavily funded and they don’t have day jobs.”

    So, the reason that the IPCC published hearsay as peer reviewed science is because sceptics don’t have day jobs?

  118. Mack says:

    Help needed here folks !!

    Item 1. Where do I write to regarding the Nobel prize? have they got a complaints dept.?

    Item 2. Under EU rules the man in the street has recourse to the Commission if he feels that there has been a fraudulent use of EU money. Anyone got the low-down on this? I think it may have been “The Court of First Instance” or something of that order. The nearest MEP office to me is some 200 miles round trip away but I will get on it if someone can guide me on precedure.

  119. Gregg E. says:

    We must not forget the campaigning element is very tied up with ideology and politics and Science is merely a tool to be abused and used on the way to their objectives. This has tended to obscure the reasons for the existence of such as WWF in the first place, which were invariably honourable and constructive. Such groups have been hijacked by activists and diminished themselves in the process.

    Tonyb

    “…invariably honourable and constructive.”

    Not at all when you look at the founders of many of these groups. Most of them were founded by hard-left types. Look up the statement by the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union wherein he states “the goal is socialism”.

    Most of the foundations started by conservatives such as the (Henry) Ford Foundation and the foundations established by Andrew Carnegie have been suborned by leftists. Some of them continue the projects their founders established them to do, but have added support for many far-left things.

    Greenpeace was sorta in-between. It’s founders were misty-eyed enviromental types who really did care about protecting the environment. Then they grew up and realized there were better ways than simply saying “no” to things. As they split, communists took over.

    So before you donate money to *any* organization, carefully research its founders, what it supports *now* and what it does with the money.

    I won’t give money to the American Red Cross because of what they did with the money they collected for the families of the 9/11 victims. They said ALL of it in the “special fund” would go to the families, but what they really did was drop it all into the general Red Cross fund and were planning to only give a small fraction to the families. AND during 2001 there was a lot of expensive remodeling of Red Cross offices going on. The president of the American Red Cross lost her job over that and the ARC said they’d never establish special funds for specific things again.

    I won’t donate blood to the American Red Cross either. Blood is a huge money maker for them. They do a process called leukoreduction to 100% of the blood they get for free, even though only 10% of people need that done to blood used in transfusions. That increases the processing cost. They get the blood FREE and make a tidy profit off it.

    There are other organizations that do the blood thing, such as America’s Blood Bank.

  120. MAGB says:

    “shows what one can find in just one day of looking.”

    The is the big issue many of us have – we have enough scientific knowledge and experience to see after a short look that this is weak science, full of uncertainties fed into computer models which are in turn full of assumptions. Then a quick look at books like Plimer’s Heaven + Earth confirms that climate is very poorly understood. We become highly sceptical but we are accused of being ignorant because we aren’t “climate scientists”. Indeed we are too busy doing other things to become experts.

    So thanks Donna for helping with the effort to expose this fraudulent new industry.

  121. Dermot Carroll says:

    If you can tune into Irish national radio RTE radio 1 Pat Kenny show.
    Discussion on this coming up shortly!

  122. Bernice says:

    The New York Times and othe MSM’s are writing their own obituary, not covering the meltdown and corruption at the IPCC, Climategate, CO2 fraud, the trouble at Penn State.

    The breaking news continues to unfold on what can only be considered to be the biggest fraud in history and two months later the MSM are trying to conceal it by omission.

  123. tucker says:

    DirkH (20:07:37) :

    “Steve Goddard (19:51:36) :

    WWF – losing hearts and minds, 20 million at a time.

    Here is a video showing off WWFs best scientists.”

    The kid at 2:09 has a globe with the oceans painted red; that must be earth after the oceans boiled off.

    ******************************

    Well, the Earth is millions of degrees F underneath you know. I forget who told me that “fact”. That red must be the lava flows after the oceans boil off.

  124. TonyB says:

    Gregg E replied to my original comment

    “…invariably honourable and constructive.”

    The context of my comment was that the original purpose of the campaignig organisation-such as WWF- was on the whole, good. It is what has subsequently happened-particularly with the big powerful ones- that is the cause for concern.

    Personally I won’t now donate to Oxfam or Christian Aid or take any notice of what Greenpeace or WWF tell me because they now have an agenda. That doesn’t mean to say I don’t want them to disribute food or be concerned about the environment, but that I want them to concentrate on these aims and stop subverting science for their political ojectives -which I invariably disagree with.

    Tonyb

  125. Don Keiller says:

    IPCC “Transparency”

    Read this from Chris Holland. What a mess!

    2035 and all that
    By David Holland

    In Chapter 10 of the Working Group II contribution to the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report this short section of text has become very controversial:
    “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

    The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.”

    On 20 January 2010 the World Wildlife Fund issued a correction to their 2005 paper in which they claimed the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by the year 2035 is very high. They now state:

    “This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.”

    On the same day the IPCC issued a statement. Dr Pachauri, his Vice Chairs and the two TSU Co-Chairs – wrote:

    “In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.”

    “This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report”. We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.”

    Readers might recall Dr Pachauri telling an Australian TV audience:

    “Every stage of the drafting of our report is peer reviewed, and whatever comments we get from the peer review process are posted on the website of the IPCC, and the reasons why we accept or reject those comments are clearly specified. Where we accept a comment we say, “Yes. Accepted.” Where we don’t, we have to adduce very clear reasons why the authors don’t agree with the comment. So it’s a very transparent process.”

    I will discuss this “transparent process” and these “IPCC standards” and consider whether this is another case of Dr Pachauri’s claims not matching reality. But first It might be noted that one of the four Coordinating Lead Authors for the Chapter was Indian scientist Dr Murari Lal, who wrote on 22 January:

    “This is more about a systematic failure of the (IPCC) review process. The… conclusions were sent to hundreds of scientists and governments… and no one raised any doubts… then.”

    As will be shown he is right to say that it is a systematic failure of the IPCC review process, but entirely wrong to say no one raised any doubts at the time. Doubts were raised, as I will detail, by Government, Expert Reviewers and the Deputy Head of WGII TSU (Science), Clair Hanson, who all submitted comments to the Lead Authors, but were ignored.

    That such a basic error could be ignored, is because the IPCC review process is not as Dr Pachauri suggested in Australia and nothing like the “strong interactive peer review process”, which the American delegation stressed the need for at the first meeting of the IPCC in 1988. Despite being promoted as the guarantor of the quality of IPCC Reports, the current review process is its Achilles’ heel.

    The Government and Expert Reviewers are asked to read the draft text and, by email, send comments on each line should they wish. In the first, second and third IPCC assessments, that was the last the Reviewers saw of their comments unless they made a trip to an “open archive” at some location designated by the IPCC Secretariat. In May 2008 I asked the IPCC Secretary where these archives are but received no reply. However the curator of the Littauer Library at Harvard has confirmed he does have the Working Group I “open archive” for the Third Assessment Report in paper form in eight unindexed boxes.

    This is how the IPCC planned to archive the drafts, comments and responses of the last assessment until freedom of information requests forced their online disclosure. The archives are now available for the public despite the IPCC and not because of them. They are not at, and have never been at, the “the website of the IPCC” as Dr Pachauri claims.

    Accordingly up till now Lead Authors could be confident that the Expert Reviewers would not find out if their views had been accepted until they read the revised text months later when they could do nothing about it. The Lead Authors could also be fairly certain that no one would look to see if there had been an appropriate response to Reviewers’ comments.

    In 1990 to overcome what was thought by many to be a poor balance between Lead Authors and Expert Reviewers, ‘Review Editors’ were introduced into the IPCC assessment process. Although, in 2008, Dr Pachauri “co-authorised” a complaint to Ofcom, which stated that these Review Editors have the “final say” on the IPCC text, this is not what is stated in the “the IPCC standards” as he calls them.

    The procedures in Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work make it clear that the Lead Authors have sole responsibility for the text. They are free to accept or reject comments as they wish. Review Editors are only required to:

    “ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious/controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.”

    Review Editors must also ensure that non-peer-reviewed sources such as the WWF papers are “selected and used in a consistent manner across the Report”. They are given no powers to ensure compliance but they must submit a written report to the Working Group Sessions or the Panel”. Review Editors, so far, have mostly if not entirely been drawn from the cadre of earlier author teams and cannot be thought of as independent auditors.

    Neither the IPCC nor the working groups have put these reports – the nearest thing in the IPCC process to a quality control report – into the public domain. I have been given the reports for Working Group I and II, but WGIII refuses to release any. For the Chapter being discussed here, the two Review Editors simply signed pro formas that were sent to them saying:

    “The review process for the development of the Chapter in the Working Group II Fourth Assessment, as laid out in the Principles Governing IPCC Work, has been properly followed.

    My reading of the Final Government Draft of the Chapter confirms the satisfactory completion of this process.

    My reading of the Final Government Draft of the Chapter confirms that it properly reflects scientific controversies.”

    Now I will show what Reviewers said and Lead Authors responded. While the Reviewers are named we are not told who actually wrote the responses.

    The contentious 2035 date appears in the paragraph from lines 13 to 17 on page 46 of the second order draft of Working Group II. The only changes to the draft text in the finally published text are the removal of a short redundant sentence and the addition the reference to (WWF, 2005).

    David Saltz, of the Desert Research Institute, Ben Gurion University made three comments on this short paragraph including one upon the obvious inconsistency of saying first that the likelihood is very high that Himalayan glaciers will “disappear” by 2035 if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate, and then stating “Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035”. The Lead Author’s response to the comment on inconsistency was:

    “Missed to clarify this one”.

    The Government of Japan commented rather more critically:

    “This seems to be a very important statement, possibly should be in the SPM, but is buried in the middle of this chapter. What is the confidence level/certainty? (i.e.“the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing is very high” is at which level of likelihood? (ref. to Box TS-1, “Description of Likelihood”). Also in this paragraph, the use of “will” is ambiguous and should be replaced with appropriate likelihood/confidence level terminology.”

    The Lead Authors’ response to Government of Japan was:

    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.

    From what I can see the Lead Authors found none appropriate.

    The paragraph, following the 2035 claim and table 10.10, begins:

    “The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.”

    Hayley Fowler from Newcastle University commented with citations:

    “I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding – and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in preciptiation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.’s 2005 Nature paper here – this seems very similar to what they said.”

    The Lead Authors responded:

    “Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version”

    The Government of Japan again noted the lack of any reference and commented rather critically:

    “This statement lacks any reference. Also, the reader wonders, are “global warming” and “climate change” interchangeable? Are we still using “global warming”? Clarification of this would be appreciated.”

    “The use of “will” (again) is ambiguous. The confidence level using IPCC terminology should be stated.”

    The Lead Author’s response to Government of Japan was once again:

    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.

    But once again none were made either in response to Hayley Fowler or the Government of Japan.

    For the IPCC TSU, Clare Hanson commented that there was only one reference for the whole section. This was Hasnain, 2002. To Clare Hanson the Lead Authors’ response was:

    “More references added”.

    So far as I can tell only Shen et al., 2002 and WWF, 2005 were added.

    Conclusion

    Clearly questions were raised and were not properly dealt with, so it is true that the “IPCC standards” are either inadequate or were not followed or, as I believe, both. The ultimate fault lies with the Panel of Government representatives that jet off every year to exotic locations supposedly to oversee the work they have commissioned, and on our behalf paid for. On the last assessment it is certain that no Government saw any of the Review Editors’ reports. They never asked for them and they were never given them.

    The fundamental breach of the “IPCC standards” is far more basic. The assessment and review process is required by the Principles Governing IPCC Work to be undertaken on a comprehensive, objectiveopen and transparent basis. Eight unindexed boxes of paper never met the requirement to be open and transparent.

    Murari Lal tells us “the conclusions were sent to hundreds of scientists and governments”. If the drafts – all in electronic form – can be sent to so many people why can they not be put up on public Internet servers at the same time? And why not have the Reviewers and Lead Authors engage on line with the strong interactive peer-review that was originally called for? This way the public can see for themselves that the process not only works but is also open and transparent.

    We now know that at the next plenary meeting of the IPCC, later this year, the important “environmental matter” of IPCC information disclosure is to be discussed. Most European counties are parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention). It requires the parties to promote the objectives of the Convention within the IPCC and to hold public consultations on important environmental matters. Now is the time to press for the rights guaranteed by this Convention.

  126. RichieP says:

    North has more today on non-peer-reviewed work in IPCC – on “Amazongate”:

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html

    “The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication.”

  127. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    The Nobel Prize winning IPCC, indeed. Perhaps the IPCC is in line for winning the Ignobel Prize as well. It would be a first, I know, but there’s a first time for everything.

    How can I nominate them?

  128. Alexander says:

    When I began in High School, one of the rites of passage was to go to the local radio shop and buy the components to build a ‘Crystal set’, a small and rudimentary wireless set that required one to carefully adjust a wire ‘whisker’ against a lump of crystal and find the optimum point to to clamp an alligator clip to a copper wire coil and thus complete the circuit and receive, if one had reasonable luck, some faint and scratchy radio transmissions that we listened to on surplus WWII headphones. This was the first radio set in our house, as my father hated the then overwhelmingly popular C&W music! He did encourage us to read newspapers and books, so he wasn’t anti-knowledge, just genuinely and almost completely tone deaf.
    Now, as a grandfather and retired from one of my professions, although still working at the other, I enjoy the internet and see it as probably the most powerful tool the world has seen for the uncovering of untruth and the promotion of justice for world citizens. Those of us who cherish these things owe a huge debt to Anthony Watt and his cohort who labour so diligently – thanks to all of you!

  129. Roger Knights says:

    Roger Carr (21:04:17) :

    JRR Canada (19:16:56) : Post modern science sure got old fast.

    Witty and wise, JRR.

    That reminds me of Wilde’s witticism:

    Nothing is so dangerous as being too modern; one is apt to grow old fashioned quite suddenly.

  130. P Gosselin says:

    Yet another denialist website/blog to bookmark!

  131. Jack Simmons says:

    John Blake (20:38:32) :

    The UN was founded in 1946 in bad faith, under extremely false pretenses, by Soviet agents-of-influence including FDR’s senior adviser Harry Hopkins and a treasonous State Department apparatchik named Alger Hiss. Since Dag Hammarskjold’s 1964 assassination the organization has consistently lurched far Left, celebrating vile Islamic anti-Semites, innumerable Statist creeps and thugs, while winking at Cambodian and Rwandan democides, Iranian and North Korean nuclear arsenals, racist satrapies from South Africa to Zimbabwe and parts east. Over the last fifty years, we literally cannot name a single instance of positive UN intervention; natural disasters from Haiti to Malaysia, mass-murder in Darfur, promote only graceless junkets to 5-star hotels at safe removes.

    Allied with Kyoto asininities, Climategate, ongoing revelations of Green Gang propagandizing that would make Goebbels blush, after Copenhagen no UN-affiliated body has any slightest remaining credibility. IPCC’s peculating double-dealer Rajendra Pachauri should resign forthwith as chief bagman for Al Gore’s subversive Cap-and-Taxing gang of thieves.

    By AD 2018, Ban Ki-moon’s stupefyingly corrupt and incompetent UN will likely have been disbanded like Woodrow Wilson’s beloved League, not with a bang but a whimper. Once Warmists can no longer shroud their death-eating Luddite ideology under a guise of “settled science”, reptilian elites will have to coil around alternative venues.

    John,

    Let’s quit beating around the bush. Tell us how you really feel about the UN.

  132. Roger Carr says:

    Alexander (03:27:07) : When I began in High School, one of the rites of passage was to go to the local radio shop and buy the components to build a ‘Crystal set’ [...] adjust a wire ‘whisker’…

    Cats whisker, Alexander… cat’s whisker. Oh for the days when those were high-tech and I could build them! It’s been downhill for me ever since…

  133. John Silver says:

    The WWF is the Scientology of environmentalism.
    Or worse.

  134. Butch says:

    Combining the massive melting predicted by IPCC and the Goracle with the completely tasteless WWF picture; wouldn’t that part of Manhattan be under water?

  135. MartinGAtkins says:

    US WWF 2008 Annual Report

    Operating revenues grew to $196.5 million, a 22 percent increase over the FY07 total of $160.8 million.

    We received $85.7 million from our members and donors, $26.1 million in government awards, $19.3 million from foundations, $14.6 million from other WWF Network organizations, $10.1 million from corporations, and $40.7 million in other revenues,

    http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/financialinfo/2008fundingandfinancialoverview.html

    And they say sceptics are well funded.

  136. Jack says:

    The difference between the World Wrestling Federation and the World Wildlife Fund is that the World Wrestling Federation is real.

  137. Ron says:

    A WWF link not so far mentioned is that Robert Napier, Chairman of the Board of the UK Met Office (responsible for the ‘Had’ part of the ‘HadCRU’ temperatue series) was previously Chief Executive of WWF-UK.

  138. Jack Simmons says:

    Mark T (00:02:07) :

    I’m curious: why is it that up till now, nobody has noticed these WWF papers cited by the AR4?

    Mark

    Mark,

    I’m with you. Has anybody actually read this thing? And if not, why was the story accepted without any critical analysis from anyone in the media? Why was it just assumed to be valid? When will the media step up and do their mea culpa?

  139. SamG says:

    That plane image is truly remarkable and encapsulates the greenie message in its entirety.

    Disdain for humankind
    Apologists for terrorism (both hate the western world)
    Alarmist
    Message of hate veiled under a ‘good cause’

  140. wayne says:

    Speaking of carbon trading…

    You hear of tons of carbon and you hear of tons of CO2. Sometimes you hear them termed interchangeably. If they are selling tons of CO2 they are basically selling us on earth the air, or at least the oxygen in the air, that every being on this earth owns.

    Are they then selling the earths air also in these carbon trades?

    And since the oxygen in the CO2 will eventually, through chemical reactions powered by the sun over years, maybe unknown to current science, be freed back to the atmosphere, are they selling us the sun also?

    I am curious.

  141. hunter says:

    So it really is all a pile of garbage, from top to bottom.

  142. Henry Galt says:

    Mark T (00:02:07) :

    “I’m curious: why is it that up till now, nobody has noticed these WWF papers cited by the AR4?

    Mark”

    Those of us that previously “noticed” such malarkey were mostly written off as conspiracy theorists in the pay of big whatever. Which leads naturally to this….

    Not Amused (00:59:55) :

    “It would be interesting to find out if any authors of the AR4 report currently receive, or have received funding from the WWF.

    Anyone know a good Sherlock Holmes-like researcher/journalist ?”

    The best “shot/poisoned/S(ingle)O(ccupant)F(atal)C(rash)’ed themselves in suspicious circumstances” or suchlike. It puts others off.

    I am afraid that this ripple in the blogosphere will not divert the good ship Carbon Trading built in Goldman Sachs’ shityard. Some casualties are to be expected, none of whom will lose their ill-gotten Oscars/companies/Nobels/cash. Nothing will be allowed to pop this bubble until they choose to do it.
    Keep an eye out for the seeds of the next bubble which are invariable flagged, while sown, as the previous fiasco disintegrates, as usual, without the “massive loss of” life/money/time/etc, touted at its inception. The carbon trading bubble was created on the day that Clinton revoked the Glass-Steigall act – Al and all the big players were in the room.

    But what do I know? I am just a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

    Question everything that this uncaring machine has tried to embed within our minds and our society. The only thing they hate more than you is your capacity to reproduce and your willingness to do so.

  143. Fred from Canuckistan . . . says:

    Wonder is she lives close by Steve McIntyre on Toronto?

    It would make it easy for the Nobel Committee when they award them a Peace Prize for exposing the seething mass of corruption, lies and political fraud that is being passed off a as Science by the IPCC.

  144. Pamela Gray says:

    Well gee, That kinda leaves me out. I fear I haven’t laid an egg in 10 years or so. Besides, if I had a baby Leprechaun now, who would hold my cane whilst I hold my baby?

  145. mrjohn says:

    “K. Bray in California, High up, USA (19:04:15) :
    That’s the first time I have seen that image of NYC with the airplanes and I feel like vomiting… Who are these guys???!!!”

    To be fair to the WWF read this

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-wwf-runs-a-really-stupid-advertisement-2009-9

  146. George Ellis says:

    OT, but on page… What is up with the sunspots graphic. Stripes? What do sunstripes indicate? Is that was caused the ice age?

    /when fixed, what you will not see is it looks like a picture of the sun through ventian blinds.

  147. Apparently putting in data from 1200KM away is cool for NASA:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=248

    “you can use numbers from the nearest available stations, as long as they are within 740 miles (1,200 kilometers). Overall, this gives the GISS product more complete coverage of the Earth’s polar regions.”

  148. Pamela Gray says:

    If NASA says this can be done, I would suggest using Meacham’s station for all of Oregon as well as Washington and Idaho. There would be a run on hot chocolate if they did. If a warm-biased fill-in can be used, then just to satisfy us flat-earthers, use a cold biased one now and then.

  149. Mark N says:

    It’s a real shame these institutions are so far from the good they could do. There are few (maybe two) studies on extinction and species diversity yet WWF and the like seem to not bother putting money into actual on the ground research. It would be a huge job and might produce results they would not like. Just lies, half truths and innuendo for now, which seems the norm in this modern day and age.

  150. Robert A says:

    “Let’s look at this thing from a… um, from a standpoint of status. What do we got on the spacecraft that’s good?” – Gene Kranz, Apollo 13

  151. Steve M. says:

    _Jim (18:42:11) :

    When I see “WWF”, so help me, I still think “World Wrestling Federation”

    the IPCC report is just as real as World Wrestling Federation.

  152. K. Bray in California, Pissed Off, USA says:

    “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.”

    Hey WWF, make another “Save The Planet” video showing 200,000 beheadings.

    That makes just as much sense as your NYC/airplane production.
    [snip]

  153. MikeW says:

    Ahh, what I wouldn’t give for a rematch between Ed “PeerReview!” Begley Jr. and Stuart Varney. It would truly be comedy gold, to see Eddie continue to defend all the research cited from the IPCC that now being found to NOT have been peer reviewed.
    For those who never saw the idiot’s rant on Fox, here’s a short clip of it:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkj7FW33XQ

  154. Steve Oregon says:

    Daniel H (20:19:30) :

    “The Climate Change Department was staffed by creepy fanatics who would run around screaming about how Bush stole the election and other crazy things about whales and “climate justice”.

    That’s obviously who also dominates the IPCC, ClimateProgress and RC.

    “Anyway, the shocking fanaticism and hypocrisy that I’d witnessed made me curious to learn more about the issue of climate change and what it was all about. That was when I officially became a skeptic.”

    The shocking fanatasism and hypocrisy is only surpassed by their complete lack of integrity justified by their perceived greater cause.

  155. Tarby says:

    “Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.”

    Well, that’s a bit of a mistake. When did the IPCC say that only peer-reviewed papers were allowed?

    If they put all drafts of AR4 in the public domain for non-peer review (which it does) and people such as Christopher Monckton get to pore through it, a non-peer who reviewed AR4 before final publication, then they also “hid” nothing.

    It’s all there in Annex2 of the IPCC rules under ‘Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work’.

  156. Tim Clark says:

    TonyB (02:37:12) :
    Gregg E replied to my original comment
    “…invariably honourable and constructive.”
    The context of my comment was that the original purpose of the campaignig organisation-such as WWF- was on the whole, good. It is what has subsequently happened-particularly with the big powerful ones- that is the cause for concern.

    Donate to organizations that give a respectable percentage of funds to improve habitat. Ducks unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, for example. The WWF doesn’t care about habitat, only politics and money to fund their bureacracy.

  157. Bill Parsons says:

    All this needs to be thoroughly vetted by Ed Begley whereupon we will learn The Peer Reviewed Truth From the Green Cottage.

  158. Jan says:

    “WWF it would seem would also be more accurately described as World Wide Fibbers.”

    Might be I would be more plain and simple:
    World Wide Fraud

  159. Elizabeth says:

    Shame on us for not catching this quicker.

  160. J.Peden says:

    [from]Tarby (07:21:41) :

    Well, that’s a bit of a mistake. When did the IPCC say that only peer-reviewed papers were allowed?

    If they put all drafts of AR4 in the public domain for non-peer review (which it does) and people such as Christopher Monckton get to pore through it, a non-peer who reviewed AR4 before final publication, then they also “hid” nothing.

    It’s all there in Annex2 of the IPCC rules under ‘Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work’.

    Right, Tarby: So now it’s the rest of the World which is responsible for the complete failure of the ipcc’s “Climate Science”?

  161. Alan F says:

    Anyone else picturing Pachauri doing karaoke to Dire Straits “Money For Nothing”?

  162. Tarby says:

    RE: J.Peden (08:32:33) :
    “Right, Tarby: So now it’s the rest of the World which is responsible for the complete failure of the ipcc’s “Climate Science”?”
    ————————————————————-

    The article here makes a claim that is wrong concerning what’s allowed in the IPCC reports. The up-to-date observations also match the IPCC projections on CO2 emissions, sea level rise and Arctic sea ice extent. Get over it.

    Highlighting a handful of non peer reviewed articles amongst thousands of peer reviewed papers and claiming they debunk the science is stretching the imagination.

  163. J.Peden says:

    Alan F (09:06:11) :

    Anyone else picturing Pachauri doing karaoke to Dire Straits “Money For Nothing”?

    “And the Warming Models for free”?

  164. commonsense says:

    Yes, IPCC 2007 TAR is plenty of errors… most of them UNDER-estimating Climate Change impacts. Examples:

    Arctic sea ice: WORST CASE SCENARIO FOR 2040… REALIZED IN … 2007!

    Sea level rise: WORST CASE SCENARIO: 50-60 cm for 2100. Now likely SLR will be between 1 and 2 meters!

    Ice caps: Antartica was predicted to gain ice. Now it is losing mass at an ACCELERATING rate!

    And finally back to INDIA: the monsoon is decaying (see the papers of V. Ramanathan). In 2009 Droughts and floods damaged the country agriculture in at the point of treatening FAMINE, that will be mitigated importing rice and other cereals(usually India exports them). This plus extreme social injustice and extreme poverty, have put the country at the doors of CIVIL WAR.

  165. Lynne says:

    It is interesting to note, here in Ontario, that Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Principle Secretary, Mr. Gerald Butts, left his position in the Premier’s office to become head of WWF Canada. A busy man, Mr. Butts is taking part in the Canadian International Council and Global Positioning Project for Canada, where he will be helping to formulate ideas in time for the 2010 G8 Summit in Huntsville. He is also part of the Sustainability Project for the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. Among other things, he is also a board member of Canada 2020, which describes itself as a “progressive centre”. It is instructive to look at the other attendees of some of the conferences which he attends.

  166. J.Peden says:

    commonsense (09:44:19) :

    Yes, IPCC 2007 TAR is plenty of errors… most of them UNDER-estimating Climate Change impacts.

    The TAR was published in 2001. That’s my answer to the rest of your bs, because it’s the closest you got to any relevant truth, your screen name included.

  167. maz2 says:

    Choo-Choo’s nemesis: “voodoo science” has stuck on Choo-Choo.

    “*He [Pachauri] lives like a monk in India”.

    >>> “*“I know him quite well and he is certainly not suspicious and earning a lot of money and spending it on his own welfare. He lives like a monk in India and all the money he is receiving he is giving to his institution.”

    EU Referendum: Monk Pachauri:

    “Dr Rajendra Pachauri, … But he certainly enjoys a lavish personal lifestyle, with his Delhi home in the Golf Links area, the most expensive stretch of residential real estate in India,”
    eureferendum.blogspot.com/

    Choo-Choo is gonzo.
    …-

    “*UN’s rogue glacier claim ‘was just one page in report’, says IPCC deputy

    Calls for the resignation of the embattled head of the UN climate change body were dismissed by its vice-chairman today as the organisation sought to repair its damaged credibility.

    The discredited claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 because of global warming was just “one page in a 938-page report”, said Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Mr van Ypersele praised the IPCC chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, for devoting his life to his work on climate change, rejecting accusations that the misleading data had been used to claim grants for Dr Pachauri’s research institute.

    He did, however, criticise Dr Pachauri for last year accusing the Indian Government of peddling “voodoo science” when it questioned the IPCC’s claims about Himalayan glaciers.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7001693.ece

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi

  168. KDK says:

    Just to be sure everyone knows… an arm of Rockefeller also funds WWF and Greenpeace–hmmm, yeah, the oil magnates really love their oil-not. They love profit and control.

    The UN is despicable and should be removed from all walks of life. Sure, the little people in the UN that are trying to make a difference are just manipulated by the masters. They provide untruths and half-facts in order to get people on board, while the real agenda of control remains unseen.

    Just like the UN ‘educating’ third world countries… it may sound nice, but you have to look at what they call ‘education’–anything but.

    The entire UN needs to always be questioned; never taken as a source of reliable info, just an opinion based on an organization promoted by billionaires for the sake of controlling whatever they wish to control.

    The UN is a FRAUD. Investigate any/all agencies and you’ll find the same profiteering/manipulating bastards… I guarantee you that.

  169. Steele says:

    “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.” Worship it. Trust Al Gore for it. Believe lies for it. Redistribute income for it. Give up all the conveniences of modern life for it.*

    *Even though none of those things make any difference to it. Tsunamis are cause by earthquakes. Earthquakes are caused by tectonic forces in the earth’s crust. Tectonics are caused by nuclear reactions at the earth’s core. There is nothing that recycling or SUVs or carbon offsets can do to change it.

  170. Richard Sharpe says:

    commonsense (09:44:19) says:

    Yes, IPCC 2007 TAR is plenty of errors… most of them UNDER-estimating Climate Change impacts. Examples:

    Arctic sea ice: WORST CASE SCENARIO FOR 2040… REALIZED IN … 2007!

    Sea level rise: WORST CASE SCENARIO: 50-60 cm for 2100. Now likely SLR will be between 1 and 2 meters!

    Ice caps: Antartica was predicted to gain ice. Now it is losing mass at an ACCELERATING rate!

    And finally back to INDIA: the monsoon is decaying (see the papers of V. Ramanathan). In 2009 Droughts and floods damaged the country agriculture in at the point of treatening FAMINE, that will be mitigated importing rice and other cereals(usually India exports them). This plus extreme social injustice and extreme poverty, have put the country at the doors of CIVIL WAR.

    I can’t tell if you are engaging in parody or have been visiting Mrs Palmer too much.

  171. Richard Sharpe says:

    Tarby (09:26:28) says:

    RE: J.Peden (08:32:33) :
    “Right, Tarby: So now it’s the rest of the World which is responsible for the complete failure of the ipcc’s “Climate Science”?”
    ————————————————————-

    The article here makes a claim that is wrong concerning what’s allowed in the IPCC reports. The up-to-date observations also match the IPCC projections on CO2 emissions, sea level rise and Arctic sea ice extent. Get over it.

    Highlighting a handful of non peer reviewed articles amongst thousands of peer reviewed papers and claiming they debunk the science is stretching the imagination.

    Troll, troll, troll a lot
    that’s the way you seem.

  172. J.Peden says:

    Tarby and commonsense:

    Tarby and commonsense, the point is:

    1] Whatever “process” the ipcc is using, in practice it works solely toward the opposite of producing real Science.

    2] Your transparent tactical goal of trying to divert everyone into engaging in a circular, interminable debate over each and every microgram of the massive load the ipcc’s Climate Scientists and “process” have dumped upon the World will only succeed in finding people either afflicted with [snip] myopia, or under the delusion that they are Great Sophists, at best. But it will change nothing concerning the nature of the ipcc’s terminal “product”. And,

    3] For your own wellbeing, whether you believe or ‘believe in’ your statements and tactics or not, stop doing what you are doing here immediately! Diverting and dissembling becomes habit forming, from which you won’t ever be able to approach the truth. And as a personal economic plan, what you are doing is not “sustainable”.

    In addition, you are not “helping the World” either, you are doing the opposite.

    H.L. Mencken translated: “Scratch a saver of the World, find a Controllist.”

  173. Indiana Bones says:

    What is a damnd shame and has set back the good work of true conservationists – is the revelation that WWF, Greenpeace etc. become marxist/alienated tools.

    Money given in earnest by well-meaning people redirected to fund misanthropic endeavors is light years from wildlife protection. A fantastic failure at all levels of government, academia, philanthropy, science. More accurately a failure of virtual education.

    All the more reason to reject virtualized worlds – programmers incapable of neutrality or balance. A tragedy for the goals of enlightened learning – and for idealism. The net result will be massive apathy, cynicism, isolation. Apocalypse of the mind. Utter waste.

  174. Think! says:

    D. Patterson (23:53:30) “Readers should not how Greenpeace was a front group financed in part by Soviet KGB intelligence, and by various post-Soviet communist organizations. The Greenpeace and WWF membership reads like an alumni asssociation of Soviet and communist front group members.”

    That is the kind of statement that will cause people to ignore any attempt to make sense of the IPCC from our POV, and will split sceptics.

    I can’t think of a more ridiculous statement. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, was president of the WWF from 1981 to 1996.

    Was the King an agent for Moscow? That seems to be the implication.

    His son – prince Charles, is also an avowed environmentalist.

    Is he a communist too?

    Conservatives and environmentalism have a much more established history with environmentalism than communists. Left environmentalists in history are few and far between, but history is littered with conservatives who have sought foundations for their ideas in the natural order of things. Malthus, Ehrlich, and Hardin amongst them.

    Today’s world is different. there is no communism. There is no real capitalism. There is diminishing continuity between yesterday’s and today’s movements. Don’t see today in terms of the past, because it will not hold true.

  175. Tarby says:

    Oh, my wellbeing is just fine and dandy, thanks ;)

    Call me a troll all you like, Richard, but the article says the IPCC broke its rules when it didn’t. Someone didn’t do their homework and is making misguided accusations.

    Sorry if you don’t like that. It’s how it is. Personally, if they allow only peer reviewed and published science into AR5 I’ll be fine with that.

  176. Paddy says:

    “John Whitman (20:49:26) :

    So where are the missing US news reports on this? Knock Knock”

    OK John, I will bite. Whose there?

  177. J.Peden says:

    will only succeed in finding people either afflicted with [snip] myopia

    “It’s not my fault”, I blame Freud!

  178. J.Peden says:

    Call me a troll all you like, Richard, but the article says the IPCC broke its rules when it didn’t. Someone didn’t do their homework and is making misguided accusations.

    No, you’re right. The ipcc’s actual mission was to find and disasterize anything possible regarding human impact upon the environment, not to do real Science. Why anyone ever thought it was otherwise is a mystery.

  179. TonyB says:

    ‘Commonsense’ said’

    “Sea level rise: WORST CASE SCENARIO: 50-60 cm for 2100. Now likely SLR will be between 1 and 2 meters!”

    Would you like to link to the ludicrous study that explains this figure. Then read Chapter 5 of TAR4. Then change your name.

    Tonyb

  180. mikelorrey says:

    Tarby (11:17:59) : edit

    “Call me a troll all you like, Richard, but the article says the IPCC broke its rules when it didn’t. Someone didn’t do their homework and is making misguided accusations.”

    The problem with that sort of assertion,Tarby, is that every time a warmist/alarmist gets to the end of their rhetorical rope arguing AGW with a skeptic, they trot out the old IPCC AR4, proclaiming it to be the sole product of peer reviewed science, the high panjandrum of “scientific consensus”, the finest Nobel-prize-winning liturchur of the 21st century, and the perfect car wax, foot rub, dentu-creme, and hair stimulant for any tree-hugging greenie watermelon to take to their personal hug-box when chanting the Ohm-manepadme-ohm’s of the Church of Global Warming. You can’t sing its praises as the Fundamental and True Word of God one minute while the next making excuses for its many failings and shortcomings.

  181. J.Peden says:

    the finest Nobel-prize-winning liturchur of the 21st century, and the perfect car wax, foot rub, dentu-creme, and hair stimulant for any tree-hugging greenie watermelon to take to their personal hug-box…

    Yes, mike, and that’s exactly why I reject the 4AR: it doesn’t guarantee “male enhancement”.

  182. And still the planet warms … despite weaker solar output … despite the opinions of retired meteorologists that have no expertise in climatology … despite ExxonMobil funded denial … still it warms.

    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/01/nasa-2009-tied-for-2nd-warmest-year-00s-hottest-decade-too.ars

  183. DirkH says:

    “Misanthropic Scott (12:46:09) :

    And still the planet warms … despite weaker solar output … despite the opinions of retired meteorologists that have no expertise in climatology … despite ExxonMobil funded denial”

    We don’t need ExxonMobil’s money, sockpuppet. The honor is enough. Liar.

  184. Tarby says:

    mikelorrey: “The problem with that sort of assertion,Tarby, is that every time a warmist/alarmist gets to the end of their rhetorical rope arguing AGW with a skeptic, they trot out the old IPCC AR4, proclaiming it to be the sole product of peer reviewed science, the high panjandrum of “scientific consensus”,..
    …You can’t sing its praises as the Fundamental and True Word of God one minute while the next making excuses for its many failings and shortcomings.”
    ———————————————————-

    It may have escaped your notice Mike, but I’m the one who pointed out that it’s not 100% peer reviewed, never was, never alluded to be. Observations *still* match IPCC AR4’s model projections, like it or not.

  185. anon says:

    IPCC = International Pack of Climate Crooks

  186. DirkH says:

    “Tarby (13:53:15) :
    [...]
    It may have escaped your notice Mike, but I’m the one who pointed out that it’s not 100% peer reviewed, never was, never alluded to be. Observations *still* match IPCC AR4’s model projections, like it or not.

    When you run a gazillion szenarios that project anything from no warming to plus x deg C that shouldn’t come as a surprise. But the caveat is: Emissions have risen strongly in reality, so you have to pick the scenario for that, i guess the business as usual scenario, A0 or what it’s called, and that scenario has predicted much more warming than we had the last 10 years. So, no, no sunspots for you.

  187. mikelorrey says:

    Tarby (13:53:15) : edit
    “It may have escaped your notice Mike, but I’m the one who pointed out that it’s not 100% peer reviewed, never was, never alluded to be. Observations *still* match IPCC AR4’s model projections, like it or not.”

    Tarby, alarmists ALWAYS allude to it being peer reviewed. Do you really want me to google it? “peer-reviewed IPCC” gets 5,770 out of 130,000 hits for “peer-reviewed report”. Any time I debate it with an alarmist they always cite it being peer reviewed as an appeal to authority in order to override anything I say.

    As for “observations matching models”, that’s to be expected, IPCC reports always use models that have been tweaked to fit the most recent five years data in order to “prove” their validity. The problem is that none of the IPCC referenced models has, to date accurately predicted the NEXT five years of observations. Hindcasting is 20/20.

  188. DirkH says:

    Mike, why don’t we play IPCC with Tarby? We make up numbers and he has to prove we’re wrong.

  189. Stefan i Sweden says:

    As far as I can see the main problem is not that there are some crap lurking in the IPCC reports. The problem is that ther is an IPCC at all – the rest is inherent.

    I do recognize that there might be some use of science as background material to the work of international bodies. But the first problem is that the reports are assigned some kind of official status: “this is the official stand of todays science”, which in it self is doubious. I do compare with governments, which are in need of economic forecasts, where as theirs are only one in a chourus consisting of universities, various official bodies, bodies of special interests, banks and others. There is a debate, and no science is settled, even though some data and some model needs to be used in e.g. the budget for the next fiscal year.

    The second problem is that the IPCC tries to get the best of science, and that it has to be administered, and edited. That necessitates a small and powerful group of people, which is hard to have a check on. Furthermore, since it is an UN body, there will always be pressure from different counries to have their interests specially regarded, and after all it all has to be adopted by the governments.

    The third problem is that the IPCC has as it’s mission not to do research on wether or not there is an AGW, but to assume there is one, and to calculate its costs and effects. This creates a huge infrastructure and considerable amount of work by scientists who are not studying the climate, but rather agriculture, economics, demography and so on. They all need to rely on predictions by the weather people. This leads up to

    the fourth problem, which is how it is recieved by the public and by politicians. Partly this is a function of what is produced and presented. There is some description of current, as well as past, climate, which has shown to be doubious in many aspects. There is also the predictions, which have proven hard to crack, and there is the consequences part, which is to most people overwhelming. Part of this problem is the rethoric used: in the AR:s there are a couple of predictions varying in the range from “hard times ahead” to “catastrophy around the corner”. There is no room for any assumption that the theories are all wrong (or that “understanding is incomplete”)! There is no “IF”. Between the AR:s they portion out minor reports telling that it is all worse than they previously concieved.

    IMHO you will always find some data series going in a “dangerous direction” if you have enough points of measurments, and if you can control the reference data (i.e. time range, range of locations etc.). The underlying problem is that there is little or no room for news of thy type “nothing has happend”. As far as I know only the recent cold snap in Europe and North America made its way to the headlines of the main media, and it will be more soon to be forgotten, and lost from minds of the public, than what kind of change was promised in the las election campaigns.

    My conclusion is that the best interest of science is to close the IPCC. I can’t see any good and meaningful purpose fullfilled with a such body. What I can see is rather that it creates more problems than it solves.

  190. Mack (01:44:37) :

    Help needed here folks !!

    Item 1. Where do I write to regarding the Nobel prize? have they got a complaints dept.?

    Try this
    http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/institute/contact/

  191. Brian Valentine says:

    “The ‘scandal’ deepens … ”

    Nonsense, this was a tragedy to begin with, the whole thing a farce from the get go, attempts to fool none but fools.

    (Right Ben Santer of LLNL? Don’t you agree with my assessment of what IPCC is? Just how long did you think this house of cards would hold up?}

    Obviously people like Ben Santer aren’t going to admit this was a total farce, they’ll cling to it and continue to rail against the critics.

    It isn’t going away until there are too few people left to sustain it – and that circle grows smaller by the day.

    I can howl about it until I’m out of breath – but it is going to take the people who once supported it to really bring it down.

    Too bad, Santer, you and your pals at CRU in East Anglia thought you could perpetuate this farce forever.

    I have no sympathy for anyone responsible for this disaster

  192. D. Patterson says:

    Tarby (13:53:15) :

    Observations *still* match IPCC AR4’s model projections, like it or not.

    Wrong! The AR4 uses datasets whose numerical values are computed to produce artificial values using arbitrary (meaning invented) adjustment values from previously adjusted adjusted values from TOBS adjusted values from averaged TOBS adjusted values from averaged daily summary values. The authors of the dataets have lost the original “observations” and their original values, and they refuse to disclose the manuscripts and/or original raw observations. Consequently and “like it or not,” the numerical values misrepresented and used by the IPCC in AR4 as “observations” to validate their model predictions constitute an historical fiction of dubious scientific validity when used to validate AGW. Produce copies of the manuscripts for every raw observation of surface weather air temperature used to compute the AR4 report/s. Oh, you can’t? What happened, did your dog or your bookworms eat them?

  193. Tarby says:

    D. Patterson (15:34:24) :”…the numerical values misrepresented and used by the IPCC in AR4 as “observations” to validate their model predictions constitute an historical fiction of dubious scientific validity when used to validate AGW.”
    ——————————————————–

    Actually, I was referring to the Copenhagen Diagnosis which shows that model projections in AR4, and observations up until late 2009, concur.

  194. commonsense says:

    TonyB:
    Some years ago (in March 2002 to be precise) a couple of satellites named GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) was launched to make a map of gravitational anomalies aroud the world.

    The two satellites are so sensitive that can measure any mass transfer on the Earth Crust. For example, the reduced gravity of a meltiung ice cap and the corresponding increasing gravity of the world ocean.

    What they found?

    An accelerating mass loss from Antartica and Greenland ice-sheets, and the corresponding increase in ocean mass, equivalent roughly to 1 mm/yr of sea-level-rise. (You could find a nice review and a link to the result here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Accelerating-ice-loss-from-Antarctica-and-Greenland.html)

    This is notable, because:
    1) climate models predicted that Antarctic ice-mass will increase because of increased snowfall as the warming atmosphere increases its specific humidity.
    2)IPCC did not even considered the contribution from Polar Ice-Sheets in his evaluation of future SLR, because considered (correctly) that climate models could not make any good prediction about the behaviour of them. So the biggest source for SLR was excluded. Only Thermo-steric and Mountain glaciers melt were included in the 2007 AR, giving a worst-case scenario of 60 cm.

    Measurements of Ice-sheet accelerated melting make it pretty clear that IPCC UNDER-estimated future SLR. (Actually, the current rate of SLR = 3,3 mm/yr ALREADY is at the upper-end of 2007 AR predictions ).

    And to the ones that used gang-like language to insult me: using this expressions only makes clear that you have no argument to respond, and so trow insults in a desperate attempt to made a response.
    Such “responses” only made me feeling sorry for them.

  195. commonsense says:

    Read with attention this one, about REAL Sea Level Rise vs. IPCC predictions:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

  196. Brian Valentine says:

    “… which shows that model projections in AR4, and observations up until late 2009, concur.”

    Yeah, two years worth of “projection,” which were re-iterated every two years to “match” the real world, happen to align.

    This is just so fantastic I think I might faint!

    Thirty years of model “projections,” obtained through brute force of making the model look like the real world, come out looking like a size 4x woman in a size 10 dress

  197. Andrew30 says:

    commonsense (16:46:41) :

    From: GRACE – Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment:

    The Earth’s gravity signal changes day-to-day, even minute by minute. The image above shows how the average variability in Earth’s gravity field in August 2002 compared to the yearly average of 2001. The red and pink areas show where the variation measured in August 2002 is the most different from the variation measured for the year 2001, while the blue and purple areas show where the variation measured in August 2002 is just about the same as the variation measured for the year 2001. The variability has to be accounted for using models in order to produce a mean gravity field that is useful for hydrologic applications. (Image credit: Paul Thompson / UT-CSR)”

    http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/publications/fact_sheet/3.html

    The image shows LESS water mass from 2001 to 2002 and uplift caused by the Indian subcontinent in the Asia and the Pacific plate uplifting in Western North America, and an INCREASE in mass in Antarctica; and perhaps a low pressure cell in the South East Pacific Ocean uplifting the water there (or a mantle flow, or some other noise).

    Did you check for yourself or are you just repeating something your masters have told you. You may have been misinformed. And note also that GRACE can NOT measure to the precision that you attribute to it (equivalent roughly to 1 mm/yr of sea-level-rise). Such a measurement would be lost in the noise of air pressure, tectonics and geomorphology in general.

    Either way you are wrong, again.

  198. Brian Valentine says:

    Somebody help me out here please:

    Did the GRACE account for the difference in the GRAVITATIONAL and the GRAVITY fields of the Earth?

    The former arises from the combined effects of the centripital acceleration of the Earth traversing the orbit round the Sun and the mass distribution, the latter from the mass distribution of the Earth alone.

    The correction is not negligible in this case in the way “gravity” was measured, and I never saw evidence that the two were distinguished

  199. Kate says:

    I wanted to see what these two odd ones had in common.

    ******Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
    Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76 ******************

    They turn up together in a book called:Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability edited by Parry

    Then I did a Google advanced search for exact phrase: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability

    After that I searched each book for the keyword Parry.

    There are over 700 books that list this document in their bibliographies. That’s a lotta ka-ching.

  200. Andrew30 says:

    Brian Valentine (18:29:35) :

    GRACE is a PAIR of satellites.

    In simple terms what is being measured is the difference in distance between the two satellites. As the lead satellite approaches a region of greater mass it accelerates away from the trailing satellite. Then the trailing satellite accelerates as it approaches the same area. Then the lead satellite decelerates as it leaves the area, etc. Given the speed and relative small distance between the satellites and the proximity of the Earth the affect of the Sun and the orbit of the Earth is more or less constant on both the satellites in the pair.

    The relative change in distance between the satellites is used to calculate the relative change in the Earths gravity for the area.

  201. Brian Valentine says:

    People from WWF must feel real good about having IPCC authors themselves saying that WWF reports are basically worthless

  202. Andrew30 says:

    Brian Valentine (18:29:35) :

    The main purpose of GRACE is to survey underground aquifers, not open water, so there are no waves on the surface of the ground, no storms churning up the underground water, no shipping lanes etc.

    http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/publications/press/

    GRACE in the Press
    Stealing Water from the Future: California’s Massive Groundwater Overdraft Newly Revealed

    NASA Report Highlights Need to Retire Drainage Impaired Land in California

    GRACE offers broad snapshot of groundwater
    Satellite data shows groundwater levels are unsustainable in Central Valley
    NASA Calculates California’s Carbon Budget, Monitors Ground Water
    Satellite data shows groundwater levels are unsustainable in Central Valley
    Stimulus funds drill wells as Calif. water vanishes
    NASA data reveal major groundwater loss in California
    Stimulus funds drill wells as state water vanishes
    NASA Report Highlights Need to Retire Drainage Impaired Land

    And so on….

  203. Brian Valentine says:

    No – what I am referring to is the gravitational imbalance that must be perceived by the SATELLITE

  204. Andrew30 says:

    Brian Valentine (19:31:32) :
    “No – what I am referring to is the gravitational imbalance that must be perceived by the SATELLITE”

    I’m not sure what you mean, but if you are talking about the change in mass and the change in time (interval) caused by the acceleration then I would think that since both satellites in the pair are both measuring their relative distances at all times and both satellites suffer the same change over a given period of time; then the affect of any mass/time change in the two systems could be calculated out of the distance measurement.

    Anyway here is the link for more information:
    http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

  205. rogerthesurf says:

    Great blog,

    Im sure the following is relevant as well.

    There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

    In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.

    Cheers

    Roger

    PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)

  206. Andrew30 says:

    Brian Valentine (19:31:32) :
    “No – what I am referring to is the gravitational imbalance that must be perceived by the SATELLITE”

    I’m not sure what you mean, but if you are talking about the increase in mass and the decrease in time (interval) caused by the acceleration then I would think that since both satellites in the pair are both measuring their relative distances at all times and both satellites suffer the same change over a given period of time; then the affect of any mass/time change in the two systems could be calculated out of the distance measurement since they have a common frame of reference (after en event).

    Anyway here is the link for more information:
    http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

    The partners page will take you to the people that helped build it.

  207. Brian Valentine says:

    “then the affect of any mass/time change in the two systems could be calculated out of the distance measurement since they have a common frame of reference (after en event).”

    I just verified that as you wrote that, thanks.

  208. Brian Valentine says:

    The non news is, the AR/4 isn’t a fit substitute for eco-friendly toilet tissue.

    The good news is, it doesn’t matter (not in the USA anyway) because any consequences of AR/4 appear to be DOA in the US Congress.

    The only avenue left for greenie weenies to make it relevant is to have the US EPA regulate CO2 under the “endangerment” finding.

    [What would armed revolt in the US look like anyway? I don't think I want to find out and I don't think the Obama admin has the stomach to find out, either]

  209. Roger Knights says:

    Tarby (11:17:59) :

    Call me a troll all you like, Richard, but the article says the IPCC broke its rules when it didn’t. Someone didn’t do their homework and is making misguided accusations.

    I believe the IPCC’s rules for AR4 state that “gray” (non-reviewed) material can be cited, but cannot be the only or the major citation. Isn’t that what was done in this case, or am I mistaken?

  210. J.Peden says:

    “Tarby’s Posts”

    Well, I guess we can perhaps surmise where some “Stimulus” money goes? But then to possibly help Tarby produce a work record, especially as to getting responses, I’ll assist Tarby with a response to this valued AGW meme:

    Observations *still* match IPCC AR4’s model projections, like it or not.

    Then I suppose Trenberth was not using the Models when he asserted that the contemporaneous Ceres data along with diverging GMT and CO2 levels constituted a “travesty”, in relation to the CO2 AGW theory?

    If he wasn’t using the Models, it’s fine with me, because they otherwise seem to be consistent with everything whatsoever that happens and thus are not really predicting anything.

  211. commonsense says:

    Andrew30:

    Your link states: “These techniques provide critical input to many scientific models used in oceanography, hydrology, geology, and related disciplines, and will be used for a variety of applications including:

    measuring the changing mass of polar ice caps;
    measuring changes in water resources on land
    understanding shallow and deep ocean current transport;
    understanding sea level change resulting from ocean temperature and water mass changes;
    understanding atmosphere-ocean mass exchange;
    (…)”

    I stress the goals:
    “measuring the changing mass of polar ice caps
    “understanding sea level change resulting from ocean temperature and water mass changes”

    Why GRACE should not do the things that was specifically designed to do?

    It measured an acceleration of Ice-sheet melting. You can “spread the volume” of the meltwater over the Earth surface to obtain the SLR equivalent of mass loss.(basic geometry).

    So your statement:
    “Did you check for yourself or are you just repeating something your masters have told you. You may have been misinformed. And note also that GRACE can NOT measure to the precision that you attribute to it (equivalent roughly to 1 mm/yr of sea-level-rise). Such a measurement would be lost in the noise of air pressure, tectonics and geomorphology in general.

    Either way you are wrong, again.”

    Is quite false.
    Did you even checked my link (as I have done with yours) and the paper on which it is based?

  212. Todd says:

    A global warming hoax
    A global flew epidemic that is a hoax
    Both promoted heavily by the US Government
    A USA administration who is being propped up and edifying the UNITED NATION as a ruling body that we all should become subservient too.

    Wag the tail so no one pays attention. Let the associated press be silent while historic things take place in American law.
    Wag the tail with national health care that would have enslaved the nation, pit them against one another, while this administration surrendered US sovereignty.
    A 9/11 scam that surrenders US freedoms and enslaves the people. War that squanders their wealth and keeps them in fear, so that they will give up freedom for bondage freely of their own volition.

    The 9/11 deception that the house of cards rests upon, that the adminstration can’t allow to be investigated

    A second attack on American Sovereignty as the government lets thousand cross the US boarders. Working toward the Tri-lateral union which will nullify the American constitution. Also allowing foreign votes to tip the scale toward a new govement that panders to immigrants for its own agenda and the surrender US sovereignty.

    A war on terror meant to separate Americas wealth from its citizens. so they loose the power and wealth to speak out. (a war on a military tactic not even a real person)

    A US debt that can never be paid down through taxes, as the taxes are always diverted to other countries, or to well fair projects. Keeping America in debt is a necessity.

    Moneys being spent with with no fiscal responsibly!! This isn’t ignorance!! this is calculated.

    A one world government is the goal, and they need to crash the American dollar. When that happens, all the money’s in US currency held in reserve by all the country’s of the world will also topple.

    And what they couldn’t achieve through climate gate, or international law, or the Tri-lateral Union to eradicate the constitution they will achieve through control of the monetary system.

    Welcome to the reality of The massive Beast. The world waits to see if it becomes the UN who is the mouth piece to the world or if there is another, who will forth tells how things will be.

    Let him who has ears hear and eyes to see, see and hear.
    Rev 22:16

  213. michelemg says:

    I found this CRU document a while ago thanking WWF (along w/ “big oil” etc) for funding.

    http://tinyurl.com/yeh43bx

    See bottom of document.

  214. Michele says:

    *Second Post – the first I wasn’t logged in properly.

    I found this CRU document where (at the bottom) they thank funders: WWF, British Petroleum, etc.

    http://tinyurl.com/yeh43bx

  215. D. Patterson says:

    Tarby (16:05:31) :

    D. Patterson (15:34:24) :”…the numerical values misrepresented and used by the IPCC in AR4 as “observations” to validate their model predictions constitute an historical fiction of dubious scientific validity when used to validate AGW.”
    ——————————————————–

    Actually, I was referring to the Copenhagen Diagnosis which shows that model projections in AR4, and observations up until late 2009, concur.

    Actually, you wrote: “IPCC AR4’s model projections….”

    Tarby (13:53:15) :

    It may have escaped your notice Mike, but I’m the one who pointed out that it’s not 100% peer reviewed, never was, never alluded to be. Observations *still* match IPCC AR4’s model projections, like it or not.

    Your playing a game of ambiguous references and changing subjects isn’t going to work. The Copenhagen Diagnosis and all of the IPCC reports ultimately rely upon peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed works such as those by Stefan Rahmstorf which in turn ultimately rely upon temperature datasets, sea level datasets, and other datasets maintained by CRU, GISS, NCDC, et al which lack a basis in empirical observations unaltered by artificial alterations to their natural values. To prove otherwise, you are welcome, for one example, to produce unaltered copies of the Form WBAN-10 records for each USHCN station record used by NOAA and NASA-GISS to compile the USHCN datasets.

  216. Contrarian says:

    [quote]commonsense (16:49:28) :
    Read with attention this one, about REAL Sea Level Rise vs. IPCC predictions:[/quote]

    Er, commonsense, model projections are not “REAL sea level rise.” Not the IPCC’s, not Vermeer’s. The “real” sea level rise has averaged about 1.8 mm/yr for the last 120+ years. The slope of that curve had not changed appreciably over the course of the extant record, after smoothing for decadal variations — until 1993, when the trend line began to be extended with satellite altimetry, and suddenly jumped to 3.2 mm/yr. But then, that is only 17 years of data.

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/

    Come back when you have some data, not just model prognostications.

  217. Contrarian says:

    Commonsense (16:49:28):

    “Read with attention this one, about REAL Sea Level Rise vs. IPCC predictions:”

    Er, commonsense, model projections are not “REAL sea level rise,” not IPCC’s, not Vermeer’s. Sea levels have been rising on average about 1.8 mm/yr for the last 120+ years. There has been no appreciable change in the slope of that trend, except decadal variations, over that entire record. Satellite altimetry since 1993 shows a trend of 3.2 mm/yr, but that is well within the decadal variability.

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/

    Come back when you have some actual data, not mere model prognostications.

  218. Vincent says:

    commonsense (16:49:28) :

    “Read with attention this one, about REAL Sea Level Rise vs. IPCC predictions.”

    The sole source of this graph appears to be from Allison et al, but the link does not actually link to that paper. So the question is, are the Allison results based on GRACE alone as you seem to be implying? If so, you cannot make the conclusion you have posted.

    SLR measurement is based on a “triangulation” between GRACE, altimetry and ARGO temperature measurements, and we know from Cazanave 2008 that rate of SLR has diminished to 1.9mm/yr since 2003. Interestingly, the largest decline is in the steric component, showing a steep fall in expansion due to warming.

  219. Jimbo says:

    Tarby
    You might want to pop over to Real Climate and have a word with Gavin who says:

    “Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through.”

    The reviewers have obviously failed multiple times to catch errors and false statements.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/
    ————-

    Tarby says:
    “The up-to-date observations also match the IPCC projections on CO2 emissions, sea level rise and Arctic sea ice extent. Get over it.”

    Hey, I will get over it once you take a close look at all the failed predictions / forecasts / scenarios. Remember they keep moving the goalposts so they can say later that the models predicted such and such. I can make dozens of predictions and just need to be right once and claim ‘forecast skill’.

    Now look at these then come back and repeat your statement above.
    http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
    http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/TempsvsIPCCModelsWM.jpg
    http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ar4-a1b-a2.gif
    http://joannenova.com.au//globalwarming/graphs/akasofu/akasofu_graph_little_ice-age.gif

  220. Brian Valentine says:

    The “skeptics” have been playing “whack-a-mole” with IPCC reports for years.

    Right now the landscape seems fairly clear of moles popping up – can’t get them “all,” of course, because IPCC still has their model projections.

    If that’s all that’s left, then I’d say IPCC is defeated.

    [It may be too Pollyanna-ish of me to suggest that]

  221. Roger Knights says:

    Brian Valentine (05:30:25) :

    The “skeptics” have been playing “whack-a-mole” with IPCC reports for years.

    Fun Knee!!

  222. D. Patterson says:

    Think! (11:08:34)

    Today’s world is different. there is no communism.

    Strange, isn’t it, how someone forgot to tell the Communists “there is no communism”?

    TICKTIN’S REVISIONIST CAMPAIGN

    On November 4, 2006, in London, a conference was held to launch ‘The Campaign for a New Marxist Party’. Those attending were Hillel Ticktin and supporters of Critique journal, the Communist Party of Great Britain, i.e., Weekly Worker, the Democratic Socialist Alliance, New Interventions, and the Republican Democratic Group. All the participants of this conference defend, to one degree or another, the Trotskyist tradition.[1]

    This conference of left-wing revisionists decided on a sixteen-point platform as the basis for their campaign for a new Marxist Party.[...]

    ‘We are calling for the building of a party because we think that the time demands a party and because there are no left-wing parties at the present time’. (P.4)

    While many people will agree, including us, that the times demand a party, they will dismiss the ultra-sectarian, Ticktinite view that there are no left-wing parties now. This position that there are no left-wing parties at the present time seems to be a central component of Ticktin’s campaign because he further writes

    ‘We are openly declaring that there are no Marxist parties or would-be Marxist parties or groups in existence’. (P. 4)

    So according to Ticktin’s campaign there are no left-wing parties in existence anywhere, further, there are no Marxist, or would-be Marxist parties or groups in existence. Since they don’t qualify this statement we have to assume they mean this internationally.

    This is the position of a true academic – in the negative sense of the term – completely divorced from real, dialectical, concrete reality. Now that Ticktin, wallowing in subjectivity and with a stroke of a pen, so to speak, can declare that the left doesn’t exist in the form of parties and groups, Marxist or otherwise, he can invent a left, in his own image, and even determine, on this basis, who belongs to the category of the left and who does not. Not surprisingly, the more politically sensible part of the left boycotted Ticktin’s conference.
    http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/tctick01.html

    Since you appear to be adopting “TICKTIN’S REVISIONIST CAMPAIGN” by asserting there is no more communism, perhaps we should accord your comments the same respect and credence we would give those coming from Hillel Ticktin and his…whatever…supporters.

    Canadian State of the Union

    Friday, November 27, 2009
    Two Communists & One Anarchist Demand Canada’s Immediate Ouster From The Commonwealth For Its Genocidal “Carbon Footprint”

    Leaders of Greenpeace may indeed support the goal of a WORLD GOVERNMENT, which is also a Soviet goal. The February 1990 issue of World Marxist Review, policy journal for the Communist Parties throughout the world, featured an interview with David McTaggart, chairman of Greenpeace International. He described his efforts as “helping to erase the borders between East and West, North and South.” He emphasized that “you can’t talk about the survival of your nation or your economic system or your way of life at the expense of the survival of the planet we live on.” When asked what he thought were the main obstacles to global environmentalist efforts, he responded, “To my mind, nationalism is the biggest enemy of global thinking.”

    Lest you are tempted to repeat the claim communism is no more, in recent news:

    The United Nations Climate Change Conference web site dated 27 November 2009 18h50 says:

    “PROPOSAL TO EXCLUDE CANADA FROM THE COMMONWEALTH”

    “The World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute in Canada and Greenpeace have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies, the Guardian reports.”

    This “proposal to exclude Canada from the Commonwealth” pushed by Greenpeace et als is part of a lead-up to the Copenhagen climate-change conference scheduled for December 7th to 18th, 2009 — where, according to Lord Christopher Monckton (same link as above), an agreement will be signed to formally initiate a communist world government.

    Who are Greenpeace, Polaris Institute and the Anarchiest World Development Movement?

    1 – Here is a poster online featuring a teach-in by the Communist Party of Canada, Polaris Institute and others (Polaris is Marxist-Leninist):

    Original url: http://www.nowar-paix.ca/Posters/anti-imperialismteachinposter.pdf

    Then we have news reports, audio, and video of the Communists marching in mass protests at the Copenhagen COP15 summit last month.

    Reds Turn Green in Copenhagen. Save the Planet, Scrap Capitalism! – Reds Turn Green in Copenhagen

    CFACT exclusive, shocking video and interviews of prominent socialist and communist participation in “People’s Rally” for climate action at Copenhagen Summit
    [....]
    “It was truly shocking to arrive at a climate action rally in Copenhagen and literally see a sea of red flags and banners with hammers and sickles,” says CFACT President David Rothbard. “I don’t believe most environmentalists are secretly communists, but it interesting to see that many communists believe the green agenda is the best path toward socialist policies.”

    Some marchers wore hats saying, “Save the Planet. Scrap Capitalism.” One marcher said, “We fight for a socialist society and a socialist program for the climate.[....]
    http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/14/reds-turn-green-in-copenhagen/

    Pretty active bunch of zombies for people and political parties which you say do not exist….

  223. Henry Galt says:

    Michele (23:54:49) :

    Thank you. That is a very interesting document. I bet they hate Google’s cache function ;-)

    The bed-fellows are not the surprising thing to me. The fact that some of them have threatened others of them (and succeeded) yet still seem to be steering the same course is not the surprising thing to me either.

    Nor “…but Mike Salmon is now on the ENV support staff and manages CRU computers and in a large part of ENV. He also manages our web site – ‘which as ever reigns supreme’ according to the New Scientist.”

    Nor the “Leverhulme Trust” who have £50 million per year to “donate” to idiots but have never run a grammar checker/proof reader over their main page.

    Nor “….translating the broad-scale climate information produced by GCMs…” (although that one rattles other antennae)

    Nor even “…..Over the last 35 years also, several staff have been on the editorial boards of a number of major climatic journals”

    No, it is something else on that page that bothers me much, much more.

    Something to do with the Thames Barrier.

  224. Vincent says:

    D Patterson,

    Your posting on communism & Trotskyism was interesting. The ideology of Communism is alive and will not die. Yet, their alliance with the green movement is a somewhat uncomfortable one, mainly because of major differences that cannot be reconcilled.

    The deep green movement want to ban humans from much of the world, sort of put them on reservations whilst the rest of the world is returned to the wild. Additionally they want to remove from humans the fruits of their labour. Hardly the dictatorship of the proletariat. Maybe the extreme communists will accept this, but I can’t see this sitting well with the more mainstream Socialist movement. Socialists have always believed in industrial development with wealth distribution going to the poor. Yet the Greens are ideologically opposed to industrial development.

    It seems that the only thing that these unlikely allies have in common is based on the literal interpretation of the maxim: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, rest assured, once the “enemy” is defeated, they will turn on each other like any other unholy alliance – and even some holy ones.

  225. Brian Valentine says:

    Communists are still looking for ways to get at “world domination” even though they don’t have the Soviet Union to help them along any longer.

    Imagine that!

    The only imaginative part has been to find a way to make Capitalism (and the West) “bury itself.”

  226. FastTadpole says:

    This is not going away and they won’t let go now that their apples are in their cart and the endgame in their sites. Greenpeace has admitted they made up the Greenland glacier scandal. Mount Kilimanjaro glacier recession is conclusively a product of deforestation. This is a huge huge fraud and they are looking for any reason to implement their global tax/ governance. This is built on three pillars: world financial crisis to bring about a world central banking system (manipulated), world health pandemics such as swine flu , bird flu, SARS and mad cow (manufactured) the global warming (made up) religion / tax.

    Be wary of the next hoax in health or environment it is meant to manufacture a need to depend on a globalist system under their control, not ours. Try to get off the tit of banking we really don’t need them and we can establish our own system without their (government, corporations, central banks) ‘help’. They may go as far as to manufacture another war to send us to the beggars table but there will be no war if there is no one to fight it. They are proven liars time and time again, don’t believe and support the lies (by your dollars, your votes or your apathy) you are being fed or you are part of the problem.

  227. Think! says:

    D Patterson

    {etc}

    You forget the point that there is a much closer relationship between environmentalism and conservative political thinking. E,g, Hardin’s “the tragedy of the commons”, which was an argument for the abolition of commonly owned property on environmental grounds.

    The ‘environmental’ issue is just an accidental part of todays political ‘environment’, not some integral part of the ‘left’ project. In fact, the use of such issue demonstrates the extent to which the Left has had to change its language to criticise capitalism: i.e. there is no communism.

    You want to point your fingers and say “bad science = bad politics”. The problem is that to political scientists, you’re just doing the same as what you’re pointing at.

    The fact that small groups of people assemble in meeting rooms and call themselves ‘communists’ does not mean that “communism is alive and well”.

    “Communism” was what drove a superpower, and divided the world into East and West. A few people in a bar is nothing to wet your pants about.

  228. Think! says:

    “Communists are still looking for ways to get at “world domination” ”

    Oh, those pesky ghosts. When will they just move on?

  229. Think! says:

    ” Try to get off the tit of banking we really don’t need them and we can establish our own system without their (government, corporations, central banks) ‘help’. ”

    Sounds like the sort of thing Greens and Communists say.

  230. kibitzer says:

    @Andrew30:

    “I bet the boss, whomever that might be, is furious.”

    Try, ultimately, David Rockefeller.

    There are two camps ostensibly vying for ‘global governance’ control – the ‘right’, of the neocons, the corporatists, the banking fraternity, etc., and the ‘left’, of Maurice Strong/George Soros/Noam Chomsky/Ayers & Dohrn/the Clintons & the Obamas, etc. – but if you look far enough up the pyramid, I think you’ll see at least the shadow of the same small group of ubermenschen. The same way that the capitalists bankrolled the Bolsheviks/Lenin. It’s all about power, and the way to gain it (Hegelism). So don’t be surprised to see some of the same names on both sides of this artificial aisle. GS, GE…..

    …but ultimately: check out King David.

    Or erstwhile King David, that is. Because it’s all part of the drama. Unfolding, as it will.

  231. mikelorrey says:

    kibitzer
    2010/01/26 at 10:17am

    @Andrew30:

    ““I bet the boss, whomever that might be, is furious.”

    Try, ultimately, David Rockefeller.

    There are two camps ostensibly vying for ‘global governance’ control – the ‘right’, of the neocons, the corporatists, the banking fraternity, etc., and the ‘left’, of Maurice Strong/George Soros/Noam Chomsky/Ayers & Dohrn/the Clintons & the Obamas, etc.”

    The first approximation that this is nothing but conspiracy theory or ignorance is demonstrated by the fact that the banking class is in the pockets of the DNC domestically, and historically has financed socialist movements such as Trotsky/Lenin’s Revolution and Mao’s takeover of mainland China. The bankers thus have nothing to do with neocons, and have more to do with the left you describe. The Right is represented in industry by the oil/mining and defense interests, while traditional rust belt industry is leftist along with the bankers and NYC financial class. It’s actually a lot more complex than that and changes over time (for instance, the New Deal era demonstrated a conflict in control theory between the pollsters who supported Roosevelt and the Freudian backed PR industry that believed individuals were untrustworthy emotion driven animals, while after WWII the bipartisan federal govt basically accepted the freudian model in light of the manipulations of everyday people by the german govt during the war ).

  232. Think! says:

    “….the banking class is in the pockets of the DNC domestically, and historically has financed socialist movements such as Trotsky/Lenin’s Revolution and Mao’s takeover of mainland China. The bankers thus have nothing to do with neocons…”

    You’re *against* conspiracy theories????!!!

  233. Think! says:

    I have looked into mikelorrey’s claim that bankers financed Trotsky.

    It appears to have little academic credibility, and seems to me to be a story invented by anti-Semites – neoNazis and the like – in order to place Jews at the centre of left-wing history.

    Antisemitic conspiracy theories about bankers have a long, long, long history, of course. It’s a crude form of right anti-capitalism that seems to be finding new expression, 70 years after Trotsky’s death.

    The failure of rationality and proportion is stark: just one “jew banker” (that’s the dominant language of sites propagating the story) is alleged to have given Trotsky gold for his revolution, over a hundred years ago. This, it seems, is sufficient to call the entire global financial services industry, ‘communists’.

    People who call bankers “left” on this basis do so because they are dizzy with something, and cannot determine any direction.

    Frankly, what I’ve read here is disappointing. Yes, I believe that global warming is exaggerated for political purposes. But that’s where it ends. And if it’s a choice between that, and the nonsense I’ve read above, I know where I’d rather be. Both communists and environmentalists are looking more sensible.

  234. Brian Valentine says:

    If you don’t think that a bunch of sore Leninists with no Afghan War to win and no Politboro to bully and no “workers of the world to unite!” haven’t teamed up with some Greenlice to tear down Western civilization, then why don’t you go back and Think! again

  235. Think! says:

    Because, Brian, it is more than obvious that it’s not just “sore Leninists” on the gravey train.

    There are some equally sore thinkers from the “right” on it too…

    The difference between them is global communism was routed. Capitalism triumphed.

    So why and *how*, in the era following the defeat of communism, is the failed ideology supposed to have convinced nearly the entire world’s political establishment, whereas for decades prior, it comprehensively failed?

    The problem is only seeing the world in two colours. It means you can’t tell the difference between a social democrat and a communist; a communist and a socialist; left and right; up and down; forward and backward. It all reduces to “me and them”.

    The absurdities this “thinking” takes people to is above, in black and white (with nothing between): bankers – i.e. the definitive *capitalists* – are in fact communists.

    (I cannot resist the implication that if capitalists are communists, then it is those calling bankers ‘communists’ who are in fact the communists.)

    You’re in a spin! If this is what unites climate change sceptics, then there are bigger problems than the IPCC.

    Turn the Alex Jones show off, it’s rotting your brains.

  236. Hans Moleman says:

    The list of WWF references is meaningless unless you show what information those references were cited for.

  237. J.Peden says:

    Think! (11:08:34)

    Today’s world is different. there is no communism.

    Right. In the U.S. they all became Democrats as a tactical move since they realized that they weren’t going to achieve their ends qua Communists. I saw it happen and personally knew extremely well the Leader of the/a Communist Party branch in the San Francisco Bay area. Around 1984 he and they disbanded the Party for all practical purposes. He became a Democrat and a University Prof., as per the Gramscian strategy. [ I didn't know exactly what was going on at the time, but noticed it, kept quiet and just watched.]

    Obama is the product of the resulting Dem. Progressivism = Communism. I made the call early on re; Obama, enc., and it works. Fortuneately Obama and Adm. are “latte'” or “Marxisant” Communists: they believe completely in the social-circle elitist virtual rubric of the “theroretical” Communist Fantasy World. It’s hard to believe what you are seeing, but for them reality does not exist at all, things are easy to do and respond to the old Communist Propaganda schema, tweaked of course by the self-ascribed nuanced brilliance of those in the Fantasyworld.

    This explains why Obama, enc., keep doing very strange things compared to realtiy, things which are not even good for their own political wellbeing and for accomplishing their desired “ends”.

    According to my Model for understanding Obama, enc., tomorrow night’s State of the Uniion Address will show Obama still completely immersed in the Fantasyworld, making no sense relative to reality, but instead only repeating old “theoretical” saws and propaganda tactics which must work according to the Fantasyworld, but are all over the board in terms of even internal consistency because they can also just be fabricated as in a narcissistic computer game or day dream. They don’t apply to anything real other than vague “perceptions”. He’s going to be a charicature of himself.

  238. commonsense says:

    3,2 mm/year of sea level rise IS REAL DATA, from SATELLITE ALTIMETRY.

    It is NOT the result from any model. I put it quite clear.
    Someone need a new pair of eyeglasses.

    By the way, someone wrote something like:
    “the financial crisis, global warming, influenza pandemic are all a hoax”
    ” It is a conspiracy to made a world dictatorship under a World Communist Bank”

    What drug have you smoked?
    LSD? Ashish? Extasis? All at once?!

  239. Think! says:

    J. Peden, your knowledge of one communist-turned-democrat is held to be true of all democrats. That is not robust.

    (I know of at least two very-right leaning British public figures who were both members of far-left organisations in the 1970s. People change. )

    So what were Democrats prior to that? For instance, what were Democrats during the Cuban Missile Crisis? And was it just a pantomime between communist factions? At what point between the conflict which nearly escalated to a nuclear exchange and now did the “communists” quit Moscow, to collonise the Democrats.

    More to the point…

    At what point did the Republican Party become so weak that it could not resist *communism*? Communism, of all things un-American(!).

    If conservativism is so weak… as weak as it must be to allow America to turn *within a generation* to the ideology it had stood against for generations… then, indeed, just as there are “sore Leninists”, there must be more than a few very sore Conservatives, Hayakeans, Weberians. And so on. I suggest that they went Green too.

    Or maybe the truth is that neither Left or Right sustained.

  240. Smokey says:

    Think!:

    The problem is only seeing the world in two colours. It means you can’t tell the difference between a social democrat and a communist; a communist and a socialist…

    A communist is just a socialist in a hurry.

    And:

    “I know of at least two very-right leaning British public figures…”

    Who are these mythical ‘very-right leaning’ creatures?

  241. Think! says:

    Smokey: “A communist is just a socialist in a hurry.”

    Uh-huh. He’s got to get to Wall St to sell shares to his comrades.

  242. Think! says:

    “Who are these mythical ‘very-right leaning’ creatures?”

    Peter Hitchens and Melanie Philips.

    The former was a member of the Trotskyite group, the International Socialists in the 1970s.

    The latter, I admit, I cannot confirm was in any far left organisation, but was certainly very left by the standards of today, yet who accuses Obama of being a Muslim revolutionary Marxist. (Very confused lady).

  243. Smokey says:

    Think! (13:48:17),

    You missed my point entirely. There are no very right leaning British public figures. It was sarcasm, thus the “mythical.” Those you label ‘very right’ are still somewhat left of center.

    In fact, if Democrat John F. Kennedy was running for president today, many members of his Party would brand him as a far right ideologue. That’s how much the Left has corrupted the Democrat Party, and moved the Party very far to the left of its roots – and the Republicans too, although to a lesser degree. [And IANAR or a D]

  244. Think! says:

    “There are no very right leaning British public figures. ”

    Peter Hitchens calls Thatcher, “a socialist”. Melanie Philips calls Obama a revolutionary Marxist.

    “if Democrat John F. Kennedy was running for president today, many members of his Party would brand him as a far right ideologue. ”

    How do we give substance to that claim? What’s the basis for it? It looks a little threadbare from here.

  245. Smokey says:

    “It looks a little threadbare from here.”

    I am not the least bit surprised. To those steeped in blaring leftist sound bites 24/7/365, someone only slightly to the left of center in the UK appears to be a rabid right winger.

    In the U.S., the Left mendaciously portrays those who believe in a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution as right wingers. But as Justice Scalia says, the Constitution is “a legal document,” whose overriding purpose is to protect the citizens from the government. That’s why the big government loving, big bureaucracy loving, UN loving Left hates the Constitution so much.

  246. Brian Valentine says:

    I am joking with the idea, Think, and actually, a lot of pro-Soviets in Russia see AGW as a silly contrivance of Western societies – they are apt to favor the Russian akademy nauk which has pretty much rejected AGW based on Milankovitsch cycles. (AGW could not possibly interfere with the cycles, nothing could)

    It has become rather chi-chi for people who are not suffering in the West and with “liberal” leaning politics to favor AGW, psychological reasons unknown, political reasons for a sympathetic association with Albert.

    These people are not “communists.”

    [They're commie pinkos]

  247. Tarby says:

    J.Peden (21:15:39) : ““Tarby’s Posts”

    Well, I guess we can perhaps surmise where some “Stimulus” money goes? But then to possibly help Tarby produce a work record,…”
    ————————————————————

    Unh-unh. Big fail. Dead wrong.

    Someone else said I initially referred to IPCC AR4 and then changed the reference to Copenhagen Diagnosis playing some kind of “game” in an effort to mislead. Clarification: The Copenhagen Diagnosis compares observations to IPCC AR4 model predictions up to late 2009. Try reading it and you might get the link.

    A bit like; try reading the original article at the top of the page which asserts and bases its ALLEGATIONS on IPCC reports only being able to use peer reviewed material….. In other words, it’s WRONG. The scandal doesn’t deepen at all.

    As for grey material be used used as main citations: Where does it say that in the IPCC rules?

  248. Brian Valentine says:

    I appreciate the work of Anthony Watts, who has consistently published a scientifically irrefutable picture of the natural atmosphere and the climate that represents the time-averaged state of the atmosphere.

    Inasmuch as anything that the IPCC or anyone else has written or published regarding the true state of the Earth’s atmosphere as experienced by the Earth’s climate, all have been refuted if the description was incorrect; excepting Mr Watts, and I defy any one to point to a contradiction otherwise

  249. mikelorrey says:

    Tarby
    2010/01/26 at 3:40pm

    “J.Peden (21:15:39) : ““Tarby’s Posts”

    Well, I guess we can perhaps surmise where some “Stimulus” money goes? But then to possibly help Tarby produce a work record,…”

    A bit like; try reading the original article at the top of the page which asserts and bases its ALLEGATIONS on IPCC reports only being able to use peer reviewed material….. In other words, it’s WRONG. The scandal doesn’t deepen at all.

    As for grey material be used used as main citations: Where does it say that in the IPCC rules?”

    Since you seem so determined to treat alarmist writings as received truth, I shall quote the most recent post at RealClimate.org:

    “The IPCC is not infallible (shock!)
    — group @ 19 January 2010

    Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review. ”

    See what I mean? The IPCC process itself is peer review, and is supposed to be in place to weed out garbage like the “2035” error, and the Amazon error, etc… but as we see, the Hockey Team has so thoroughly corrupted the peer review process not just among climate journals but in the IPCC itself (rejecting ALL meaningful criticisms by reviewers, no legitimate peer review process allows authors to reject reviewers criticisms) that they are using this bowdlerized mutant brother of real peer review to greywash the grey propaganda produced by alarmist special interest groups without any significant investigation of these illegitimate sources. Yet the world leaders of the alarmist cause, the authors of RealClimate.org, called the IPCC itself “peer reviewed” just a few days ago…

    Given they regard themselves as the holy purveyors of all that is true and factual in re climate change, and you, Tarby, appear as one of their soldiers, I think it is only fair that we hold them, you, as well as the IPCC, to their standards.

  250. D. Patterson says:

    Think! (13:42:32) :

    Smokey: “A communist is just a socialist in a hurry.”

    Uh-huh. He’s got to get to Wall St to sell shares to his comrades.

    “Russia matters nothing to me; what matters is to achieve world socialist revolution.” (Lenin)

    “Under the guise of Greens (and we will pin it on them later) we shall go forward … and hang the kulaks, priests, and landowners. Bounty: 100,000 rubles for each man hanged.” (Lenin)

    “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.” (Stalin)

    “Green Communist. Green thoughts from the Former Soviet Union
    [2 November 2009]
    5 reasons why Stalin was greener than Obama will ever be
    People have bad memory. I will take care of some things that otherwise would be forgotten. We all agree that Soviet Union was a great place to live. Just recall how charismatic leaders we had! One thing that critics often forget is the fact that these great leaders were also amazing green entrepreneurs. Let the facts talk for themselves![....]”
    http://www.greencommunist.com/

  251. J.Peden says:

    Tarby (15:40:37) :

    J.Peden (21:15:39) : ““Tarby’s Posts”

    Well, I guess we can perhaps surmise where some “Stimulus” money goes? But then to possibly help Tarby produce a work record,…”
    ————————————————————

    Unh-unh. Big fail. Dead wrong.

    Gee, Tarby, here I was trying to give you a way out from apparently being unable to respond effectively to logic and facts, including to the rest of the post you quote me from above, J.Peden (21:15:39), and also to express some hope that you are not really so “unable”, and your response is not to thank me but to instead prove my point?

    Well, I then I guess I should thank you at least for that! Thanks, Tarby!!

  252. J.Peden says:

    Think! (13:30:10) :

    J. Peden, your knowledge of one communist-turned-democrat is held to be true of all democrats. That is not robust.

    Since that’s not what I said, I’ll just leave it at that.

  253. Think! says:

    J.Peden: “Since that’s not what I said, I’ll just leave it at that.”

    You leave it where you like. The fact is that the way you use political categories is pretty much equivalent to the way alarmists use small increases in temperature: a small change in a direction = a full, catastrophic transformation of everything.

    E.g. “Obama is the product of the resulting Dem. Progressivism = Communism. I made the call early on re; Obama, enc., and it works. ”

    I will believe that Obama is a “communist” when he calls for the abolition of private property. There’s some way to go.

    Of course, you can get your knickers in a twist about “socialised medicine”, and say that it’s an attempt to turn the US into a communist state. But seen another way, it could argued that socialised medicine is rather an attempt to stop conditions from developing in which communism becomes a political force, in the interests of capital.

    But, of course, if you see “bankers” as equivalent to “communists” – then you’re too far gone to make sense of anything. It could be said that that such a position is communist, but with all the labels inverted. I don’t think it’s anything as sensible.

  254. Brian Valentine says:

    I’ll make it all simple and define a Communist as anyone who believes in AGW and demands the Government to “do things about it.”

  255. Think! says:

    Are you still joking, Brian?

  256. Brian Valentine says:

    Only by half !!!

    It makes me feel better, though, to shout “You COMMUNIST!!!”

    when I read things in the Washington Post that are supportive of Cap and Trade etc

  257. Think! says:

    “when I read things in the Washington Post that are supportive of Cap and Trade etc”

    Brian, Cap and Trade is an idea that is borne from conservative political ecological ideas, not from the Left.

    In “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Hardin argued that property held in common exposed virtuous people to the shortcomings of “free-riders”. In his example, irresponsible commoners could use common land to graze more cattle than was necessary in order to swell their own numbers (or sell the stock), at the expense of the quality of the land. This puts a burden on commoners who used the land responsibly, who kept their families and stocks at sizes that did not put too great a pressure on the land.

    His argument is that the “invisible hand” does not work in such an arrangement. Privatisation of the commons is the way to prevent ecological disaster. Accordingly, “Capping and Trading” is the privatisation/commodification of the publicly-owned resources. It is equivalent to the first sale of land. The idea is that people who own things use them responsibly.

    As with other forms of private property, the market it creates requires a state to regulate and protect it.

    Leftists at the time were sharply critical of Hardin, for reasons that ought to be obvious.

    Sorry to disappoint you.

  258. D. Patterson says:

    Think! (03:46:33)
    E.g. “Obama is the product of the resulting Dem. Progressivism = Communism. I made the call early on re; Obama, enc., and it works. ”

    I will believe that Obama is a “communist” when he calls for the abolition of private property. There’s some way to go.

    The Progressive Labor Movement (PLM) and the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) are Maoist communist political parties established 1962-1966 by former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The communist weathermen group financed by front organizations of the Soviet Union also came from these Progressive communists and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).

    We won’t hold our breath while we wait for you to acknowledge Obama’s abolition of private property like the Chrysler assets currently the subject of a lawsuit for wrongful appropriations of private property, or the abolition of private property rights with the Cap and Trade legislation to give effect to the Climate Change Alarmism championed by so many communist organizations and members.

    [h/t ctm]

  259. Brian G Valentine says:

    I believe you’ll have to convince me with another example, because Cap n Trade is about as leftist a measure as anything ever devised since Collective Farms.

    It is complete Government control over all “emissions” – meaning everything there is that contributes in some way to the economy (everything depends on fossil energy).

    It’s the stinkiest, stupidest, means anyone has come up with to demolish the economy in short order, I don’t know about you, but I am not hell-bent on bringing down the US economic system just because a few wacky people have decided that “CO2 is no good in the air.”

    I’ll go down fighting against that one, Think, and if my life takes on any meaning, then let it be to stop measures that will produce wrack and ruin over the most baseless “scientific” fraud to come along in a hundred years.

    I don’t know if you are a US citizen; if you are, then you pay my salary with your Federal taxes.

    I am a civil servant and am proud to say, employed by the US Department of Energy. I’ve been fighting this AGW thing for twenty five years, and I never imagined so many people could possibly be taken in by this horrendous SCAM.

  260. Think! says:

    “The Progressive Labor Movement (PLM) and the Progressive Labor Party … … ”

    So what? You can demonstrate all sorts of weird things when you draw maps of ‘who’s who’, and where they were half a century ago. People change. The point is to demonstrate political continuity in organisations and ideas. People from the further Left have always joined more moderate organisations, for both ‘normal’ reasons, and for the intention of pulling them in that direction. Exactly the same happens with the Right, and the Republican Party, which no doubt has hosted some equally obnoxious ideas, against the wishes of the mainstream of that organisation. This is to be expected in a two-party system.

    As for Chrysler, the use of state resources to prop up failing businesses is not an idea from the Left as such, either.

    Cap and trade, as I demonstrated in my previous comment, is a product of conservative thinking. It is the privatisation of things previously understood to be in ‘common ownership’.

    You seem to have trouble understanding the concept.

  261. Think! says:

    “I believe you’ll have to convince me with another example, because Cap n Trade is about as leftist a measure as anything ever devised since Collective Farms.”

    Of course it isn’t. The quotas are not held in common. They are privately owned, and traded, much as land is, in a market ultimately regulated and protected by the state.

    “It is complete Government control over all “emissions” – meaning everything there is that contributes in some way to the economy (everything depends on fossil energy).”

    No, it isn’t, it’s a quota system that divvies up the ‘natural resources’, much as land.

    Go and read Hardin’s paper, it is a conservative idea, through and through.

  262. Brian G Valentine says:

    Comrade Think, I believe you’re just trollin’

    (maybe to agitate, possibly for the lack of better things to do)

  263. Think! says:

    “Comrade Think, I believe you’re just trollin’”

    So you’re not going to read Hardin’s essay, “Tragedy of the Commons”, to see for yourself where the ideas that you object to come from?

    Instead, you’d rather speculate about Democrats being crypto-communists, from a position of dire ignorance.

    If Democrats really are communists, and really have successfully taken over the home of capitalism – the United States of America… little wonder.

  264. Brian G Valentine says:

    No matter how you put it in a blender and mix it up, Think, Cap and Trade isn’t going to going to come out as some “model of conservative thought.”

    The only reason the crypto-Commies haven’t demolished Capitalism in the USA (yet) – despite their efforts – is that there are enough sensible people (left) in the USA.

    Freedom isn’t free. The nut jobs out there aren’t going to stop trying to demolish the US economy on their own. They have to be fought.

    With as much aggression as they derive from the belief in their “cause.”

    Or more.

  265. J.Peden says:

    Think!

    I will believe that Obama is a “communist” when he calls for the abolition of private property. There’s some way to go.

    That’ll be a little late, I’m afraid. He’s long since affirmed that he himself is the one who wants to “shred the Constitution” by giving people those Constitutionally absent and neglected “positive liberties”, you know, the ones which redistribute all wealth “equally” so as to “equalize” liberty, “liberty” which by the usual definition has nothing to do with taking from someone what they have earned or produced – a.k.a. “own” – and just giving it to someone else, and is instead the opposite of Constitutional Liberty.

    But I guess I have to suppose that you don’t think enough to believe what the Islamofascists say either. So there’s that too, regarding the taking of one’s private property – at the very least in their case too.

  266. J.Peden says:

    Brian G Valentine (09:01:16) :

    Comrade Think, I believe you’re just trollin’

    (maybe to agitate, possibly for the lack of better things to do)

    Hey, Brian, I think we might have to acknowledge that some of the Trolls don’t know they are trollin’ in a bad sense, because for them it’s just what they do “naturally”, so no one can really complain that they’re doing only what they can only do to begin with. Maybe we should say, “Good job trollin’, Mr. Troll, you’re operating according to your inherent standard of perfection, your ‘end’, so Aristotle would be quite impressed, too.”

  267. D. Patterson says:

    Think! (08:38:18) :

    “The Progressive Labor Movement (PLM) and the Progressive Labor Party … … ”

    So what? You can demonstrate all sorts of weird things when you draw maps of ‘who’s who’, and where they were half a century ago. People change.

    You also said communism is no more, so we know just how much credence to give your latest comments. We can see how you are engaging in the same behavior typical of the communists. You even have the historical revisionism of the Soviet Bolsheviks emulated to its ludicrous extremes. What communists, you ask? We have no stinkin’ communists here! Yeah, right.

    Its like the old Soviet joke: “The Great 30 year Soviet Plan makes our future certain, but we never know what will happen yesterday.” The same came be said for the promises of the Obama Administration and the current Labor Government in Britain. Their Marxist one world governance like ambition to control the world economies with cap and trade legislation to combat Climate Change and Global Warming is certain of a coming disastrous future climate, but we never know from one day to the next what will happen to yesterday’s air temperatures, sea levels and ice extents.

    Your user name and comments are reminiscent of the hapless adventures of the praporschik in yet another old Soviet joke:

    Scene One:
    A tree. An apple. An ape [Climate Change Skeptic] comes and starts to shake the tree.

    A voice from above: “Think, think!”

    The ape [Climate Change Skeptic] thinks, grabs a stick, and hits the apple off.

    Scene Two:

    A tree. An apple. A praporschik [Climate Change Alarmist] comes and starts to shake the tree.

    A voice from above: “Think, think!”

    The praporschik [Climate Change Alarmist] says, “No time to think, [the Precautionary Principle of the Party's social justice protocol says] gotta shake!”.

  268. Brian G Valentine says:

    Maybe I’ll send John Kerry a letter:

    Senator Kerry, according to this here paper by Mr Hardin it turns out that you’re not a Communist after all!

    That ought to please Senator Kerry mightily.

    Enough for today, so long Jim

  269. Think! says:

    “No matter how you put it in a blender and mix it up, Think, Cap and Trade isn’t going to going to come out as some “model of conservative thought.””

    I’m not saying it’s a *model* of Conservative thought, I’m saying that it’s an example of conservative thought being justified on ecological grounds. It is this idea – the privatisation of ‘common property’ for the purposes of conservation – that leads directly to C&T.

    Such an approach is antithetical to communism. That’s not to say that some middle-way / social democratic perspective might want to use C&T. But they ain’t communism either.

    “The only reason the crypto-Commies haven’t demolished Capitalism in the USA (yet)…”

    … Is quite simply because they don’t intend to. It’s only by tortured conspiracy mongering and intellectual dishonesty that you can turn Democrats into ‘communists’.

    “Freedom isn’t free. The nut jobs out there…”

    You seem to know a lot about them…

    J. Peden. “So there’s that too, regarding the taking of one’s private property ”

    But C&T doesn’t take private property, it makes private property.

    “some of the Trolls don’t know they are trollin’”

    And some conservatives don’t know they are arguing with conservatives.

    I don’t call them trolls; I just think they’re stupid/ignorant.

  270. Think! says:

    D. Patterson seems to know all about Soviet Jokes, but nothing about what communism actually is.

    I said communism is no more, because communism, like capitalism is about ideas to which people buy into. Nobody wants communism. Nobody speaks openly about creating communist institutions. You have to do somersaults to demonstrate crypto communism. It’s not like people are shouting about their “communism” from the rooftops.

    There is no communist movement. There are no Communist ideas in circulation. There are a few lonely types who like to pretend. You’ve lost perspective, and a sense of proportion. That’s why you see centrist, possibly third-way ideas as ‘communist’. They are to the Left of where you stand, but in a historical sense, they are much closer to you than Communists are.

  271. Think! says:

    “Maybe I’ll send John Kerry a letter:…”

    You’d have to read Hardin’s paper first.

    Of course, it might possibly cause you to reconsider your conspiracy theory, so I’ll understand if you don’t want to.

  272. J.Peden says:

    Think!

    No, it isn’t, it’s [Cap and tax] a quota system that divvies up the ‘natural resources’, much as land.

    Then you were saying that Obama doesn’t want to eliminate private property by eliminating Liberty?

    And that Cap and tax is really “conservative”? Then you think anyone will take you seriously? But, good work, Mr. Troll, Aristotle himself would be impressed!

  273. Brian G Valentine says:

    Think,

    If you want any credibility with me at any rate, please relate your authentic name and affiliation.

    Otherwise, just get dismissed as a trollop.

    Brian G Valentine
    US Department of Energy
    Washington, DC

    brian.valentine@hq.doe.tgov

  274. Think! says:

    “Then you were saying that Obama doesn’t want to eliminate private property by eliminating Liberty?”

    I don’t care to speculate about what Obama’s covert plans are. His overt plans aren’t communist, in my view. Let’s stick to cap and trade, for the moment.

    Let me try this, because I believe in logic.

    1. Hardin proposed the “tragedy of the commons” as an argument for private property.
    2. Cap and Trade uses Hardin’s idea to create quotas – private property – which are owned, and may be traded.
    3. Communists reject the idea of private property.
    4. Obama and the Democrats want to introduce Cap and Trade
    5. Therefore, Democrats are not Communists.

    Where’s the problem?

    “And that Cap and tax is really “conservative”? Then you think anyone will take you seriously?”

    Cap and Trade is not currently a Conservative proposition, if by ‘Conservative’ we say “what most republicans want”. However, if we want a perspective on the environment debate that offers any sense of where today’s ideas are *from*, then, anyone who doesn’t take the idea seriously ignores history.

    It really is a matter of record that Hardin proposed private property as the solution to environmental problems, and it really is a matter of record that this is the basis of emissions trading schemes, such as C&T. It’s an “inconvenient paper”, if you will.

    You may have a well-founded argument against ET/C&T, and a good argument for saying that it contradicts fundamental Conservative principles. Nonetheless, Hardin’s ideas were taken up by conservatives, to argue for private property. That is something than communists simply would not do, because private property is antithetical to communism. Perhaps you, and other Conservatives, make the mistake of seeing any other form of thinking whose appearances you disagree with as “communist”.

  275. Think! says:

    Brian, knowing my identity won’t make it any easier for you to understand the argument I’ve been putting forward.

    Either it’s true that C&T is based on Hardin’s thought, or it’s not.

    And

    Either it’s true that Hardin was a Conservative, or it’s not.

    You can find out for yourself whether these two things are true. You just have to look.

  276. J.Peden says:

    Think! (12:09:57) :

    4. Obama and the Democrats want to introduce Cap and Trade
    5. Therefore, Democrats are not Communists.

    Logic? Who said all Democrats are Communists in the first place, or even that elected Democrats in Congress support Cap and Trade enough to pass it into Law? I didn’t, and they apparently don’t, if any credence can be given to the “cap and trade is dead” info, the victories against Central Government control tenets, and to common sense. It’s likely going to be the Healthcare fiasco all over again, I’ll wager. Not that this will or would permanently stop all such Statist/Progressive/Communist takeover attempts.

    So other than to yourself lost in your own virtual world, who are you talking to and about?

    Nevertheless once again, mucho ditto congrats as to your telos. While I really do secretly hope it’s not what it appears to be.

  277. J.Peden says:

    Think!, I believe that you’ll find that you are getting way to much caught up in arguing about word definitions as a complete abstraction, which soon becomes an argument about nothing, since words in themselves aren’t really much of anything to begin with, other than appearances, noises, sensations, and the like. They don’t automatically “carry anything around on their backs”, as the prepostmodern Philosophers sometimes used to say.

  278. Brian G Valentine says:

    Someone with time on their hands ought to set up a website, TrollClimate DOT com

    Then any old anonymous blogger get just get on there and spout off about any stupid thing that pleases them or irritates them at that moment.

    Bloggers could just argue and flame each other or anybody they choose.

    I don’t think the content would be particularly entertaining or memorable, but would avoid wasting space on blogs such as this one resulting from people with nothing to say creatinf content anyway

  279. Think! says:

    Brian, have you read Hardin, or anything about him yet?

    So who is trolling?

  280. Brian G Valentine says:

    You are, as far as I am concerned.

    Real people use real names.

    Trolling bloggers just use handles to hide – for what reason I don’t know.

    You want to be taken seriously in a discussion with me?

    You SAY YOUR NAME and who you are, otherwise, you’re just a prank telephone caller as far as I am concerned.

    Don’t like that answer?

    TOUGH LUCK, Buster, go engage somebody else stupid enough to get in a discussion with an anonymite

  281. Brian G Valentine says:

    The Newsweek magazine produced a series of videos related to the Presidential Address to the Nation.

    Included amongst the commentaries is a presentation by Dr James Hansen of the NASA, on the “energy crisis,” viz

    Dr Hansen is about as extreme as extreme can get in his views on AGW.

    I’m probably as extreme the other way in my views on AGW as Hansen is on his views.

    And where does Dr Hansen fit in with his expertise on “energy”?

    Newsweek editors, if you’re going to produce a credible picture of what constitutes the “energy crisis in the USA,” why not have the guts enough to videotape me, for example?

    [I'm not just talking to the wind, here - Newsweek staff search the net for content that references Newsweek]

  282. Brian G Valentine says:

    Here we are, State of the Union Address, I got as far as “Climate and Clean Energy” and “lead the world” and so on, I had to turn it of.

    Mister President, go ask the Spaniards how to make a Green Economy!

    They’ll tell you flat out that to become a foreign aid case faster than you can say Bailout! you should become a Green Economy.

    “I know there are, some, who doubt the OVERWHELMING evidence of climate change …”

    … for example, the disappearing Himalayan Glaciers, and …

    . and, …, um,

    …um, there’s a whole bunch more, I can’t name it right now, but it is overwhelming.

    The Public is wise enough not to fall for this AGW crap anymore.

    Al Gore and Parasites Of Him: Your days of economic wrack and ruin are all gone, you’ve been declared a fraud and a hoax, time to sweep up the mess and get back on our FOSSIL FUEL feet once again!

  283. mikelorrey says:

    Think! (11:10:54) : edit

    “I have looked into mikelorrey’s claim that bankers financed Trotsky.

    It appears to have little academic credibility, and seems to me to be a story invented by anti-Semites – neoNazis and the like – in order to place Jews at the centre of left-wing history. ”

    Beyond the fact you’re violating Godwin’s Law, the fact that part of my family is Jewish also negates your rather nasty smear and I’ll be discussing this issue with site management.

    The facts are that my statement is supported by the accepted scholarly work of Dr. Antony Sutton in his books, “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution”(1974), Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917-1930 (1968), Technological Treason: A catalog of U S firms with Soviet contracts, 1917-1982 (1982).

    He was an economics professor at California State University Los Angeles and a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973. During his time at the Hoover Institute he wrote the major study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes), detailing how the West played a major role in developing Soviet Union from its very beginnings up until the present time (1970). In 1973 he published a popularized, condensed version of the three volumes called National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and was thereby forced out of the Hoover Institution.

    His work has been endorsed by Zbigniew Brzezenski and Richard Pipes. Hardly what I would call “neo-nazis”…In fact Sutton clearly debunks and denies any validity of the “jewish conspiracy” theory of the bolshevik revolution, in Appendix II of the first book cited, documenting many gentiles, bankers or otherwise, who were involved in its leadership here in the US and in Russia, including many high ranking US government officials..

    I hereby demand your retraction and apology for your defamatory and hate mongering accusation..

  284. Brian G Valentine says:

    Mike, stinky little trolling bloggers like Stink! aren’t worth the effort of tying responses to them.

  285. mikelorrey says:

    Brian G Valentine
    2010/01/28 at 5:24am

    “Mike, stinky little trolling bloggers like Stink! aren’t worth the effort of tying responses to them.”

    In my experience such grossly defamatory accusations need to be confronted directly, else they will take a life of their own as opponents take up such unchallenged smears as fact… While he appears to be an AGW skeptic in his other internet writings… I’m hoping he values amity among allies enough to retract and apologize for such an accusation against my legitimately arrived at scholarly view of history.

  286. Brian G Valentine says:

    I dunno, Mike, he doesn’t think enough of himself to tie his name (and therefore himself) to his ideas; if he has no self-regard, he cannot have regard for what other people might feel or experience.

    He’s just a codename, Stink!, to mouth off anything he feels like to anyone dumb enough to pay attention to him.

    What’s the difference between Stink! and a graffiti vandal?

    There is none

  287. Brian G Valentine says:

    I don’t have a web log, but if I did I would take the “Facebook” approach to it – you use your real name, and you demonstrate that is truly you.

    Who uses aliases? Criminals, that’s who, who don’t ordinarily leave their driver’s license at the scene of a crime they have committed.

    I can understand why children and “daters” want to remain anonymous; children shouldn’t be horsing around in chat rooms anyway and “daters” aren’t exactly on dating websites to present a point of view to (possibly) edify.

  288. mikelorrey says:

    Brian,
    The thing is that its MY name thats being attacked. I know who he is. It didn’t take much to figure that out. He’s not as smart as he thinks he is.

    Normal debating rumble tumble is perfectly fine with me. Making criminally defamatory accusations, however, is not.

  289. Brian G Valentine says:

    I dunno, I’ve always taken the point of view, the only thing that can make me look bad, is me, and if anyone reads something on the internet or anyplace else that they don’t like, they can be absolutely certain of the source if it came from me.

    Even my most ardent critics (of whom there are numerous) know this

  290. I’ve enjoyed the comments. Thanks so much. Just wanted to mention that I’ve now written a follow-up piece on Greenpeace-generated literature in the Nobel-winning IPCC report.

    I’ve also discovered that Dr. Pachauri, the IPCC chair, has written at least one forward for a Greenpeace publication. Which strikes me as rather cozy… Am still trying to work out the ethical/political implications in my own mind. Would welcome your thoughts.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/greenpeace-and-nobel-winning-climate_28.html

    All the best!

  291. Brian G Valentine says:

    Thank you Ms Laframboise, you’re a real public servant.

    It would be interesting to know, how much um, “fees for professional services” the “good” Dr Pachauri has received from Greenpiece (et al.) for his most enlightening contributions

    Similarly for Civil “servant” James Hansen (that makes me SICK TO MY STOMACH that he takes money from these outfits)

  292. don juan says:

    At least WWF is doing something to help fight climate change, while you gossip girls whatch rescue actions in Haiti on CNN and wonder what can you do to help. Start by turning your lights off.

    REPLY: Hey Mr. Earth hour! Think it will make a difference this year? Click

    -A

  293. Brian G Valentine says:

    Is there a sign posted “Please trolls come with a codename and say the first stupid thing that comes to mind”

  294. Think! says:

    “I hereby demand your retraction and apology for your defamatory and hate mongering accusation…”

    I hereby ignore it.

    The book in question, from an unremarkable academic, is useless, unless you want to use it to construct bizarre conspiracy theories, such as those found in your post above, and on Alex Jones’ Prison Planet. We might compare it to something cited by a WGII IPCC Assessment Report.

    I haven’t attacked your name. I have attacked your absurd ideas.

    Donna L’s and Anthony’s efforts to shed light on climate nonsense don’t need to invent history and conspiracy to make progress. The comments sections often let the blogs down.

  295. Think! says:

    Brian, the facts either to dismiss what I’ve said or prove it are out there. Your tantrum about my anonymity isn’t going to make what I’ve said less true, and it’s only your name you’ll hurt by refusing to listen to reason.

    Anyone can search the internet for “private property” “hardin” and “tragedy of the commons”, and discover that I am right.

  296. yonason says:

    “Tragedy of the commons” – or, How The Pilgrims Discovered Capitalism.

    Yes, quite an extraordinary lesson there all right. Thanks.

  297. yonason says:

    Donna Laframboise (12:38:52) :

    In case you don’t already have this link you might want to check it out.
    http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/01/un-ipcc-activist-science-greenpeace-and-wwf-reports-cited-in-ar4/

    Since they cite your excellent work, you probably know who they are. Still, others may not.

  298. commonsense says:

    All this nonsense about “Democrat-Communist Conspiracy” is really laughable!

    You can deny Global Warming…
    You can deny A/H1N1 influenza pandemic…
    You can deny the Ozone Hole…
    You can deny that pollution is slowly killing billions of people…

    But arguing that all those are Communist propaganda is something that really shows that your brains are fried.

    By your reasoning, The Planet Earth is Communist. So you can argue that or pale blue dot is really the Red Planet (no offense to Martians intended).

    You can deny Reality, but the Planet and all its inhabitants will not deny your role in the BIGGEST GENOCIDE in Worst History.

    You believe that the so-called Communist Regimes killed 100 million people?
    The Unregulated and Savage Industrial Capitalism is in the right path to kill BILLIONS (and including non-humans, TRILLIONS)!

    Defending the actions that will destroy most Life on Earth is the worst thing a living being could do.

    You deserve only mercy.

    And you will need a lot of it when the System will finally collapse under its own weight (that is, when Climate Change and Peak Oil will destroy Agriculture and Industry)

  299. Brian G Valentine says:

    Commonsense, I really don’t give a damn what you think anybody “deserves;” the USA isn’t going anywhere unless people who think like you are just ignored, that is how the country was able to progress in the first place.

    Luddites like you are just a bump in the road for other people who actually contribute things to the society, and such people have characteristic fortitude to simply ignore the noise from non-contributors such as yourself.

    Don’t worry, you can enjoy the products of civilization too; just so you can spit on it

    Whatever makes you happy

  300. commonsense says:

    “Luddites like you are just a bump in the road for other people who actually contribute things to the society, and such people have characteristic fortitude to simply ignore the noise from non-contributors such as yourself.”

    Brian:
    1) I am not a contributor to USA because I live in Peru, in West South America.
    2) I am not a luddite, but an Engineeering student, and I will pass most of my life mitigating Climate Change impacts.

    Comments like yours are really pathetic. Only inspire mercy.

  301. From Mars says:

    Dear earthlings:

    Some millions years ago Venusians tried to obtain energy from coal and oil. The Venusian deniers convinced the govenments that CO2 emission were totally safe.

    Now they are burning in hell!

  302. Brian G Valentine says:

    If you’re an engineering student, how you expect to “mitigate” “climate change” impacts?

    Wind/solar energy? You’ll cause “climate change”, and worse than what would be seen from coal or nuclear, because the base foot print is vastly smaller.

    Hydrology/dams?

    You can’t DO anything that won’t influence the immediate environment, nothing can be PRODUCED and not influence the surroundings.

  303. Brian G Valentine says:

    Mars, did the dilution of sulfur trioxide in water vapor to produce sulfuric acid clouds have anything to do with “heating” Venus’s atmosphere?

    You’ve been reading too many Jim Hansen science fiction novels

  304. Brian G Valentine says:

    Interesting how young people think today.

    Too much soap opera on TV produced by people like Laurie David and Al Gore.

    I’m old, and “beatniks” at the time hated “pollution” of any variety (even more than they hated “work”).

    Most of them kind of grew up, and recognized that stuff made out of “plastic” (and things like “medicine”) and having a home with electric lights, and a car, weren’t so darned bad after all.

  305. Brian G Valentine says:

    Environmental News Bulletin from last month:

    “Steel industry emissions in the US below Kyoto targets last year!”

    Fantastic news.

    Steel industry production dropped to 90 M MT last year.

    Chinese capacity is 500 M MT per year, and they don’t even USE half.

    Environmentalists, before you demolish the USA, you’ll kill me first

  306. Hugh says:

    Interesting list.

    I note that none of the fifteen or so “dodgies” is from WGI, which dealt specifically with the scientific basis – as opposed to impacts, mitigation and adaptation – of/to climate change. Do you have any instances of WGI references to non-peer-reviewed studies?

    Not that such materials are illegal: since 2003, at least, IPCC procedures have specifically allowed for non-published or non-peer-reviewed sources (see here) like industry journals, working papers, proceedings of workshops, etc.

    Such materials might add considerably to the project. For example, the IPCC “Baker” reference (here) – noted above – leads to a 79-page summary of a vulnerability-assessment workshop concerning the North-East Atlantic (here), with 28 scientist attendees, links to 8 major presentations, and 7 pages of references like “Czaja, C. and Marshall, J. 2005. Atmospheric Jet Stream – Ocean Gyre Coupling In The North Atlantic: Observations And Theoretical Interpretation. Submission to European Geosciences Union”. (I just love this stuff . . .)

    Perhaps future editions of the IPCC assessment will use simply citations like “non-peer-reviewed but still possibly useful workshop proceedings” or “NPRBSPUWP” where applicable. In the meantime, a lot of interesting science (and, no doubt, the occasional “Himalaya glaciers gone by 2035″ fiasco) awaits for anyone willing to take a deep breath before jumping to conclusions . . .

  307. Commonsense says:

    [snip]

    [Try again without using "deniers." ~dbs, mod.]

  308. Commonsense says:

    “Wind/solar energy? You’ll cause “climate change”, and worse than what would be seen from coal or nuclear, because the base foot print is vastly smaller.”

    Please cite a study that state that wind/solar are worse than oil/coal.

    “Fantastic news.
    Steel industry production dropped to 90 M MT last year.
    Chinese capacity is 500 M MT per year, and they don’t even USE half.
    Environmentalists, before you demolish the USA, you’ll kill me first”

    This is NOT from a consequence of any regulation, it IS a consecuence of George W. Bush policy of NON-REGULATION that let banks do whatever they wanted to do, so with the Big Money free to speculate, the economic greed of the speculators destroyed the World Economy.

    Without regulation, Capitalism destroys itself. No matter if we are talking about Climate Change, Peak Oil or Mortgage speculation.

    Is it clear, Mr. Brian G. Valentine?

  309. Mike Lorrey says:

    Think! (16:34:53) :

    “Brian, the facts either to dismiss what I’ve said or prove it are out there. Your tantrum about my anonymity isn’t going to make what I’ve said less true, and it’s only your name you’ll hurt by refusing to listen to reason. ”

    The problem is you are making arrogant and pontificating statements of authority without any. You can’t make an attack on a published academic or the legitimacy of their work from behind a veil of anonymity. Who are you that we should listen to anything you have to say?

    From what I can tell you are a Neo-Fabian/Neo-Trotskyist type who is running PR interference for the lefts revisionist version of history.

  310. Mike Lorrey says:

    commonsense:
    “You believe that the so-called Communist Regimes killed 100 million people?
    The Unregulated and Savage Industrial Capitalism is in the right path to kill BILLIONS (and including non-humans, TRILLIONS)!

    Defending the actions that will destroy most Life on Earth is the worst thing a living being could do.

    You deserve only mercy.

    And you will need a lot of it when the System will finally collapse under its own weight (that is, when Climate Change and Peak Oil will destroy Agriculture and Industry)”

    LOL… Yes, 100 million deaths from the various socialist movements of the 20th century is well documented (NSWP, CCCP, PRC, Pol Pot, oh, and of course Peru’s Sendero (Shining Path) guerillas… are you a rep for them?

    There is no historical record of capitalism causing even one genocide (I’ll note that you seem to suffer from the mental disease of fully capitalising whole words in the middle of sentences frequently as if that makes it sound more important.. you must have studied writing under Gonzalo..

    There’s no sign of any collapse, sorry, your, 5th International Comintern Peoples Pushover attempts complete with WWF/Greenpeace disnformation notwithstanding.

    Oh, and btw: Global Warming and Peak Oil are mutually contradictory theories. Peak Oilers maintain there is less than 10% of the amount of oil left in the ground that Global Warmers at the IPCC say in their report will be burned to produce their projected warming over the 21st century. Both theories created and promoted by the socialist Club of Rome, btw.

  311. Commonsense says:

    Mike Lorrey:

    “LOL… Yes, 100 million deaths from the various socialist movements of the 20th century is well documented (NSWP, CCCP, PRC, Pol Pot, oh, and of course Peru’s Sendero (Shining Path) guerillas… are you a rep for them?

    Of course NOT!
    By the way,equating CCCP(far-left regime) with Nazi Germany(far-RIGHT regime) only demonstrate that you don’t know anything about history.

    “There is no historical record of capitalism causing even one genocide (I’ll note that you seem to suffer from the mental disease of fully capitalising whole words in the middle of sentences frequently as if that makes it sound more important.. you must have studied writing under Gonzalo.”

    I am an engineering student and my ideas are completely at odds with the Shining Path ones.
    Being concerned about humanity, poor people and the environment instead of profits make you a terrorist?!
    By your way of reasoning, Jesus Christ was a terrorist fanatic (“it is more likely that a camel pass in the hole of a Sewing needle than a rich enters in the Kingdom of Heaven”, He said 2000 years ago)

    Finally, you want an example of Capitalist Genocide?

    Africa, 1880-1960: European Imperialist Powers divided the continent into patches. Tens of millions of Africans died of starvation and disease after being put in near-slavery in labor camps.

    Europe 1914-1918: the greed for expanding the economic empire lead to an open war, now known as WWI. 14 Million people were killed. If we include the deaths from WWI-caused civil wars in East Europe and the War-spreaded 1918-1920 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic, the number likely is over 100 Millions.

    And of course, WWI aftermath lead to WWII. Another 60 million deaths.

  312. D. Patterson says:

    Commonsense (14:36:47) :

    “Wind/solar energy? You’ll cause “climate change”, and worse than what would be seen from coal or nuclear, because the base foot print is vastly smaller.”

    Please cite a study that state that wind/solar are worse than oil/coal.

    [....]

    This is NOT from a consequence of any regulation, it IS a consecuence of George W. Bush policy of NON-REGULATION that let banks do whatever they wanted to do, so with the Big Money free to speculate, the economic greed of the speculators destroyed the World Economy.

    Without regulation, Capitalism destroys itself. No matter if we are talking about Climate Change, Peak Oil or Mortgage speculation.

    [....]

    Despite billions of dollars of investment in wind power generation infrastructure worldwide, not one has ever proved itself capable of serving as a reliable base load source of power, much less an ecnomical source versus fossil fuel power plans. The load factors of wind power generators versus cost of construction for the wind farms plus the required network of power distribution systems for load balancing and delivery to base load customers are many times too inadequate in comparison to other power sources.

    Acually, it was the Democrats in Congress who imposed a destructive combination of regulatons compelling banks to grant fiscally irresponsible mortgages or face being barred from the marketplace along with derugulation of investment and commercial banks. During the 107th, 108th Congress, and 109th Congress, President Bush tried to stop Nancy Pelosi and Barney Franks from destroying FannieMae and FreddieMac and their suicidal lending practices, but the Democrat majority voted to compel the banks to grant mortgages to buyers utterly incapable of repaying the loans on ballooning real estate prices. This was yet another example of the Democrats implementing the communist Cloward-Piven strategy to deliberately bankrupt, sabotage, and destroy the U.S. economy as a means of ushering in Marxist political doctrines and controls in the false guise of rescuing the very economy they are deliberately destroying.

    The Democrats’ manipulations of the U.S. economy has marginalized capitalism to the poin where Democrat criticism of the failings in the U.S. economy are in reality criticisms of the elements of failed Marxist-socialist institutions and policies imposed on the capitalist society. The segments of U.S. society experiencing the greatest inflations of costs and greatest failures to deliver goods and services have been education, healthcare, and unionized industries. The Marxist-socialist takeover of American education, academia, and journalism is now manifesting itslef in the form of postmodern or postnormal science as a fraudulent substitute for the scientific method and real world science. It is no coincidence that so many of the same individuals and organizations who promote AGW alarmism are also promoting Marxist-socialist agendas to deny individuals the right and freedom to speak, communicate, educate, medicate, and otherwise pursue life and happiness in liberty.

  313. TimiBoy says:

    The amount of crap being spouted by both sides in this debate demonstrates only one thing. 98% of people are idiots.

    I still have not had the Theory of AGW proven to me, but gee whiz some of the garbage like minded people spout is really embarrassing.

  314. D. Patterson says:

    TimiBoy (22:50:54) :

    The amount of crap being spouted by both sides in this debate demonstrates only one thing. 98% of people are idiots.

    I still have not had the Theory of AGW proven to me, but gee whiz some of the garbage like minded people spout is really embarrassing.

    Before pontificating and denigrating people without just cause, try going out and getting some of the written evidence facts from the primary sources. For example:

    1. Order copies of the Form WBAN-10 manuscripts for each of the days included from stations included in the GISS USCHN, or at least one such station.

    2. Read a copy of : Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty, The Nation, 1966 May 2.” and/or “Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done.” See in their own words such writings as:

    By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.
    [....]
    1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
    2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
    3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

    Cloward-Piven strategy for destroying democracy’s voting system:

    1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
    2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
    3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.

    3. Read Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals.”

    You may want to reconsider your comments and apologize for using the derogatory term, “idiots.” At least one side of the argument is generally telling the plain truth, and at least some of the other side frequently knows they are artfully disseminating lies and black propaganda to good effect towards achieving their political goals. Let the readers determine who is telling the truth by looking at the primary evidence. Then you may want to think how your language is going to make yourself look in the eyes of informed readers.

    Then again maybe you don’t really care to do so, and the readers can then draw their own conclusions from that as well.

  315. Think! says:

    “You can’t make an attack on a published academic or the legitimacy of their work from behind a veil of anonymity. Who are you that we should listen to anything you have to say?”

    Of course I can. I’m not making an argument that rests on my authority.

    You can *check for yourself with great ease* that that Hardin was a conservative who was mostly aligned with Hayek, and believed that private property in a free market was the answer to ecological problems.

    On the matter of Antony Sutton, it is self evident that he lacked academic credibility himself, because it was his views that brought him into collision with the rest of academia. The fact that his ideas are key to several anti-semitic conspiracy theories is easily established with a quick Google of “sutton” and “jew”. You will find links there, if you so desire, to many distasteful political organisations.

    My anonymity is owed to the fact that I don’t care to reveal myself to people who seem to share a great deal of their perspective with such organisations. I’m more interested in seeing for myself what might be making such arguments ‘tick’. Thanks for the insight.

    “From what I can tell you are a Neo-Fabian/Neo-Trotskyist type who is running PR interference for the lefts revisionist version of history.”

    I’m not the one playing fast and loose with historical categories and denying what is a matter of record. And I’m not the one claiming that bankers represent the ‘Left’ to suit some weird theory.

    As to my agenda, I can assure you that it is libertarian, and that I work for a Conservative organisation. (No, I’m not going to qualify it. Believe it or don’t, I really don’t care). I am annoyed by people making ridiculous arguments, whatever side of the debate they claim to be on.

  316. Truth says:

    The only problem with the idea of the Greenpeace report was un-peer-reviewed is that it was peer-reviewed. It was also written by a series of experts with years of experience and publications in the area. Here are the scientists that are listed on the inside over of the report.

    Dr Mahendra Reddy, Lecturer in Development Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
    Mr Lionel Gibson, Geography Department, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
    Mr Joeli Veitayaki, Coordinator, Marine Affairs Programme University of the South Pacific, Suva.

    Hmmm … seems that you need to get the facts right first!

  317. Truth says:

    In fact, the list of scientists appears under the heading “Peer Reviewers”! The rest of the story is at my blog.

  318. Brian G Valentine says:

    “Without regulation, Capitalism destroys itself. No matter if we are talking about Climate Change, Peak Oil or Mortgage speculation.

    Is it clear, Mr. Brian G. Valentine?”

    It is as clear as everything else you have contributed here; but you can blame me (and probably all of your university faculty) for finding you incoherent and unintelligible

  319. Will S says:

    I work at a large research center studying coastal change. Most of us are geologists and chemists; there are a few biologists, a few physicists, a couple mathematicians, and a couple statisticians. The only person here who does not think near-term global change (i.e. increased mean temperature, climatic variability, and ocean acidification) is linked the increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 is the handyman who works in the shop. Nobody’s paycheck depends on the results; we get paid and funded regardless of our findings. What makes you people think there is some huge liberal “climate conspiracy”? Get educated, read the primary literature, and then be honest with yourself.

    REPLY: You just defined the problem ….of researchers.

    When you say condescending things like “you people” your bias shows. -A

  320. Will S says:

    Damn straight. I am completely biased against misinformation and untruth. Not every opinion counts, and not every viewpoint is correct. I’m informed enough about climate science to have an opinion that counts about that particular subject. On the other hand, if someone were to ask me a detailed question about installing television equipment or video products, I would have to be honest with myself and admit that is not my field of expertise.

    “False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.” – Plato

Comments are closed.