Du Jour-gate flavor: Amazon

The IPCC “Flavor of the day”-gate is now the Amazon Rain Forest. What will tomorrow’s flavor be?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3300527819_6b9a79eb4a.jpg

James Delingpole of the Telegraph says this better than I ever could, so I’ll provide his summary here. Note that there are plenty more cases of unsubstantiated non peer reviewed references in the IPCC report, a list of which you can see here. For those wondering what “Load of porkies” means, see this.

Delingpole relays North’s analysis:

Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.

This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:

At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:

This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed. According to IPCC rules, it should not have been used as a primary source.

It gets even better. The two expert authors of the WWF report so casually cited by the IPCC as part of its, ahem, “robust” “peer-reviewed” process weren’t even Amazon specialists. One, Dr PF Moore, is a policy analyst:

My background and experience around the world has required and developed high-level policy and analytical skills. I have a strong understanding of government administration, legislative review, analysis and inquiries generated through involvement in or management of the Australian Regional Forest Agreement process, Parliamentary and Government inquiries, Coronial inquiries and public submissions on water pricing, access and use rights and native vegetation legislation in Australia and fire and natural resources laws, regulations and policies in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, South Africa and Malaysia.

And the lead author Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist (for the Guardian, natch) and green activist:

Andy Rowell is a freelance writer and Investigative journalist with over 12 years’ experience on environmental, food, health and globalization issues. Rowell has undertaken cutting-edge investigations for, amongst others, Action on Smoking and Health, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IFAW, the Pan American Health Organization, Project Underground, the World Health Organization, World in Action and WWF.

But the IPCC’s shamelessness did not end there. Dr North has searched the WWF’s reports high and low but can find no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change. (Logging and farm expansion are a much more plausible threat).

Read Delingpole’s blog here, North’s Blog here

I recommend adding them to your blog roll. I have.

About these ads

240 thoughts on “Du Jour-gate flavor: Amazon

  1. The Amazon stayed Rainforest during the hight of the last Glaciation and during the Holocene Optimum. That was a heck of a stress. If it can survive those extremes, then it should be pretty stable!!

  2. Mr Delingpole has been leading the charge here in the UK and has picked up several stories first posted/commented here.

    I take a limbo bar bow for alerting him to a few :D

    Do add him to your blog roll – funny, spot on and fearless – also visit Gerald Warner’s blog at the Telegraph stable.

    And if you want to LOL read Will Heaven – he gets merciless comments.

  3. Amabo (12:28:47) :

    “I believe this warrants a *facepalm*

    Agree.

    Re: the WWF alarmist scare that a warmer world will have more droughts: warmer = more evaporation…

  4. These two are evidently among the top of the alleged 2500 “peer reviewed” scientists endorsing the IPCC AR4

  5. Warming of Himalayan glaciers is closely linked to TERI.

    Changes of forests are closely linked to IIASA where Shonali Pachauri work as Deputy Program Leader.

    Follow the family.

  6. And given that it’s Burns Night tonight, and our PM’s a Scotsman (that’s the one who called climate sceptics “flat earthers”), this line from the poet might be appropriate for him, Pachauri, Gore and many, many others:

    The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
    Gang aft agley,

  7. It just gets better and better. The deeper the press digs the more apparent it will become that the IPCC, CRU, GISS and NCDC have hoodwinked the world. Thanks to blogs like this one and many of the others out there, the light is beginning to shine on these hoodwinkers. I want to see some video of Al Gore being pressed to answer inconvenient questions by reporters. The wheels have come off the wagon folks!

  8. Things are happening so fast I can’t keep up!!!
    Maybe we ought just trickle out the scandal stories. What is there going to be left to say tomorrow?

  9. A green activist who campaigned for tobacco-free kids but is backed by the stoners of the world aka Greenpeace?

  10. I wonder what will be left from UN IPCC AR-4 when all the “gates” are in.

    Probably only the paper it’s printed on!

    That’s very good news for the careers of all those politicians building their policies on AR-4 and very good news for the greens and the green industrial complex that boarded the AGW train for a once in a life time ride.

    You can all leave the train now. The wheels have come off and the engine has gone missing and the track has disappeared.
    This ride is over so you can go home now.

    And don’t tell us we didn’t warn you!

  11. I don’t understand..

    I thought back in the ’90s we knew why the rain forrest in Brazil had lower rain fall, from the ’60s to ’80 due to deforestation, when they were cutting it down to plant sugarcane.

  12. These earlier lines seem pretty relevant to them all too.

    ‘Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie,
    O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!’

  13. RichieP (12:51:14) says:

    And given that it’s Burns Night tonight, and our PM’s a Scotsman (that’s the one who called climate sceptics “flat earthers”), this line from the poet might be appropriate for him, Pachauri, Gore and many, many others:

    The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
    Gang aft agley,

    But perhaps the reality is:

    An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
    For promis’d joy!

    For certainly, that would be the case for the rest of us.

  14. When you collectively consider all the ”gate” scandals the IPCC in general and Mr. P in particular are up to their necks in over the last couple months, SURELY its past time to say ”turn out the lights, the party’s over” for that now widely discredited organization and its leader. If there was any justice the fat lady would already have sung. Won’t quite hold my breath yet, but we live in hope that the right answer will come soon; VERY soon. . . .

  15. A very amusing pastime, reading about the IPCC’s fantasms. Can’t wait for tomorrow’s -gate. Makes you wonder whether politicians will trust a UN body ever again (even they will have noticed by now).

  16. Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (12:54:31) :

    A green activist who campaigned for tobacco-free kids but is backed by the stoners of the world aka Greenpeace?

    Inhaling smoke is only good when it is “good” smoke, apparently.

    AdderW (13:09:34) :

    The CAGW fuzzy, greeny crowd are disappearing at an alarming rate

    Time to add them to the endangered species list?

  17. On of my favorite made up things caused by AGW is the mass exticttion of millions of species. Even though nothing much lives in the Artic and Billions of life-forms thrive at warm equator. Or http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
    A Complete List Of Things Supposedly
    Caused By Global Warming

    Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaska reshaped, moves, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds return early, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brain eating amoebae, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration, coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral fish suffer, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, crabgrass menace, cradle of civilisation threatened, creatures move uphill, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), danger to kid’s health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), deaths to reach 6 million, Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, disappearance of coastal cities, disasters, diseases move from animals to humans, diseases move north, dog disease, Dolomites collapse, dozen deadly diseases, drought, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, earthquakes, earthquakes redux, El Niño intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas, polar bears, possums, walrus, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, salamanders, tropical insects) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting, famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost, fashion disaster, fever, figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish bigger, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish head north, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flames stoked, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), football team migration, footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, geese decline in Hampshire, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier grows (California), glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, golf course to drown, golf Masters wrecked, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, great tits cope, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, haggis threatened, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, health risks, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, HIV epidemic, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice age, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, icebergs, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada), industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats, invasion of crabgrass, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of king crabs, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, jet stream drifts north, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas under threat, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers’ income increased (surprise surprise!), lawyers want more, legionnaires’ surge, lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, locust plagues suppressed, Lopsided Earth, lush growth in rain forests, Malaria, mammoth dung melt, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, Melanoma decline, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days, more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountaineers fears, mountains break up, mountains green and flowering, mountains taller, mortality lower, Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean acidification faster, ocean dead zones unleashed, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, oceans noisier, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, penguin chicks frozen, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plants lose protein, plants march north, plants move uphill, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears deaf, polar bears drowning, polar bears eating themselves, polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, prostitution, psychiatric illness, puffin decline, radars taken out, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees, reindeer endangered, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, Russia under pressure, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, Salmon Decline, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, soaring food prices, societal collapse, soil change, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid population explosion, squid tamed, squirrels reproduce earlier, stingray invasion, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tigers eat people, tomatoes rot, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, truffles down, turtles crash, turtle feminised, turtles lay earlier, UFO sightings, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, uprooted – 6 million, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, violin decline, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, walrus stampede, war, war between US and Canada, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales lose weight, whales move north, whales wiped out, wheat yields crushed in Australia, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine – harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine – more English, wine – England too hot, wine -German boon, wine – no more French , wine passé (Napa), wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.

    And all on 0.006 deg C per year!

  18. Wow the authors of the WWF article are not even scientists. One is a policy analyst and one is a freelance writer. Next they’ll be citing the opinion of drunks on the street. Someone in the IPCC needs to be held accountable for using this trash.

  19. I would rather worry about the USA, England and all those wild countries where silly monkey scientists abound and donkeys/politicians graze the scarce and frozen grass leaves.

  20. “I thought back in the ’90s we knew why the rain forrest in Brazil had lower rain fall, from the ’60s to ‘80 due to deforestation, when they were cutting it down to plant sugarcane.”

    Yeh, to make ethanol to fuel cars to reduce CO2 emissions. The law of unintended consequences strikes again!

  21. Pachauri is going to be very busy explaining each of these failures of the IPCC process. The more he is seen, the more ridiculous he appears and the more untenable is his position.

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks!

  22. “Richard Heg (13:19:07) :

    An interesting article from NYT from a year ago.
    “New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests”

    You mean that frakkin jungle can do something else than passively whither away under humanities onslaught? Like, GROW? Similar to the ever-multiplying polar bears who just refuse to go extinct? Oh gosh why can’t just one creature play by the WWF’s rules and simply be a nice cuddly victim…

  23. There has always been something fishy about the Amazon, especially when those dolphins swim a couple hundred miles inland.

  24. It still amazes me that it took something like those emails from the Climategate to get people looking inside the IPCC report and find all those “errors”. I use the word “error” very loosely for the lack of a better word like lies, distortions, BS, baloney, exaggeration, misrepresentation, slant, perversion, etc…

  25. Curious that Gavin, Tamino, Romm and other IPCC insiders spend most of their life blogging, but never had enough time to tell us about the incredibly lousy job the IPCC was doing.

  26. I wonder if their real interest is the fact that under those trees flourish thousands of cocaine laboratories, their favourite drug they inhale to get the inspiration for new end of the world phantasies or to concoct new scientific “peer reviewed” papers.

  27. WAY to soon to declare IPCC alarmism dead. The debate involves 5 kinds of people:

    humans are evil and destroying the planet and global warming is real 1%
    the science says global warming is human caused/influenced 1%
    the science says not so much warming and not so much human influence 1%
    humans are insignificant and so nothing we do matters 1%
    and….
    I think I might have seen an article or heard something I wasn’t paying much attention where do you want to go for beers after work? 96%

    I’ve been following a couple of warmist blogs and the difference in attitude is amazing. denialists are grasping at straws… its a report with hundreds of pages citing thousands of pages of research, OF COURSE there are mistakes… just because it was not peer reviewed doesn’t mean its wrong…

  28. George Soros could hire him. He has hired several others losers. Soros hired green jobs czar Van Jones.

  29. But perhaps the reality is:

    An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
    For promis’d joy!

    More to the point.

    Still thou art blest, compar’d wi’ me
    The present only toucheth thee:
    But, Och! I backward cast my e’e.
    On prospects drear!
    An’ forward, tho’ I canna see,
    I guess an’ fear!

    Let’s hope there is a lot of guessing and fearing in Downing Street and at CRU.

  30. kadaka (13:17:35) :

    Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (12:54:31) :

    A green activist who campaigned for tobacco-free kids but is backed by the stoners of the world aka Greenpeace?

    Inhaling smoke is only good when it is “good” smoke, apparently.

    AdderW (13:09:34) :

    The CAGW fuzzy, greeny crowd are disappearing at an alarming rate

    Time to add them to the endangered species list?

    Good call :)
    and report to WWF… or maybe not

  31. This must be why the IPCC/Algore’s “scientist’s” names are not recognized by the real scientists in their given field.

  32. Well first comes the denial, this is the latest one on the ‘More Natural Disasters’, and then will come the half hearted apology

    In a separate development, a report in the UK’s Sunday Times newspaper said the IPCC faced “new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters”, in its 2007 milestone report.

    However, the IPCC issued a statement that said the story was “misleading and baseless”.

    Digging holes

  33. Myths to explain myths are just junk. Beware ANY pronouncements you might read about the Amazon “wilderness.” Because it isn’t and hasn’t been for millennia.

    Also, beware BINGOs, quangos, sham wowsers, and other scam artists.

  34. @kadaka but Bill Clinton didn’t inhale. It was hysterical, there was one of these friday news hour roundtables back in the 90s. Somehow they got around to the “didn’t inhale” remark. One of the guys who was from Britain chips up and says (paraphrased) “Yeah, he didn’t, he tried but he couldn’t. I was there.” Everyone else on the panel does a double take and then asks him about it. Turns out that they were at somebody’s apartment in London doing the hash thing. When it gets to Bill’s turn, he takes a big drag and then immediately has to blow it out because it made his allergies so bad he basically started to have an asthma attack. So, he did not inhale, he tried hard, but he never pulled it off. Lesson to be learned, lawyers say what they say, no more, no less.

  35. Christopher Monckton was on a national breakfast show here in Australia yesterday morning, “debating” some climate scientist who defended the glacier-problem on the basis of “well, one mistake doesn’t make the rest of the report invalid”. I can only assume either Monckon hadn’t caught up with the deluge of other invalid supporting material or the format of the “debate” didn’t allow a robust rebuttal. I sure would’ve been the killer comment to point out that this was just one of many instances in the IPCC’s report … a missed opportunity, a least, because that show has a very large audience. :(

  36. Actually with all the heat on Pachuri and the IPCC, they just might end up being correct because it seems everything the touch goes down in flames.

  37. Appropriate, considering the date.

    Fair fa’ your honest, sonsie face,
    Great chieftain o’ the puddin-race!
    Aboon them a’ ye tak your place,
    Painch, tripe, or thairm:
    Weel are ye wordy o’ a grace
    As lang’s my arm.

    The groaning trencher there ye fill,
    Your hurdies like a distant hill,
    Your pin wad help to mend a mill
    In time o’ need,
    While thro’ your pores the dews distil
    Like amber bead.

    His knife see rustic Labour dight,
    An’ cut you up wi’ ready sleight,
    Trenching your gushing entrails bright,
    Like ony ditch;
    And then, O what a glorious sight,
    Warm-reekin, rich!

    Then, horn for horn,
    they stretch an’ strive:
    Deil tak the hindmost! on they drive,
    Till a’ their weel-swall’d kytes belyve,
    Are bent lyke drums;
    Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive,
    “Bethankit!” ‘hums.

    Is there that owre his French ragout
    Or olio that wad staw a sow,
    Or fricassee wad mak her spew
    Wi’ perfect sconner,
    Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view
    On sic a dinner?

    Poor devil! see him ower his trash,
    As feckless as a wither’d rash,
    His spindle shank, a guid whip-lash,
    His nieve a nit;
    Thro’ bloody flood or field to dash,
    O how unfit!

    But mark the Rustic, haggis fed,
    The trembling earth resounds his tread.
    Clap in his walie nieve a blade,
    He’ll mak it whissle;
    An’ legs an’ arms, an’ heads will sned,
    Like taps o’ thrissle.

    Ye Pow’rs wha mak mankind your care,
    And dish them out their bill o’ fare,
    Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
    That jaups in luggies;
    But, if ye wish her gratefu’ prayer,
    Gie her a haggis!

  38. Just skimming the report, I find virtually zero data, however there is money-quote after money-quote throughout.

  39. davidmhoffer (13:36:40)

    but when a supposed organisation who is “responsible” for saving the planet, they have to be held to much higher standards. They are the ones who have to be beyond reproach, because their actions affected all of us on this planet. so they have to be whiter than white. But obviously they arent, die to the lies they have used.

    just because it was not peer reviewed doesn’t mean its wrong, just because theres no proof of the flying spaghetti monster doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

  40. RichieP (12:51:14) :

    And given that it’s Burns Night tonight, and our PM’s a Scotsman (that’s the one who called climate sceptics “flat earthers”), this line from the poet might be appropriate for him, Pachauri, Gore and many, many others:

    The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
    Gang aft agley,

    “There is no such uncertainty as a sure thing. “

  41. De jour-gate ????????

    “De jour” refers to daylight. “Belle de jour” (title of Luis Buñuel’s 1967 film with Catherine Deneuve) contrasts with “Belle de nuit” (beauty of the night).
    You mean “scandal of the day”, which in French is “scandale du jour”.
    However, even “du jour-gate” is an awful, contrived, uninformative heading! Why not call a spade a spade, a blunder a blunder, and a scandal a scandal?

  42. It appears that the 40% figure references this passage in the WWF/IUCN report:

    “Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.”

    This passage references a peer-reviewed article in Nature:

    46 D. C. Nepstad, A. Veríssimo, A. Alencar, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. Schlesinger, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, V. Brooks, Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, 1999, Vo l 398, 8 April, pp505

    Unfortunately I don’t have access to the full article but to call this reference “a complete load of porkies” seems a bit unjustified, unless it can be shown that Rowell and Moore completely misrepresent the Nature article (which of course *is* written by Amazonian specialists).

  43. “DBates (13:26:43) :
    The WWF should be forced to give their acronym back to the World Wresting Federation.”

    Well said, DBates, you are indeed a Master DBater. And while they’re at it the IPCC should be gentleman and do the same for the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Perhaps theft needs to be added to the list of crimes?

  44. Pew Research puts “dealing with global warming” dead last on their list of “public priorities” in the US. They even have a separate section of the report, “Global Warming and the Environment,” where they give this oh-so-well-reasoned explanation:

    Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

    Apparently being “indifferent,” synonymous with “callous” and “uncaring,” is indistinguishable from not wanting to “deal with global warming” because you simply do not accept CAGW or even AGW and/or don’t accept there are any consequences that need to be immediately dealt with. Oh well, at least they didn’t blame it on a high percentage of Republican “skeptics” or “deniers.”

    Down in the “Partisan Gaps over Priorities” table, “Protecting the environment” is running three times higher among Republicans, so we can see that is being differentiated from “Dealing with global warming.” The split is 43 to 60% among Democrats, and 25 to 38 with independents, so apparently some in those groups are making a distinction as well.

  45. RichieP (12:51:14) :
    “And given that it’s Burns Night tonight, and our PM’s a Scotsman (that’s the one who called climate sceptics “flat earthers”), this line from the poet might be appropriate for him, Pachauri, Gore and many, many others:

    The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
    Gang aft agley,”

    Nice one Richie!

    Here’s another apt Scottish saying which is apt regarding CAGW – It’s all fur coat and no knickers.

  46. @Speechless in Seattle (14:11:37) :

    De jour-gate ????????

    “De jour” refers to daylight. “Belle de jour” (title of Luis Buñuel’s 1967 film with Catherine Deneuve) contrasts with “Belle de nuit” (beauty of the night).
    You mean “scandal of the day”, which in French is “scandale du jour”.
    However, even “du jour-gate” is an awful, contrived, uninformative heading! Why not call a spade a spade, a blunder a blunder, and a scandal a scandal?
    ============

    GSOH, Speechless?

  47. James F. Evans (13:15:43) :
    Follow the money…it will lead you to “their” motives everytime…

    And the trail always leads back to one person, Maurice Strong. His motives about one world government and massive transfers of wealth and power from the west through the UN and various NGO’s to the victims of greedy capitalists are well documented.

  48. Speechless in Seattle (14:11:37) :
    De jour-gate ????????
    “De jour” refers to daylight.

    Webster’s:
    Main Entry: du jour
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: French, literally, of the day
    Date: 1786
    1 : made for a particular day —used of an item not specified on the regular menu
    2 : popular, fashionable, or prominent at a particular time

  49. Do you know what is really sad? Even if this stuff was peer-reviewed it would be bogus. You can not trust the peer-review system when it comes to “climate research”.

  50. “just because it was not peer reviewed does’t mean its wrong…”

    Given the climate scientists’ habit of either hiding behind “peer review” , or dismissing non peer reviewed papers out of hand , that is one of the most hypocritical statements I’ve seen here .

  51. @RichieP “To a louse” is perhaps more appropriate when discussing the IPCC:

    On Seeing One on a Lady’s Bonnet at Church

    Ha! whare ye gaun’ ye crowlin ferlie?
    Your impudence protects you sairly;
    I canna say but ye strunt rarely
    Owre gauze and lace,
    Tho faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
    On sic a place.

    Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
    Detested, shunn’d by saunt an sinner,
    How daur ye set your fit upon her–
    Sae fine a lady!
    Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
    On some poor body.

    Swith! in some beggar’s hauffet squattle;
    There ye may creep, and sprawl, and sprattle;
    Wi’ ither kindred, jumping cattle;
    In shoals and nations;
    Whare horn nor bane ne’er daur unsettle
    Your thick plantations.

    Now haud you there! ye’re out o’ sight,
    Below the fatt’rils, snug an tight,
    Na, faith ye yet! ye’ll no be right,
    Till ye’ve got on it–
    The vera tapmost, tow’rin height
    O’ Miss’s bonnet.

    My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose out,
    As plump an grey as onie grozet:
    O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
    Or fell, red smeddum,
    I’d gie you sic a hearty dose o’t,
    Wad dress your droddum!

    I wad na been surpris’d to spy
    You on an auld wife’s flainen toy
    Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,
    On’s wyliecoat;
    But Miss’s fine Lunardi! fye!
    How daur ye do’t?

    O Jeany, dinna toss your head,
    An set your beauties a’ abread!
    Ye little ken what cursed speed
    The blastie’s makin!
    Thae winks an finger-ends, I dread,
    Are notice takin!

    O wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as ithers see us!
    It wad frae monie a blunder free us
    An foolish notion:
    What airs in dress an gait wad lea’es us,
    An ev’n devotion!

  52. Lay the proud usurpers low!
    Tyrants fall in every foe!
    Liberty’s in every blow!
    Let us do – or die!
    Robert Burns

  53. Tenuc (14:26:28) :

    Here’s another apt Scottish saying which is apt regarding CAGW – It’s all fur coat and no knickers.

    Long fur coat. No knickers. Maybe with high heels and a smile? Is that the impression I’m supposed to get from that saying? :)

    @ ShrNfr (13:46:11) :
    Shall we compare this to the current US President?

    Notice how he is well-known for his thoughtful gaze, the way he stares off into the distance while contemplating weighty affairs of state…

  54. I suspected all along that the even greater fraud was in the reported consequences of AGW. At the end of the day we will learn global warming does more good than harm.

  55. Stephen Brown (13:51:59) :
    I have enjoyed my haggis tonight and a wee dram of Grants Whisky. Two!!
    But then again I live: “wham ne’er a town surpasses
    For honest men and bonie lasses.”

    Burns also wrote “Such A Parcel Of Rogues In A Nation”.
    Very apt, very apt. Oh he had the one spot on. Yet he had never heard of global warming.

    For everyone in the colonies, Burns also wrote ……

    http://www.timegun.org/alamo.html

    Yes all you Gringos out there; check it out and have a wee dram and toast the man. (If you can get a live haggis then good and well!!)

    Funny how a wee song has so much history. Important history for two nations.

    Tam O’Shanter, Kirkoswald, Ayrshire, Scotland.

    PS
    I’m aff I have tae ride hame the night and the weather/climate does nae look too gud. I’ll gee the Church a miss, last time was a bit of a .. tail or tale?

  56. @Icarus (14:19:23) :

    The expression “a complete load of porkies” for what ended up in the IPCC AR4 WG-II Chapter 13, seems a bit justified indeed. In fact, there are two problems with your reasoning.

    First of all it should not be up to the reader to dig down in the IPCC references until anything peer-reviewed is finally found. If Nepstad et al 1999 were the primary source for the “Up to 40%” claim, that article should have been used, stated and referenced as such, no matter what Rowell and Moore understood of it.

    Secondly, the IPCC AR4 WG-II Chapter 13 makes no mention of Nepstad et al 1999. As far as I can see, the Nepstad et al 1999 article is only used in AR4 in the IPCC AR4 WG-II Chapter 4:

    (1) p228 Recently observed moderate climatic changes have induced forest productivity gains globally (reviewed in Boisvenue and Running, 2006) and possibly enhanced carbon sequestration, especially in tropical forests (Baker et al., 2004; Lewis et al., 2004a, 2004b; Malhi and Phillips, 2004; Phillips et al., 2004), where these are not reduced by water limitations (e.g., Boisvenue and Running, 2006) or offset by deforestation or novel fire regimes (Nepstad et al., 1999, 2004; Alencar et al., 2006) or by hotter and drier summers at mid- and high latitudes (Angert et al., 2005)

    (2) p229 in some tropical and sub-tropical regions, notably South-East Asia and similarly the Amazon (e.g., Nepstad et al., 1999), deforestation rates are still high

    You may note that in both cases Nepstad et al 1999 is used to mention deforestation (something one might expect out of an article titled Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire).

    The abstract of that article is particularly terse on Nature.com: Amazonian deforestation rates are used to determine human effects on the global carbon cycle and to measure Brazil’s progress in curbing forest impoverishment,,. But this widely used measure of tropical land use tells only part of the story..

    For some reason, there is a longer version on Mendeley.com:

    Amazonian deforestation rates are used to determine human effects on the global carbon cycle(1-3) and to measure Brazil’s progress in curbing forest impoverishment(1,4,5). But this widely used measure of tropical land use tells only part of the story. Here we present field surveys of wood mills and forest burning across Brazilian Amazonia which show that logging crews severely damage 10,000 to 15,000 km(2) yr(-1) of forest that are not included in deforestation mapping programmes. Moreover, we find that surface fires burn additional large areas of standing forest, the destruction of which is normally not documented. Forest impoverishment due to such fires may increase dramatically when severe droughts provoke forest leaf-shedding and greater flammability; our regional water-balance model indicates that an estimated 270,000 km(2) of forest became vulnerable to fire in the 1998 dry season. Overall, we find that present estimates of annual deforestation for Brazilian Amazonia capture less than half of the forest area that is impoverished each year, and even less during; years of severe drought. Both logging and fire increase forest vulnerability to future burning(6,7) and release forest carbon stocks to the atmosphere, potentially doubling net carbon emissions from regional land-use during severe El Nino episodes. If this forest impoverishment is to be controlled, then logging activities need to be restricted or replaced with low-impact timber harvest techniques, and more effective strategies to prevent accidental forest fires need to be implemented.

    It is hard not to notice that Nepstad et al 1999 were concerned about deforestation and fires possibly exarcebated by severe droughts, whilst Rowell and Moore, and the IPCC authors and reviewers, completely turned the cards around, pushing hard on the climatic side first. That is not the first time I have seen “Chinese whispers” at play in the IPCC AR4

  57. The whole issue of the credibility of the science advocating AGW reminds me of the Monty Python sketch.

    What have the advocates ever got wrong?
    Well there’s the Hockey stick graph.

    OK apart from the Hockey Stick graph, what have the advocates ever got wrong?
    Well there’s the prediction of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

    OK apart from the Hockey Stick graph and the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers what have the advocates ever got wrong?

    Of course there’s the prediction that summer Arctic sea ice will disappear by 2017…

    After a considerable time…

    OK, so apart from the Hockey stick graph, the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers, the melting of summer Arctic sea ice, the lack of hurricane activity, the erroneous relationship between malaria and global warming, the resilience of corals, the obstinacy of Tuvalu and the Maldives to disappear to the sea, the manipulation of instrumental temperature data… (Gasp for breath!) What have the advocates ever got wrong???

    Well they didn’t predict the lack of warming over the last ten years!

  58. I have done considerable research on the ice age climate. It was dry almost everywhere because with colder temperatures there is less evaporation. The Amazon shrank some and became somewhat fragmented. Europe was mostly deforested even where there was no ice. etc. The lie that warmer = drier comes from the climate models of the 1980s to early 1990s which could not simulate rain, and thus people simulated temperature but kept rainfall constant in their assessments, leading to silly claims like the SE USA would turn into tropical savanna. Now the models simulate the hydrologic cycle and agree on MORE rainfall in the future, not less. The claims about drought are in the face of these model results (though of course following any change not all areas will respond the same and local drought is possible).

  59. “just because it was not peer reviewed does’t mean its wrong…”

    Given the climate scientists’ habit of either hiding behind “peer review” , or dismissing non peer reviewed papers out of hand , that is one of the most hypocritical statements I’ve seen here

    I wasn’t stating it, nor agreeing with it, I was trying to illustrate the attitude on the “other side”. Don’t know if this is fair ball or not but here is a sampling from the first 30 posts (out of 600+) at realclimate on glaciergate. All I am getting at is that the evidence the sceptics see as damning just washes off the alarmists:

    >
    Unfortunately AGW true statements are weighed in a handsfull of goose down and never remembered. AGW stumbles are measured in shovel loads of lead and never forgotten.
    >
    The glaciers are retreating and we need to be prepared to deal with the consequences. There are many uncertainties as to when the glaciers will be entirely gone
    >
    Jimbo’s link (his 4th) on the Science news story, which is identical to the recent tempest in a teapot about the Himalayan glaciers
    >
    At a time when governments are baulking at taking tough measures to combat climate change, this new blow to the credibility of the IPCC could not have come at a worse time.”
    >
    I think its a pity that, when it comes to climate change, what is clearly a mistake (the 2035 date is pretty absurd when you think about it), gets reported as if something deliberately nefarious is afoot
    >

  60. The real danger to the rainforests is from razing to build palm oil plantations. At present the need for palm oil to make biofuel is reducing the forests in Sumatra, Indonesia and Brazil by an England sized piece each year in each of the three places. Another Green masterpiece. Not only are 10 to 20 Million people a year starving to death because of higher food prices because food is used for biofuel, it is causing deforestation also.

  61. Ron de Haan (13:49:24) :

    And now…ObamaGate:

    http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/25/obama-stopping-vital-power-plants-in-developing-countries/

    That has been going on even before Obama, of course, he’s fitting right in with the other ostriches of the world. Haiti is an example of this tragic irony. People in that country actually died in food riots. ie. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7331921.stm Why? Because the UN doesn’t wish 3rd world nations to develop. In other words, we’re killing people to save us. Nice. Weird how the world couldn’t have cared less when they were starving to death from lack of capital development, but apparently, when an earthquake is the causation of starvation, it is incumbent upon the world to show we care.

  62. For everyone’s reference, one of the “mysteries” of the Amazon is that over the past 20 or so years, the net primary productivity (plant growth) has gone up in spite of warming (averaged over the basin), and even in dry periods. It seems when there is too much rain, it is too cloudy for maximum photosynthesis. No impact yet!

  63. Ron de Haan (13:49:24) :

    And now…ObamaGate:

    http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/25/obama-stopping-vital-power-plants-in-developing-countries/

    Sorry, that name is currently “reserved” as it’s expected to be used for something larger within a few years.

    One major thing to consider with that article, the US puts up a lot of World Bank money. We are somewhat short of money. So “requesting” the World Bank to stop financing coal plants has the effect of the US putting up less money based on a “noble” cause.

    I did find it interesting that apparently this has lead to the killing off of a coal-fired electric plant in Pakistan. Given the situation over there, do we really want to give Pakistan more reasons to invest in nuclear plants?

  64. It’s worse than we thought — IPCC really is a front for the WWF and other environmental activist groups, with IPCC’s periodic reports padded with their advocacy pieces.

  65. Does the IPCC report any truth? It appears not. So, why isn’t being investigated for fraud? If all that appears to be correct about the IPCC telling porkies is in fact true then it should be a walk in the park to prove the IPCC and it’s chairman is committing fraud on a grand scale.

  66. David S (13:21:55) :
    Steve Goddard (13:35:45) :

    It would do us all well to remember this report –
    The UN climate change numbers hoax
    By Tom Harris and John McLean
    Monday, 30 June 2008 Online Opinion http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553

    It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

    But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

    Like the three IPCC “assessment reports” before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups.

    [you posted the link, don't post the whole article ~ ctm]

    The UN is the most politically corrupt institution we humans have ever created, which generates these questions in my mind;
    1. What else should we have expected?
    2. Do we really think they are going to suddenly own-up to their cooked-up ideology?
    3. Isn’t this what us “dumb”, “deniers” have been saying all along?
    4. Isn’t it time we have a real, hard look at our support for this dishonest organization?
    5. Why shouldn’t we sue them (in the World Court) for all the damage that we can prove they have done with their lies?
    6. And most importantly – Why do liberals (here in the US) and the main stream media, who claim to be intellectual geniuses, so blindly believe in (and prop up) everything this fraudulent body excretes?
    7. Oh, and don’t you think Al Gore and his great friend Dr. Hansen at NASA knew this?

    Hey, i’m just asking…

  67. Steve Goddard (15:30:23) : edit

    “Only 83 months 30 minutes and 12 seconds left until global warming kills the planet.

    http://onehundredmonths.org/

    Thanks, Steve, this is a perfect example of the chiliastic millenialistic disasturbationism running rife through the Church of Global Warming.

    I seem to recall that the left used to attack Bush’s evangelical streak since so many of the evantelicals preach of the end of days and look forward to bringing about armageddon, and avoiding government takeover by the ‘anti-christ’ (SSN, RFID, etc all being the “mark of the beast”). Here we have the same exact doomsday scaremongering being perpetrated by people who claim to be rational.

    The END is NEAR. REPENT!

  68. Oy vey. At this point, the only onrushingly imminent “tipping point” in sight is the complete discrediting of the IPCC process.

  69. LOL… stop tickelling me!

    Guardian: Oliver Tickell: Don’t let the carbon market dieThe Copenhagen climate change conference achieved too little, but a modest global carbon tax would make amends
    Some people have good reason to be shocked that banks have pulled out of the carbon market, not least recent economics graduates whose dissertations on carbon finance now qualify them only for unemployment. And JP Morgan, which paid a jaw-splitting $204m for carbon trader Ecosecurities last September, must be feeling a little sore. Perhaps it relied on the GHG Emissions Credit Trading report (yours for a mere $397), which predicts a $4.5 trillion carbon market by 2020.
    No less chagrined must be Gordon Brown, who sees the carbon market as key to the global response to climate change, and to the economic fortunes of the City of London…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jan/25/carbon-market-copenhagen-climate

  70. Tips! What about ocean acidifications. I’m sure propaganda pamphlets from WWF and Greenpeace about the imminent extinction of fish life caused by CO2 has got into IPCC reports as well.

  71. The “40 percent” statement can be found on page 15 of the Global Review of Forest Fires report (Rowell and Moore, 2000) which was based on a Nature article called Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire (Nepstad et al, 1999). It’s remarkably similar to the statement found in AR4 but with a few crucial differences. The statements need to be restated and compared to understand what’s happening.

    AR4:

    “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).”[1]

    RM00:

    “Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.”[2]

    The first problem is that AR4 has changed “Brazilian forest” to “Amazonian forests” so that the 40% figure is no longer valid since the Amazonian forests are (as a whole) much larger in extent than the Brazilian forest. However, this probably doesn’t matter since it appears that the 40% figure is incorrect regardless of context.

    To understand why, we need to know the total area of the Brazilian forest in square kilometers (km2) so that we can calculate the percentage of vulnerable forest based on the claimed 270k km2. Wikipedia conveniently references a WWF source for this information and puts the total Amazonian rain forest area at 5.5 million km2[3]. There is no area given that is strictly limited to the Brazilian portion of the rain forest but it can be easily approximated by subtracting about 1.5m km2 from the total area, leaving about 4m km2[4]. Clearly 270k km2 of 4m km2 is only about 8% of the total area, not 40%.

    Maybe we’re missing something. Let’s dig deeper and look at the original Nature article which states:

    “Moreover, we find that surface fires burn additional large areas of standing forest, the destruction of which is normally not documented. Forest impoverishment due to such fires may increase dramatically when severe droughts provoke forest leaf-shedding and greater flammability; our regional water-balance model indicates that an estimated 270,000km2 of forest became vulnerable to fire in the 1998 dry season. Overall, we find that present estimates of annual deforestation for Brazilian Amazonia capture less than half of the forest area that is impoverished each year, and even less during years of severe drought.”[5]

    This doesn’t really help. In fact it makes things even more confusing. Did RM00 arrive at the 8% figure and then double it, assuming it was “less than half” of the total land area based on the claim that “present estimates of annual deforestation for Brazilian Amazonia capture less than half of the forest area”? If that is how they interpreted it then they were wrong because the “less than half” claim only pertains to deforestation estimates while the 270k km2 figure is strictly a fire vulnerability estimate. These are two distinct statistics. So it’s not really clear how we got to 40%.

    1. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter13.pdf
    2. http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000-047.pdf
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amazon_rainforest.jpg **(see note below)
    5. http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs23/lecture12/Fire_nature.pdf

    **The non-Brazilian portion of the Amazon Rainforest is clearly about 1/4 to 1/5 of the total land area based on the map which is how I arrived at 1.5 million km2.

  72. Carbon trading: A worldwide shell game?
    In the February issue of Harper’s (subscription required), Schapiro points out the many shortfalls of the system. ..
    “There is serious potential for conflicts of interest,” Schapiro writes. “It is not uncommon for validators and verifiers to cross over to the far more lucrative business of developing carbon projects themselves – and then requesting audits from their former colleagues.”
    Once credits are awarded, there’s no system for recalling them if the originating projects fail to live up to expectations.
    Recognizing the problem, the United Nations, which grants credits, has stepped up oversight. Staffing at the U.N. Clean Development Mechanism, the division overseeing the credits, has risen from 20 people in 2005 to nearly 100.
    If the U.S. joins in, cap-and-trade could explode to a $3 trillion market…
    Yet Schapiro describes it as an “elaborate shell game, a disappearing act that nicely serves the immediate interests of the world’s governments, but fails to meet the challenges of our looming environmental crisis.” (DUH!)

    http://news.muckety.com/2010/01/24/carbon-trading-a-worldwide-shell-game/23991

    desperation time…

  73. so… is there any claim left on the IPCC AR4 that is supported by any scientific evidence that climate change is going to be “the end of the world”, or at least that we should be concerned about ?
    Just wondering…

  74. mikelorrey (15:44:41) :—-“The END is NEAR. REPENT!”

    Of course, the difference is, when Christians say “The end is near.”, they understand it’s faith based. Further, we’re speaking of a different realm. Moreover, we don’t ask that the world suffer pain and starvation to get to heaven. PS—Armageddon doesn’t occur until after the rapture.

    • James.Sexton,
      “Of course, the difference is, when Christians say “The end is near.”, they understand it’s faith based. Further, we’re speaking of a different realm. Moreover, we don’t ask that the world suffer pain and starvation to get to heaven. PS—Armageddon doesn’t occur until after the rapture.”

      The multiple levels of irony in your statement have had me grinning for two hours. Fundamentalists of any stripe are convinced their faith is fact. They also condemn the majority of humanity (other than the chosen ones of course) to suffer pain and suffering. The Rapture wrt AGW is of course the sweet by and by of billions of dollars in “carbon debt” reparations, carbon trading profits, and “green” jobs for the true believers and those suffering victims of capitalism.

  75. Spiegel puts up the headline:

    “Save the Panel on Climate Change!”

    The headline here is:

    >>> Down with/destroy the corrupt/fraudulent UN/IPCC.

    The following plead the case:

    “Richard Tol is a research professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Roger Pielke Jr. is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and Hans von Storch is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht and and a climate researcher at the Institute of Meteorology at the University of Hamburg.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,673944,00.html

    “Y2Kyoto: Sponsored In Part By The World Wildlife Fund

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

  76. Continental regions are nothing if not resilient. Amazonian ecosystems have undoubtedly evolved to deal with anomalously long-lasting, widespread “stresses” of various natures– drought, fire and flood, volcanic-induced ash and cooling episodes, you name it. Given 1.8-million years of cyclical Pleistocene glaciations interspersed with median 12,250-year warming periods (our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch is overdue to end), the Amazon Basin is self-evidently a survivor. In this respect, Pachauri’s IPCC emits more Greenhouse Gas than all Brazil together.

    We sense that, like H.G. Wells’ Martian invaders, “intellects vast, cool, and unsympathetic” are scrutinizing Climate Cultists’ Green Gang excrescences line-by-line, discovering pervasive misrepresentation and fraud at every turn. World Wildlife Fund, indeed! What, cite valid scientific authorities that detract from Chicken Little’s standard rant? Next up: Warmists’ long-standing claims that species are going globally extinct at whatever hogwash rate they fabricate, when 500-year historical records in fact show none at all, with 2 – 3 exceptions due to unique circumstance.

    Nothing bruited by Pachauri, by peculating academics such as Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenbert et al. no longer has any slightest credibility. Agenda-driven politicians exploiting these ideologues’ grotesque fantasies are kindergarten bullies without a grain of integrity or even common sense.

  77. davidmhoffer (15:22:32) – I apologize if I misread your statement . However , this site is devoted to debating AGW “truths”. If you had been around here long enough , you would understand the frustration that many of the posters and commenters feel after suffering a rebuff at the hands of AGWers who dismiss all non-peer reviewed work . That an IPCC report , upon which (for example) the EPA relies for an endangerment finding turns out to be ridden with speculation from dubious sources , then it’s time to shovel lead .

  78. I wouldn’t be surprised if piranhas (and anacondas) are rapidly becoming extinct because of climate change. The author should strap on a couple of pork chops and swim through piranha-infested waters just to prove my point.

    I doubt if they’d even get a scratch. Prove me right guys.

  79. O/T but a very interesting listen : The BBC’s Ethical Man Justin Rowlatt asks if the environmental movement is bad for the planet. He explores the philosophical roots of a way of thinking that developed decades before global warming was an issue. And he examines some of the ideological baggage that environmentalists have brought to the climate change debate – from anti-consumerism and anti-Capitalism to a suspicion about technology and a preference for natural solutions. Could these extraneous aspects of green politics be undermining the environmental cause and are some environmentalists being distracted from the urgent task of stopping global warming by a more radical agenda for social change?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00q3cnl/Analysis_Are_environmentalists_bad_for_the_planet/

    Even the ethical man from the BBC is putting his head above the parapet.

  80. Craig Loehle (15:26:14), thanks for your two posts on Ice Age forests and the contemporary Amazon rain forest. Do you have a couple of references handy?

  81. Eve,

    You’ve Overestimated Deforestation in Brazil by about 1,000%.

    http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

    And, whatever deforestation that’s occurring in Brazil at present isn’t related to Oil Crops. Soybean Acres have declined in Brazil since 2003.

    Oh, and do you have the names of a couple of those 20,000,000 people that have died because of biofuels? It seems kind of strange, since most biofuels are made from corn, and corn is down to a little over $0.06 pound, today.

  82. JonesII (13:36:09) :

    I wonder if their real interest is the fact that under those trees flourish thousands of cocaine laboratories, their favourite drug they inhale to get the inspiration for new end of the world phantasies or to concoct new scientific “peer reviewed” papers.

    Ayahuasca explains it better.

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

  83. I need to make a couple of corrections to my previous comment. First the number should have been 7 percent, not 8 percent. Second, the actual source of the RM00 claim was located further down in the Nature paper:

    “ENSO-related drought can desiccate large areas of Amazonian forest, creating the potential for large-scale forest fires. Because of the severe drought of 1997 and 1998, we calculate that approximately 270,000 km2 of Amazonian forest had completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil by the end of the 1998 dry season. In addition, 360,000 km2 of forest had less than 250mm of plant-available soil water left by this time (Fig. 1b).”

    However, even with these corrections, we’re still no closer to learning where the 40 percent number came from. The only possible way to reach 40 percent is to make a bunch of calculations based on assumptions that falsely interpret the claims I outlined in my previous comment. For example:

    1. Take 270,000 km2 (correct)
    2. Add 360,000 km2 (incorrect, does not meet the definition of fire-sensitive forest and should not be included in our estimate)
    3. Find the percentage for 630,000 km2 of 4m km2 = 16 percent
    4. Incorrectly interpret “present estimates of annual deforestation for Brazilian Amazonia capture less than half of the forest area” as being applicable to our water-depleted fire vulnerability statistic. This incorrect interpretation would allow us to double the percentage to get 32 percent.
    5. Finally, incorrectly scale it up to 40 percent to adjust for the El Nino drought year and the caveat that our estimate is “even less [than half] during years of severe drought”. (in other words the initial doubling should be somewhat more than doubled during drought years).

    Maybe someone else has a better explanation.

  84. Icarus (14:19:23) :

    It appears that the 40% figure references this passage in the WWF/IUCN report:

    “Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.”

    And the connection with global warming is?

  85. Obama, Kerry, Boxer and Lisa Jackson are still AGW supporters. They will collectively attempt to kill the U.S. economy based on the “science” of Hansen, Phil Jones, Mann, Briffa and the manipulated data from CRU and GISS. Pachauri has not resigned. The IPCC has not been discredited except here and in the press. The APS still has their AGW agenda. The MSM has hardly noticed climategate barely noticing glaciergate. Which brings up the point that there is much work to be done.

  86. This just keeps getting better and better. This is something like Robert Ludlum. Tom Clancy or Clive Cussler would write. You have a conspiracy to convince the world Global Warming is a threat to mankind. Then you have an international meeting with 193 nations to sign an agreement to transfer wealth to the third world and to profit from the sale of carbon credits. These same people just happen to have an interest in companies that sell carbon credits. No conflict of interest here…ha ha ha ha . That is step 1. Step 2 is to define how everyone will live as agreed to in UN Agenda 21. The only thing we need for this story is a hero and a pretty women.

  87. Daniel H (16:03:30) :

    Fire is an essential ingredient in the health of many types of forest in North America. Some will not reproduce without fire.

    Are there any papers that might suggest that fire is an essential ingredient in at least parts of he Amazon?

  88. The glaciers are retreating and we need to be prepared to deal with the consequences. There are many uncertainties as to when the glaciers will be entirely gone

    It is a tragedy of epic proportions. Just 20,000 years ago Chicago was covered with a mile of ice. One of the current consequences of the loss of glaciers in the Chicago area is the heat during the summer. Kids turn on fire hydrants to keep cool because the ice is gone. And there is no doubt what so ever that the fauna and flora currently extant there are invasive species that would not have been viable if the area was covered with ice year around.

    And the Great Lakes? Basins scoured by the glaciers.

  89. IIRC, James Delingpole was the first person that used the term “climategate” in public on 21 November. Is this right?

    REPLY: No our commenter “bulldust” coined the term here on WUWT, and Delingpole picked it up. – Anthony

  90. OT about the book Climategate: The Crutape Letters by Mosher and Fuller (2010) which arrived in the mail today – much sooner than indicated during the ordering process.
    Between the lines below is the post that presented the new book and my comment after ordering it. As you can see I did not enjoy the process of ordering the book. BUT, it came sooner than stated and I especially like the spaghetti graph on the cover with the barbed wire and the major cracks in the underlain foundation. I’ve only looked at it and read 5 pages and still suggest you order yours today. Thanks Steven and Thomas.
    ———————————————————–http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/16/history-in-a-hurry-the-first-book-about-climategate-is-published/#comment-291771

    John F. Hultquist (09:13:10) :
    I went to the link to buy the book. What a pain! It only took me about 20 minutes to get through this mess. I think you are going to miss a few sales to grumpy old men with this round-about ‘createspace’ web page, and now I’ve got a new on-line account with someplace I really don’t need one, never heard of before, won’t get the book for 3 weeks, if and when I do get it.

    Your salvation is that I wanted to support the authors.
    ———————————————————–

  91. davidmhoffer (15:22:32) :

    All I am getting at is that the evidence the sceptics see as damning just washes off the alarmists:

    It’ll take lots of arrows to kill this elephant. A dozen more should do it. Keep ‘em coming!

  92. P Walker (16:37:47) :
    davidmhoffer (15:22:32) – I apologize if I misread your statement . However , this site is devoted to debating AGW “truths”. If you had been around here long enough , you would understand the frustration

    Haven’t been around the site that long, but certainly understand the frustration. You don’t have to read blogs to become angry. You only have to have kids who come home from school spouting nonsense. That said, I read the warmist blogs from time to time and a lot of them remind me of two erstwhile young men who knocked on my door some time ago to introduce themselves and their local house of worship. During our discourse they attempted to convince me to join by quoting from their official reference text. It may well have been peer reviewed for all I know, but being familiar with the text itself I was compelled to point out to them that their reference was quite fictional. As they became offended at this, and I had a copy of said text on hand, I provided it to them and asked then to produce the evidence to which they had reffered and if they did, I would apologize. They not being able to find the text, as it was one of those things commonly accepted but not actually true, I was surprised that they not only became angry, but turned their animosity on me. Apparently their misunderstanding of their official text was my fault and I was interfering with their belief system. The words “evil” and “blasphemer” having been bandied about, I summoned aforementioned children who had conveniently grown beyond the 6 foot 200 lb target set for them, and had said erstwhile gentlemen escorted firmly to the property line.

    I fully understand your frustration, just advise you be prepared to continue to be frustrated as insults and scorn are hurled your way in face of facts.

  93. TerryBixler (17:18:20) :

    Obama, Kerry, Boxer and Lisa Jackson are still AGW supporters. They will collectively attempt to kill the U.S. economy based on the “science” of Hansen, Phil Jones, Mann, Briffa and the manipulated data from CRU and GISS. Pachauri has not resigned. The IPCC has not been discredited except here and in the press. The APS still has their AGW agenda. The MSM has hardly noticed climategate barely noticing glaciergate. Which brings up the point that there is much work to be done.

    It took a little over two years to bring Nixon down following discovery of the burglary. Early days yet. (only 2 months since 19 Nov 2009).

  94. Didn’t we just have a long combox about the black soils in the Amazon, and the many evidences that it is a result of silvaculture and not a natural jungle?

  95. re Revkin and station data. Go for it… this gives one more opening for the ultimate destruction of AGW after AW and Co review Menee et al. Probasbly will end being a major post here LOL!

  96. part of the problem with using documents on the internet is they are hard to find after the fact… I tried going to the reference and got a link error… Anyone know where the full article is?

  97. mikelorrey (12:49:34) :

    “These two are evidently among the top of the alleged 2500 “peer reviewed” scientists endorsing the IPCC AR4″

    Mike, I think you’ve got it! The 2500 “peer reviewed” scientists endorsing the IPCC is from the WWF membership list.

  98. TerryBixler (17:18:20) :

    Obama, Kerry, Boxer and Lisa Jackson are still AGW supporters. They will collectively attempt to kill the U.S. economy based on the “science” of Hansen, Phil Jones, Mann, Briffa and the manipulated data from CRU and GISS. Pachauri has not resigned. The IPCC has not been discredited except here and in the press. The APS still has their AGW agenda. The MSM has hardly noticed climategate barely noticing glaciergate. Which brings up the point that there is much work to be done.

    Right. They’re all getting, or about to get, their 15 minutes of shame, but will that be enough to create a real tipping point in the general public’s understanding of AGW’s true threat? That is, gutting our economy and sending Western civilization back to the Middle Ages, but without all that Catholic-y repression to spoil the fun. Well, at least the future is supposed to just as warm. Small comfort that.

  99. @M. Simon:

    “Are there any papers that might suggest that fire is an essential ingredient in at least parts of he Amazon?”

    The only papers I’ve seen relating to your question are generally about preventing anthropogenic fires in the Amazon. One recent paper claims that “High moisture contents and dense canopies have historically made Amazonian forests extremely resistant to fire spread.” This implies that natural forest fires are an uncommon occurrence in the Amazonian rain forest.

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121498506/abstract

  100. This deserves repeating:

    Craig Loehle (15:19:04) :

    The lie that warmer = drier comes from the climate models of the 1980s to early 1990s which could not simulate rain, and thus people simulated temperature but kept rainfall constant in their assessments, leading to silly claims like the SE USA would turn into tropical savanna. Now the models simulate the hydrologic cycle and agree on MORE rainfall in the future, not less. The claims about drought are [fly] in the face of these model results.

  101. One thing is, if we ever get an IPCC AR5 it will HAVE to be 100% accurate. ANY mistakes whatsoever will be ripped apart and the whole report will be discredited.

    The IPCC has had a very easy ride so far with credulous uncritical believers, it appears those days are ended.

  102. FYI, From 2002

    GLOBAL WARMING NOT SINKING TUVALU –
    – BUT MAYBE ITS OWN PEOPLE ARE

    By Michael Field

    AUCKLAND, New Zealand
    (March 28, 2002 – Agence France-Presse)—International environmentalists might have it wrong — global warming is not drowning the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu beneath a rising Pacific.

    Its fate may be much more prosaic and all local: severe over-population, profound pollution and an unusual World War II legacy

    http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archived/2002/2002-03-30.htm

  103. Ron de Haan (17:10:34) :

    Bye Bye EPA’s CO2 Regulations?! Report: UN IPCC’s reliance on WWF may compromise EPA’s claim that IPCC peer review ‘meets the statutory standards required of EPA peer review’ (Climate Depot)

    Yep, they pushed the “Self Destruct” button.

  104. It’ll take lots of arrows to kill this elephant. A dozen more should do it. Keep ‘em coming

    Unfortunately it is a very large elephant, is charging ahead, and is subject to certain laws of physics as described by Newton:

    A belief system in motion will tend to stay in motion…

  105. Shifting the topic slightly, does anyone know whether or not the North West passage is now open?

    Being more serious, does anyone know what the extent of sea ice around the North Pole is after the recent cold spell around the Northern Hemisphere? I would love to know.

  106. omnologos (17:32:21) :

    The gist of the report is that bad thermometers almost exactly compensate for poor siting.

    How lucky can you get?

    And – surprise – the bad stations will need to be warmed a bit to correct for the residual error.

    But even if true that does not get to the heart of the matter. What we need to know is how homogenization affects the final result.

    As I understand the report raw data was not compared to raw data. And it will take a deeper look into the methods used to see if the results represent reality or data manipulation (valid or otherwise).

  107. The UN has taken advantage of a world that needs something to believe in, with AGW. I cannot believe that the IPCC would use WWF as a source for any information, afterall they are a lobby group albeit with a supposed aim of protecting the environment which we all want to and need to do. It would be like believing a report (even if it were peer reviewed) funded by the tobacco industry saying that smoking can benefit your health.

  108. M. Simon (17:48:38) :

    It took a little over two years to bring Nixon down following discovery of the burglary. Early days yet. (only 2 months since 19 Nov 2009).

    The difference is that, in the case of Nixon, the MSM was actively and passionately pursuing the Watergate story. The MSM tried hard to bury climategate and is now whitewashing glaciergate as a typographical error.

  109. davidmhoffer (18:16:29) :

    It’ll take lots of arrows to kill this elephant. A dozen more should do it. Keep ‘em coming

    Unfortunately it is a very large elephant, is charging ahead, and is subject to certain laws of physics as described by Newton:

    But it’s already hit a couple of unbudgable objects: The US public & the Chinese premier. It’s dead on its feet, as far as carbon-taxing goes, but more arrows are needed to knock it down.

    A belief system in motion will tend to stay in motion…

    Oh, sure, THAT part will go marching on, even if the world starts cooling.

  110. “tokyoboy (17:43:13) :
    IIRC, James Delingpole was the first person that used the term “climategate” in public on 21 November. Is this right?
    REPLY: No our commenter “bulldust” coined the term here on WUWT, and Delingpole picked it up. – Anthony”

    Thanks Anthony, I’ve found this in the First CRU Post on 19 November :

    Bulldust (15:52:36) :
    Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?

    So Delingpole was the first to use the term in a newspaper article.

  111. omnologos (17:32:21) :

    Let me add that the proper way to do a check is not statistically.

    You properly site a thermometer of known accuracy (high) and drift (small) as close as reasonably feasible (good siting) to the unit to be checked and watch it for a year. And compare results month vs month. Day vs day etc.

    You want to know if wind, rain, sunshine etc. bias the result.

    And I don’t get TOBS bias for a continuous reading thermometer. There shouldn’t be any. You jut pick the readings out of your recording that would match what ever TOBS was used in the prior record.

    Any way I may be off base but something doesn’t feel right and I can’t pin it down yet. Or it may just be I don’t trust people with a warmist bias.

    I’m going to check Climate Audit and see if they have started a discussion.

  112. TamOShanter (15:03:06) :
    “….If you can get a live haggis then good and well!!”

    I don’t know about the live haggis but I had a wee ewe lamb try to sneak in the back door again along with her friend the nanny goat. Does that count?

    Now that the rampaging hordes attention has been turned from the climategate e-mails and code to the IPCC report and the money trail, I expect we will continue to see this mare’snest unravel into the pack of half truths and lies it actually is. Hopefully all these revelations will keep the politicians from following a course of economic (and political) suicide.

  113. Continuing on with the rapture analogy, what follows is the tribulation period where all those that remain suffer a great deal before Christ returns. The problem with this analogy though is there is no “rapture” equivalent in the AGW scam. So, we will all suffer if the scam eventually takes hold and wins. Therefore, I suggest very sincerely that all efforts be made to expose these fraudsters in our law courts. Once one of them is put behind bars, the AGW scam will quickly die. Otherwise, all I can see is years and years of continual bickering by both sides, while the public getting more and more twisted and confused. Who knows, this could lead to a major war if we are not careful. So, we should kill the AGW scam ASAP.

  114. The difference is that, in the case of Nixon, the MSM was actively and passionately pursuing the Watergate story. The MSM tried hard to bury climategate and is now whitewashing glaciergate as a typographical error.

    Actually for Watergate the results were very sporadic for the first six months. Something would pop up. Nixon would deny it and it would go away for a while. Except for the WAPO no one was dogging the story. Then the frequency started to build and by the end of the first year it was almost every day.

    Times are different, but humans are the same. This will take a while.

    As always it will be the early denials that are the most dam*ing evidence.

  115. You guys are so funny!

    Pachauri has already weighed his options.

    These guys have built themselves a mountain of lies. You just pull down a few tiny rocks at the bottom and want the king of the hill to ‘resign’?

    Hilarious! :)

  116. davidmhoffer
    “It’ll take lots of arrows to kill this elephant. A dozen more should do it. Keep ‘em coming”

    It has more than once occurred to me that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is just as soluble in the oceans as is ‘natural’ CO2. The life of CO2 between its entry to the atmosphere and its dissolution in the surface of the oceans is about 5 years, acknowledged by the former IPCC chairman, Bert Bolin. The IPCC have modelled that atmospheric CO2 has a lifetime of 50-100 years [1].

    I am unaware of their rationale for the figure they use, but the whole thrust of the AGW argument rests on it. Looks a whole lot like an arrow to me.

    The problem with AGW is: der’s smoke cummin’ out da machine!

    [1] I. Plimer 2009. “Heaven+Earth: global warming, the missing science.” Connorcourt Publishing. p 422

  117. pat (15:57:47) :

    “LOL… stop tickelling me!
    Guardian: Oliver Tickell: Don’t let the carbon market dieThe Copenhagen climate change conference achieved too little, but a modest global carbon tax would make amends.”

    Here’s an’ther knee slapping reason to kick the dog:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/carbon-emissions-green-copenhagen-banks

    “The lie of it ye finally see
    Bankers, greens, the coterie
    Glisters gold the ominous eye
    Ye soul they seek before ye die”

  118. The link at the end to Delingpole’s blog points at his Telegraph article, not at his blog. His blog’s address is mentioned at the top of the Telegraph article.

  119. Bernie (13:00:19) :

    Bjorn Lomborg is looking better and better,

    >>>

    I agree, especially on the cost effective priorities list…

  120. It would seem that “denier,” “flat earther,” skeptic,” and “realist” are not quite appropriate terms for those of us whom are not believers.

    In light of the “evidence” being uncovered and the “proof” being provided to debunk the AGW canard, we skeptics should be addressed by the term:
    PROOFER. I am proud to be a PROOFER.

  121. Steve Goddard (13:35:45) :

    Curious that Gavin, Tamino, Romm and other IPCC insiders spend most of their life blogging, but never had enough time to tell us about the incredibly lousy job the IPCC was doing.

    >>>

    Exactly my point the other day. They have enough time to constantly attack, advertise and request money, but not enough to debate or fact check !

  122. The AGW boat does seem to be sinking, but no doubt they will interpret it as a rise in sea level!

  123. These days Tom P, Joel Shore and company are silent, as they were on the days just after the Climategate outbreak……..

  124. “The gist of the report is that bad thermometers almost exactly compensate for poor siting.”

    Mannn…. who knew that climate science was so lucky????

  125. D. King (18:16:16)
    Ron de Haan (17:10:34)

    That the WWF may itself be partly responsible for the rapid collapse of the AGW religion and the trashing of it’s IPCC bible is just too delicious. I am reminded of a scene in The Hunt for Red October for which I could only find the audio –
    http://www.moviesounds.com/redoct/arrogant.wav (coarse langauge)
    My thinking is that when the AGW movement repainted the Peer Review torpedo green, they painted over the label that reads “Aim away from face.”

  126. “just because it was not peer reviewed does’t mean its wrong…”

    Congratulations, my child, you have just passed pre-Kindergarten.

  127. Anticlimactic (19:29:03) :

    The AGW boat does seem to be sinking, but no doubt they will interpret it as a rise in sea level!

    Now that’s a zinger! O’ Lord, please let me remember it?

  128. Von Storch, Richard Tol, and Pielke says Pachauri shall be replaced, in order to save, and to change, IPCC.

    I wonder if one should support the railway engineer. Let Pachauri stay where he is. He hasn’t done anything wrong; anything not normal in IPCC climate science.

    The longer Pachauri can stay, the sooner… well, let’s say: somehing good may happen.

    ;)

  129. Boy, you know those emails didn’t really affect the science at all did they? Why did Jones want all the emails related to AR4 deleted so badly? Bet there is a smoking gun or twelve in there.

  130. I am afraid that if you want to draw analogies, you will find that AGW is less like an elephant and more like a giant demonic chicken. Cut its head off and it will continue to run around flapping its wings, drawing attention, and making a mess. Should it bump into an immovable object, it will simply change course and run off in another direction. And, as you argue with those who shout “see, its not dead!” at you, you will discover that it has grown another head. Remember when the UN dissolved their human rights body because it was completely staffed by human rights violators who exonerated themselves? Well it worked. They have a NEW human rights body with a brand new name staffed by human rights violators who have exonerated themselves.

    Way back there someone pointed out that Obama still believes in AGW. Well, despite evidence to the contrary, he believes that apologizing to people who hate us will stop them from plotting suicide attacks, that hitting the reset button with Russia will get them to support him in the UN, that Iran will stop building a nuclear bomb if we’re just nice enough to them, and that he is black. While I will give him half marks on the last item, I see no change in his position on the rest of them.

    I hope to be completely wrong, but my observation of world politics, the UN in particular, over the past several decades, is that just when you are certain that the Intergovernmental Panel on Chicken Chit has finaly died, it will be reborn as the World Wide Focus on Poultry Excrement (WWF-PE) and it will take ten years before anyone realizes that its all the same people just with different titles and brand new evidence much stronger than the previous evidence because they have learned from their mistakes.

    Now I am a double denier. I believe in neither the AGW nor the death of the IPCC.

  131. To Kum who must be a true believer:
    The United Nations states that its charity programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the world because of the high cost of staple foods. Mr. Jean Ziegler, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeatedly denounced biofuels as “a crime against humanity.” The new UN food envoy, Mr. Olivier De Schutter, has called for United States and European Union biofuel targets to be abandoned, and said the world food crisis is “a silent tsunami affecting 100 million people.” Oil price increases have not shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has. The more biofuels we produce, the less food we have to eat, because we grow biofuel crops using the same land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor we use to grow food.
    Using United Nations poverty and hunger statistics as a base, it is reasonable to estimate that globally biofuel production was a significant contributing factor in the early, avoidable deaths of up to 20 million people in the year 2008 alone. Any force, such as worldwide biofuel production or oil price hikes, that significantly raises food prices also raises the number of human deaths due to malnutrition. It is difficult for us to control the price of oil, but it is easy for us to control our own biofuel production; we just stop doing it! The one-two punch of biofuels crowding out food production and high oil prices raising the cost of almost everything is a deadly blow to the poor on a planetary scale.

  132. Follow the money…it will lead you to “their” motives everytime…

    To complete the circle:

    “New York, March 27, 2009- JPMorgan Chase & Co. announced today that it will support action against climate change by participating in Earth Hour 2009, a World Wildlife Fund global event to switch off all non-essential lighting for one hour on March 28.”

    How much direct corporate financial support does JPMorgan chase & Co. provide the World Wildlife Federation?

    Who are the rest of the WWF’s corporate financial supporters?

    pat (15:57:47) wrote: “And JP Morgan, which paid a jaw-splitting $204m for carbon trader Ecosecurities last September, must be feeling a little sore. Perhaps it relied on the GHG Emissions Credit Trading report (yours for a mere $397), which predicts a $4.5 trillion carbon market by 2020.”

    Now, things are starting to make sense…

    How many other examples of this kind of self-dealing corruption are out there.

    Let the disinfectant of sunshine put a spotlight (knowledge) on this kind of self-dealing corruption.

    The dominos are starting to fall…

  133. I live in Central America, I´m not a scientist but I do can tell you that clime has change in the last years. Some people say that this is cyclic, even when the rain season is shorter every year, and crops die because of dryness, and I can see rivers that become smallers every year. You can see too that we have more hurricanes and storms year by year. I agree that most of the activists just talk and ask for money and then do nothing. But I can tell you that we have to take care of our resources. God ask us to take care of earth in Genesis. We have to rule earth but we have to take care of it. Some people lie, others don´t. What to do? Help as much as you can. Recycle, save energy, save threes, don´t trash food. Help people with needs. Be better man and the world will be better.

  134. RE: Junican (18:17:16) :

    …does anyone know what the extent of sea ice around the North Pole is after the recent cold spell around the Northern Hemisphere? I would love to know.

    Near realtime data is available at:

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e

    and for year-to-year comparisons at:http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Total ice at any one time is not necessarily related to how cold it gets in the mid-latitudes. More often than not, the expansion of the circum-polar vortex which shifts the jet-stream southward brings colder temps to the mid-latitudes and also results in above normal temps at the higher latitudes. These shifts are defined by the Arctic Oscillation (AO).

    Currently, as of Jan 25th, the Polar ice extent is 13,155,313 km² which is close to the mean of the past 8 years for this date.

  135. freedomchimes,

    Good words to live by, but it’s when the politicians come after my wallet is when I get skeptical.

  136. freedomchimes I agree with your sentiments. However, your ideals will not be reached as long as the politicians and AGW fraudsters keep telling porkies about what’s causing climate change. As anyone with a brain knows, climate change started when the earth was formed (or created if you believe in God). The fact is the plans pushed by various Western governments to control the climate (LOL) will in fact do nothing in that regard, but will make the rich and powerful more rich and more powerful, while the rest of us get poorer.

  137. A little bit more on Icarus (14:19:23).

    Nepstad et al.’s Nature paper says “In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.” These two sentencses were cited as reference No. 46 in the WWF/IUCN report. It’s OK for the time being.

    But, the sentense “Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” placed just before the two sentenses should be regarded as a thought of Rowell and Moore. They completely misunderstood (or misquoted) the paper; the depletion of precipitation due to 1998 El Nino is by no means “small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” This really was a drought.

    Thus, the corresponding part of the IPCC report should be “The Brazilan forest is vulnerable against droughts caused by extensive reductions of rainfall.” This makes sense.

    Another interesting point; the word “drastically” in the IPCC report seemingly was “sensibly” in an early version.

  138. Mapou (18:36:25) :

    M. Simon (17:48:38) :

    It took a little over two years to bring Nixon down following discovery of the burglary. Early days yet. (only 2 months since 19 Nov 2009).

    The difference is that, in the case of Nixon, the MSM was actively and passionately pursuing the Watergate story.

    How soon we forget! Actually, after Nixon’s re-election, the media dropped it, including the NYT, and only the WaPo’s gutsy gamble to back its reporters kept the pursuit alive. Nixon and the insiders almost got away with it, just as insiders got away with deflecting other embarrassing inquiries. (E.g., the congressional investigation into Bobby Baker’s antics, which would have brought down LBJ, had JFK not been assassinated.)

  139. Silly me, I had the nerve to ask PBS’ NewsHour for several years why they didn’t have AGW skeptic scientists on the program to debate the IPCC scientist guests, and I finally got a chance to report on that 12/29 here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/the_lack_of_climate_skeptics_o.html

    And tonight, I asked them again if they were going to report on the latest Glaciergate / Amazongate problem. Any bets on how long they will ignore this, too?

  140. The Aussie ABC News Radio is reporting that the PM K Rudd has not issued a notice paper to re-introduce the ETS legistlation.
    He had promised to re introduce it in February when the house sitting session resumed.
    Back pedalling in a hurry or rats leaving the sinking ship?

  141. freedomchimes (20:26:55) : Agreed, but none of that has anything to do with man’s consumption of CO2 producing energies. Instead, I believe, you and the rest of “central America” would be better off if you did consume more. Trust me, your countries would develop better economies if you guys did.

  142. Baa Humbug (21:17:57) :

    “Back pedalling in a hurry or rats leaving the sinking ship?”

    Either way, it’s a step forward.

  143. It seems to me that the people who invented this “scandal” didn’t really read the reports properly. The WWF report *does* include the 40% statement:

    “Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left. 46″

    … and it even comes with a source (46) pointing to something published in Nature 1999:

    “46 D. C. Nepstad, A. Veríssimo, A. A l e n c a r, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. S c h l e s i n g e r, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, V. Brooks, Large – scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, 1999, Vo l 398, 8 April, pp505″

    … which says roughly (but not exactly) the same thing:

    “ENSO-related drought can desiccate large areas of Amazonian
    forest, creating the potential for large-scale forest ®res. Because of
    the severe drought of 1997 and 1998, we calculate that approximately 270,000 km2 of Amazonian forest had completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper ®ve metres of soil by the end of the 1998 dry season. In addition, 360,000 km2 of forest had less than 250mm of plant-available soil water left by this time (Fig. 1b). By comparison, only 28,000 km2 of forests in Roraima had depleted soil water to 5m depth at the peak of the Roraima forest.
    ®res.”

  144. Well the IPCC does have a defence. In their AR4 report they consistently state that they do not “predict” or “forecast” but they “project” or list “scenarios”.

    Therefore, all that’s in the IPCC reports are no better than giving a fortune-teller $5 to have your future told.

    Can’t you visualize Dr Pachauri in a tent at a fortune-tellers/ astrologers fair, wearing his traditional Indian regalia, sitting on the floor with legs crossed, a crystal ball in front of him?
    Would you give this man $5 to have the climates future told?

  145. NEWSFLASH – 0648 GMT

    Breakthrough! BBC discusses IPCC, Pachauri, glaciers, etc etc on flagship morning news and current affairs radio programme ‘Today’.

  146. sorry off topic
    but i cannot resist
    below is a comment from the rc blog headed the IPCC is not fallible
    read and enjoy
    # 27
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all this fixation on get-it-right, got-it-wrong is obscuring the real issue: the truth is what we define it to be, and the truth is that mankind is a scourge on the planet. The sooner we can limit the right to breed, the sooner the planet will recover. If glacier data is a little incorrect but helps that effort, then the data is true in all but a very narrow and clinical scientific sense.

    Common people don’t really understand science. But they understand not having enough to eat and not being able to sit down on a too-crowded subway. if we can educate people not to reproduce there will be many seats and the fewer people will be happier. Indeed, as the capitalist economies of scale are reduced, the atisfaction from making your own clothes and embracing a low-carbon vegan diet will be so intense, reproduction will come to be seen in the same category as child abuse.

    I yearn for the day when i might not have been born!

    Comment by rosie hughes — 19 January 2010 @ 8:04 PM

    I suggested to rosie that there are means by which she can take care of her existantialist angst
    needless to say- i have zero expectaion that my comment will be posted there by gavin/ eric

  147. Pete50 (19:10:51) :

    It has more than once occurred to me that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is just as soluble in the oceans as is ‘natural’ CO2. The life of CO2 between its entry to the atmosphere and its dissolution in the surface of the oceans is about 5 years, acknowledged by the former IPCC chairman, Bert Bolin. The IPCC have modelled that atmospheric CO2 has a lifetime of 50-100 years [1].

    I am unaware of their rationale for the figure they use, but the whole thrust of the AGW argument rests on it. Looks a whole lot like an arrow to me.

    You have a positive feedback machine. It is called climate. Any small input above the tripping point is going to drive the climate to a rail. (Nonsense of course – except for going in and out of ice ages – but bear with me) How do you keep your model from railing which it will surely do in 20 e-foldings (time constants). You fudge the time constant so that your model only goes to 63% of the final value (1 e-folding) in 100 years. i.e. the results look “reasonable”)

    I remember back a while there was a big discussion of this at Climate Audit and I did not get the significance. (I’m a little slow and the significance wasn’t explained) And about a month ago I started thinking about it and it came to me.

    Sometimes the sceptics are no better at explaining themselves than the believers are. But like all good humans if we really care we improve with age.

    If the explanation is unclear ask me questions.

    Here is an explanation of e-folding in terms of capacitors:

    http://www.play-hookey.com/dc_theory/rc_circuits.html

    With a nice graph and calculator (and a little simpler:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/capchg.html

    Simpler yet:

    http://www.tpub.com/neets/book2/3d.htm

    Or search:

    capacitor charging time equation

    Or as I said. Ask me questions.

  148. Anticlimactic (19:29:03) :

    The AGW boat does seem to be sinking, but no doubt they will interpret it as a rise in sea level!

    There’s definitely a political cartoon in that statement. :)

  149. ChapinEngland: Unfortunately nothing there. A very poor defence of an organisation “going our best” and subject to human failure. No serious questioning from the wet beeb. The IPCC can get away with any lies it likes as far as auntie is concerned. The IPCC is strengthened by this isolated failing! What a load of *******s.

  150. Atmospherically speaking, Pachauri and the IPCC are now observing unprecedented man-made global heat, after finding themselves to be standing on very thin Himalayan ice, up an Amazon creek, and without a peer reviewed paddle.

    Currently, the IPCC is desperately scrambling to close the Pachaurigate, however, the Pachauriderm has already bolted off with his trunk stuffed full of taxpayer grants.

    Incidentally,

    Q: Why did the Pachauriderm cross the road?
    A: He thought he was Chicken Little

    Q: How do you know there is a Pachauriderm under you bed?
    A: You wake up with a TERIble headache

    Q: How do you know there is a Pachauriderm in your bed?
    A: From the way it lies.

  151. Phillip:

    Agreed, but, considering Auntie’s mindset, the fact that ‘Climategate’ etc was mentioned at all is startling.

  152. What’s Up With The Sunspot Widget? Yesterday there were a couple of black lines across it, today it’s almost obscured by black lines.

    Has the instrument providing the images come a cropper?

  153. Let me expand on the e-folding idea. The general term is time constant.

    The final value after a number of time constants (for a charging – rising – situation) is:

    1 – e-TC

    Some values of e-TC

    1/2 time constant – .607
    1 time constant – .368
    2 time constants – .135
    3 time constants – .050
    4 time constants – .018
    5 time constants – .007
    10 time constants – .000 as close as it matters

    Now how about some values for 1 – e-TC

    1/2 time constant – .393
    1 time constant – .632
    2 time constants – .865
    3 time constants – .950
    4 time constants – .982
    5 time constants – .993
    10 time constants – 1.000 as close as it matters

    You figure time constant (TC – actually time periods) by

    TC = (time period of interest)/(e-folding time)

    Now I have gotten the terminology a little messed up – the e-folding time in electrical work is actually the time constant of the circuit. But no matter. The above is self consistent.

  154. Baa Humbug (22:30:26)
    We may not pay $5 to hear anything the man has to say, but Kevin Rudd appears to be happy to pay him 1 million dollars of taxpayer’s money to gaze into his crystal ball. However I’m not so sure the prediction of getting a major position in a UN global kleptocracy is going to work out for Kevin. The only string I can see Dr. Pachuari pulling in the near future is a ripcord…

  155. @kadaka – Obama is a sick puppy. He has grave NPD according to the DSM-IV standards. Vaknin discusses the disorder in depth (now out of print but available used for around $50). His description of Obama and his description of the events that lead to NPD are spot on in Obama’s case. Is Obama a louse? Not in the standard sense that we use about people. He suffers from a psychiatric illness (don’t we all in some degree), but his has been taken to the extreme and endangers everyone around him.

    Yes I put the poem up to cover Obama and the IPCC. I do not think that Obama is as bad as the IPCC. He has a disease like St. Vitus dance in the political realm, but he is like Steward in “Steward, A Life Backwards” http://www.amazon.com/Stuart-Life-Backwards-Alexander-Masters/dp/0385340885/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1264495271&sr=8-1-fkmr0 He is the product of his up-bringing and is empty. This empty can never be filled.

  156. 23.23 update -same BBC programme.

    0845 GMT: The new problem, folks, is ocean acidification! It’s 30 per cent up! Shellfish will be corroded! Cue wailing, gnashing of teeth, we’re all doomed, something must be done, etc, etc

    Well I never!

  157. . . . followed by a discussion of the IPCC (0856 GMT) involving Tony Juniper and Mike Hume and a mildly probing interviewer.

    Drip, drip . . . ?

  158. Mikael Lönnroth (22:24:27) :

    “It seems to me that the people who invented this “scandal” didn’t really read the reports properly. The WWF report *does* include the 40% statement”.

    According to Wikipidea…..

    “This basin encompasses seven million square kilometers (1.7 billion acres), of which five and a half million square kilometers (1.4 billion acres) are covered by the rainforest. This region includes territory belonging to nine nations. The majority of the forest is contained within Brazil, with 60% of the rainforest, followed by Peru with 13%, and with minor amounts in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana”.

    40% of 5.5 million sqkm is 2.2 million sq km. (not 270,000 sqkm or 360,000 sq km) The report referred to is guesswork at best, rather like the IPCC’s own reports.

    Also, IPCC refers to Amazonian forests whereas the cited report refers to Brazilian forest. Brazil occupies 60% of the Amazonian forest, so 40% of 60% is only 24%
    Any which way you look at this saga, it is NOT what you’d expect from the most comprehensive, peer reviewed literature of our times.
    People didn’t “invent” this scandal, it was created by the careless crooked procedures used to formulate the report.

  159. Climategate, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate Amazoniagate etc etc
    I thought I’d go to the only authoritative publishing there is regards climate science…….The IPCC AR4 (no really, not being funny)

    WG1 Chap1 1.2 The Nature of Earth Science

    “Science may be stimulated by argument and debate, but it
    generally advances through formulating hypotheses clearly and
    testing them objectively. This testing is the key to science. In
    fact, one philosopher of science insisted that to be genuinely
    scientific, a statement must be susceptible to testing that could
    potentially show it to be false (Popper, 1934). In practice,
    contemporary scientists usually submit their research findings to the scrutiny of their peers, which includes disclosing the
    methods that they use, so their results can be checked through
    replication by other scientists. The insights and research results
    of individual scientists, even scientists of unquestioned genius,
    are thus confirmed or rejected in the peer-reviewed literature
    by the combined efforts of many other scientists. It is not the
    belief or opinion of the scientists that is important, but rather
    the results of this testing. Indeed, when Albert Einstein was
    informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors
    Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, ‘If I were wrong,
    then one would have been enough!’ (Hawking, 1988); however,
    that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form
    of testable results.
    Thus science is inherently self-correcting; incorrect or
    incomplete scientific concepts ultimately do not survive repeated
    testing against observations of nature”.

    Chicken Littles are coming home to roost cluck cluck cluck

  160. Vic

    There is no need to limit the right to breed, which is an obnoxious thought anyway.

    If women are educated and given a vision of a future where they could do more than breed, where they could live an autonomous life and not be the chattels of men, they will spontaneously choose to pursue some economic improvement for themselves and to have far fewer children. It happened in the west as soon as contraception, and information about contraception, was made available to the masses in the 1920s. That right-wing rag, “The Economist” had a piece about this a few weeks ago and says that this is happening all over the developing world. No doubt it needs to happen more, especially in Islamic communities. The other predictor of falling family sizes in any country is the availability of an old age pension. In other words, develop the developing world!

    The Economist believes that we will begin to see a fall in human population numbers in about 30 years time, as I recall, although we should not get complacent. There is a lot of work on this still to do.

  161. Greeg E.

    No, the sun is going out. That’s the reason for all this cold weather we’ve been having.

  162. ChapinEngland (23:23:00) :

    I heard that as well – the arrogance of the IPCC is quite astonishing! And don’t even get me started on the BBC! It is pathetic!

    There are some seriously warped minds out there and only a systematic purge of this corrupt cult and the instigators being brought to justice will suffice now. The green tentacles are everywhere.

  163. The change in tone and language as this report changed from the source to the WWF and the IPCC is really quite worrying
    Original Source

    Because of the severe drought of 1997 and 1998, we calculate that approximately 270,000 km2 of Amazonian forest had completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil by the end of the 1998 dry season. In addition, 360,000 km2 of forest had less than 250mm of plant-available soil water left by this time

    WWF

    Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left

    IPCC

    Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to a slight reduction in precipitation

  164. AdderW (13:09:34) : The CAGW fuzzy, greeny crowd are disappearing at an alarming rate

    TonyB drew my attention to Skeptical Science. This warmist blog is truly one of the best IMO – with its fifty-odd points against us skeptics – straw men the lot. Here I found Scott Mandia alive and well. Probably others too.

    Now Skeptical Science is examining the recent paper On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record. Skeptical Science says

    A net cooling bias was perhaps not the result the surfacestations.org volunteers were hoping for but improving the quality of the surface temperature record is surely a result we should all appreciate.

    and

    UPDATE 24/1/2010: There has been no direct response from Anthony Watts re Menne 2010. However, there was one post yesterday featuring a photo of a weather station positioned near an air-conditioner along with the data series from that particular station showing a jump in temperature. The conclusion: “Who says pictures don’t matter?”

    So the sequence of events is this. Surfacestations.org publishes photos and anecdotal evidence that microsite influences inflate the warming trend but no data analysis to determine whether there’s any actual effect on the overall temperature record. Menne 2010 performs data analysis to determine whether there is a warming bias in poorly position weather stations and finds overall, there is actually a cooling bias. Watts responds with another photo and single piece of anecdotal evidence.

    IWatch the movement of troops on the flanks! And yes, a reply would be very interesting.

  165. Phillip Bratby (13:22:13) :

    “Even the BBC is commenting on Pachauri’s woes”

    And here’s an even greater shocker (from the Beeb, anyway) … they’ve actually reported on China’s climatic heresy:

    China has ‘open mind’ on cause of climate change

    China’s lead climate change negotiator has said he was keeping an “open attitude” as to whether global warming was man-made or due to natural cycles.

    Xie Zhenhua said climate warming was a “solid fact” and that mainstream scientific opinion held it was due to emissions of gases such as CO2.

    [...]

    “There is one starkly different view, that the climate change or climate warming issue is caused by the cyclical element of nature itself.

    “I think we need to adopt an open attitude to the scientific research.”

    He said that it was important to include as many views as possible “to be more scientific and to be more consistent”.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8478643.stm

  166. Jandke (19:26:21) : It would seem that “denier,” “flat earther,” skeptic,” and “realist” are not quite appropriate terms for those of us whom are not believers.

    In light of the “evidence” being uncovered and the “proof” being provided to debunk the AGW canard, we skeptics should be addressed by the term:
    PROOFER. I am proud to be a PROOFER.

    Like it.

    James Sexton (21:28:10) :
    freedomchimes (20:26:55) : Agreed, but none of that has anything to do with man’s consumption of CO2 producing energies. Instead, I believe, you and the rest of “central America” would be better off if you did consume more. Trust me, your countries would develop better economies if you guys did.

    James, you used the expression “trust me”… h’mmm. :) And actually, I like where freedomchimes is coming from, seems to be paying attention to what he can actually vouch for from personal witness. Good scientific practice, that.

  167. Mikael Lönnroth (22:24:27) :

    “It seems to me that the people who invented this “scandal” didn’t really read the reports properly. The WWF report *does* include the 40% statement”.

    That is irrelevant. The IPCC is passing off as peer reviewed scientific research, something that turns out to be an essay written by a policy analyst and a journalist.

  168. You can tell when things are starting to get out of control by the way those responsible stop denying things and start blaming their predecessors, much as Pachauri has started to do.
    The thing is, the grey men are all in deep cover and will be raking in money from this scam for a long time after it is over. The less clever, the ones who took the limelight roles realise now that they either take the rap and go down or they pass the buck.. to a previous limelighter.
    Even if AGW is killed stone dead, he grey men and the money making will go on. It will be too late to cancel some contracts for wind farms etc. because they will discover some pretty expensive cancellation clauses, I expect there are a great many contracts out there that pretty much guarantee the money come what may.
    The bill may be enormous.
    What will we get for our money? the satisfaction of seeing Phil Jones and a few others playing sacrificial goat.
    Slim pickings.
    No chance of Al Gore following Madoff.
    Some slight chance he will be embarassed. But not financially.

  169. Baa Humbug:

    Good points, but I humbly think your comment contains some guesswork (as mine) and jumping quite quickly to conclusions as well.

    1)
    It seems, like you say, that “Brazilian forest” was substituted with “Amazonian forests” in the IPCC report. Serious error if so, and should be corrected.

    2)
    The most relevant statement that can’t be traced back to one single statement in the Nature paper is this: “Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.”

    I didn’t carefully read the whole Nature article, so I can’t say whether it actually contains conclusions/evidence for that statement, but the original claim (that this scandal was based on) didn’t check that either.

    3)
    What do the authors say themselves?

    Thanks for your reply :)

  170. From the London Telegraph in their green section.

    The obvious typo here is 2,000 scientists instead of 2,000 activists.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mr van Ypersele said the panel made up of more than 2,000 scientists will do everything it can to ensure there are not mistakes in the new report, although he emphasised that no scientist can promise a perfect document.

    “We are trying to do the best job we can in assessing the quality information about climate change issues in all its dimensions and some do not like the conclusions of our work. Now it is true we made a mistake around the glacier issue, it is one mistake on one issue in a 3,000 page report. We are going to reinforce the procedures to try this does not happen again.”

    There are fears that the scandal has damaged confidence in the IPCC and ultimately in the science of global warming but Mr van Ypersele claimed it had in fact strengthened the case for tackling climate change.

    “I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC not decrease it. Why is that? Would you trust someone who has admitted an error and is ready to learn from his or her mistake or someone who claims to be unassailable? The IPCC does not claim to be unassailable, when there is a good reason to admit a mistake we do it, but for the rest of IPCC conclusions we stand by it very strongly,” he said.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    More at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/7078089/IPCC-deputy-says-scientists-are-only-human.html

  171. ” Baa Humbug (01:49:29) :

    Climategate, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate Amazoniagate etc etc
    I thought I’d go to the only authoritative publishing there is regards climate science…….The IPCC AR4 (no really, not being funny)

    WG1 Chap1 1.2 The Nature of Earth Science”

    Someone needs to have a serious word with WG1. They can’t have something like this slip through in AR5. Was Popper even peer-reviewed?

  172. Vincent (03:51:33) :
    “That is irrelevant. The IPCC is passing off as peer reviewed scientific research, something that turns out to be an essay written by a policy analyst and a journalist.”
    IPCC says that the assessment is produced through an open and peer reviewed process. They also say that the assessment is (partly) based on ‘gray’ non-peer reviewed documents.

  173. Eve (20:24:05) :

    “To Kum who must be a true believer:
    The United Nations states that its charity programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the world because of the high cost of staple foods. Mr. Jean Ziegler, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeatedly denounced biofuels as “a crime against humanity.” ….”

    You missed the rest of it. The IMF/World Bank loans with strings attached called SAPs, that remove third world countries “food sovereignty” and replace it with corporate export farming {see http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html and http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Budhoo_IMF.html}

    The 1995 World Trade Agreement on Agriculture that opened the borders of third world countries so the grain traders could sell grains at below the cost of growing them thanks to the USA and EU tax dollars. The 1996 US “freedom to farm act” that removed landbanking in the USA greatly increasing the acreage put into grain production. Both of these were were written by Dan Amstutz, VP of Cargill. The grain traders even created an award for Amstutz in recognition of his handing over international control of food to the Ag cartel.

    “The Amstutz Award is given by the North American Export Grain Association in honor of Dan Amstutz and in recognition of his outstanding and extraordinary service to the export grain and oilseed trade from the United States. Appropriately, the first recipient of this distinguished service award was Mr. Amstutz.

    Tribute to Dan Amstutz Throughout his very successful career Dan Amstutz represented and championed ideas and goals of NAEGA membership . As we reflect on the life of our friend and associate this tribute is intended to provide an opportunity to express thoughts in a memorial to Dan’s contribution to our industry.” http://www.naega.org/amstutz/index.shtml
    {Also see http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cafta/Agriculture.html}

    The result of all the maneuvering and manipulating behind the scenes was people rioting over the increase in food costs while Cargill and Monsanto posted record breaking profits in 2008 as the rest of the world’s economy crashed and burned.

    Carbon trading will do to energy what the WTO/FAO/OIE are doing to food: placing control AND record profits in the hands of a select few while driving more and more people into grinding poverty and death. Coincidence? I think not.

  174. Good to see the folks at Realclimate are sticking withe IPCC

    From their Start Here Page as of 1253 GMT on 26/01/10

    “Informed, but in need of more detail:

    Science: You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves (AR4 2007, TAR 2001).”

    Lets see if they end up changing their minds

  175. “I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC not decrease it. Why is that? Would you trust someone who has admitted an error and is ready to learn from his or her mistake or someone who claims to be unassailable?

    That depends. If it is an isolated incident, then yes, but if there are LOTS of “mistakes”, then, no.

  176. freedomchimes (20:26:55) :

    “I live in Central America, I´m not a scientist but I do can tell you that clime has change in the last years…”

    None of us who are called “deniers” are against treating the environment with loving care. We are against the selfish greedy people using scare tactics to steal money from the poor and middle class while making their lives that much harder. Global warming is just that a scare tactic used to rob the poor and middle class.

    My other post shows how it is done for food. Global warming does the same for energy. Once you control food and energy you control people lives.

  177. Gail Combs,

    “None of us who are called “deniers” are against treating the environment with loving care.”

    Well said, Gail. There is a myth, apparently perpetrated by alarmists, that folk who disagree with them are greedy capitalists who want to rip up the planet for personal gain. The irony is that most of these “greedy capitalists” have jumped aboard the global warming gravy train and that most of these policies aimed at reducing fossil fuel use, are in fact enviromentally destructive.

  178. omnologos (15:04:49) has it right in my mind. The paper referred to is about drought induced problem with forests. A warmer climate should be a wetter climate as we all know. Therefore, rather than increasing the likelihood of this event, AGW should reduce it.

    I see this as just as bad as the glaciergate. Total misrepresentation of the science. I too wonder what the authors would have to say about this use of their research.

  179. Mikael Lonnroth,

    “IPCC says that the assessment is produced through an open and peer reviewed process. They also say that the assessment is (partly) based on ‘gray’ non-peer reviewed documents.”

    Yes, I see – the gray stuff. GRAY: neither black nor white; undefined or unclear; incapable of redering firm conclusions; junk.

    I must admit I didn’t know about that. I mean, I had assumed that everything was peer reviewed. Perhaps there is a disclaimer, somewhere, buried in the small print, “please be aware, some of the conclusions cited in this report may not actually be factual.”

    Maybe some of those skeptics are right about the IPPC – not fit for purpose.

  180. Yesterday even the global warming enthousiast Diederik Samson, Dutch left wing Party (PvdA) openly demanded Pachauri’s resignation. However he fails to demand the retrieval of IPCC AR4 as being “void and intenable”.

    Companies filing with the SEC know how it works should a misstatemetn be identified:

    I suggest the following phrase: “We, the board of the IPCC have established that material content of our report IPCC AR4 does not meet the set standards and contains various material unsupported statements, we equally aknowledge that the controls and procedures surrouding the proces of reporting are insufficient by all standards, even our own. We therefore retract IPCC AR4 and explicitly state that the contents of IPCC AR4 or any previous IPCC assessment reports should no longer be relied upon. We intend to provide a restated report in due time when we will have dealt with the grave shortcommings and have ensured effective controls on the quality of our reporting”. “We deeply regret our failure and humbly apologize for any inconvenience and distress we may have caused and, as a matter of course, collectively resign from our responsibilities, which obviously we cannot live up to”.

  181. I disagree that IPCC AR5 needs to be 1,000% correct. Mistakes are what make us human.

    What is definitely needed, is a 1,000% transparency in the gathering of scientific articles, and of comments and feedbacks on the text of the report. No more agnosia, no more Chinese whispers, no more disregarding of commentaries. And we also need full disclosure of all possible links between scientists/authors and campaigners, no matter how far-fetched they may sound.

    The IPCC should finally keep out of the policy debate as per its mandate.

  182. On the Today program R4 UK this morning first we had a section on Ocean Acidification followed by an interview Mike Hulme of the CRU along with Tony Juniper Green party activist.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8480000/8480314.stm

    The interview was ref the IPCC V4 report, Mike Hulme was calling for changes to be made but Tony Juniper was saying it was a minor error of no consequence. Nothing new there but Tony went on to say the IPCC report was 3000 pages, so its expanded overnight and so errors will be a lower percentage.

  183. Vincent (07:56:27) :

    “Yes, I see – the gray stuff. GRAY: neither black nor white; undefined or unclear; incapable of redering firm conclusions; junk.

    I must admit I didn’t know about that. I mean, I had assumed that everything was peer reviewed. Perhaps there is a disclaimer, somewhere, buried in the small print, “please be aware, some of the conclusions cited in this report may not actually be factual.”

    Maybe some of those skeptics are right about the IPPC – not fit for purpose.”

    I do somewhat agree with you and I can’t myself understand why they should have the need to include non-peer-reviewed papers as part of a scientific synthesis. The recent statement about the Glacier error seemed to blame human error instead of recognizing any fault in the system. Too bad.

  184. g smiley (04:53:16) said:

    Good to see the folks at Realclimate are sticking withe IPCC

    From their Start Here Page as of 1253 GMT on 26/01/10

    “Informed, but in need of more detail:

    Science: You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves (AR4 2007, TAR 2001).”

    Lets see if they end up changing their minds

    High quality science from a government-based committee?

    I wonder if they realize how stupid they sound when making a claim like that.

    And then there are all those citations of non-peer-reviewed material from WWF and Greenpeace.

  185. All the scares are variants of the scares of another age: Lebensraum.

    It turned out badly. At great cost and much suffering.

    What we are facing today is no different. It will end badly at great cost and much suffering.

  186. Freedom Chimes

    I collect historic temperature sets and whilst those from Central America don’t appear to exist, I can offer one from the Bahamas dating back to 1856.

    http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/Nassau_The%20Bahamas.html

    You will be pleased to note the cyclic variability, where today is not as warm as it has been in the past.

    The Little Ice age thermometers collected on my site demonstrates the Earths amazing climate variability, captured all the way back to 1660 by instrumental records.

    By the way, I agree we need to look after the Amazon and other rain forests.
    Can I give a plug to Cool Earth?

    http://www.coolearth.org/

    I ‘own’ an acre of rain forest-not for the carbon element but to protect it against logging.

    Tonyb

  187. Anthony

    I know its a pique but it just confused me initially. It should be ‘du jour’. Du jour is ‘of the day’ ‘de jour ‘ is ‘of day’. Rather like jean-pierre de Paris or pomme de terre.

    [Fixed, thanx ~dbs]

Comments are closed.