I reported yesterday on Dr. Richard Norths findings on what he coined “amazongate” related to yet another WWF reference in the IPCC AR4.
Yesterday I sent him a comment from WUWT reader “Icarus” that made a very valid point. However that point drew back the curtain for an even larger problem now uncovered by Dr. North as he writes in:
“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.”
So says Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC – as retailed by the famous Louise Gray, purveyor extraordinare of WWF press releases – in The Daily Telegraph today. It was simply a “human mistake”, he adds. “Aren’t mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution and I do not know of any human institution that does not make mistakes, so of course it is a regrettable incident that we published that wrong description of the Himalayan glacier,” he says.
So far though, the IPCC is sticking to its legend that this is only “one mistake”, burying its head firmly in the sand and ignoring the growing evidence that the IPCC report is riddled with “mistakes” – to apply that extremely charitable definition.
Another of those “mistakes” is the false claim highlighted in my earlier post on “Amazongate“, where the IPCC has grossly exaggerated the effect of climate change on Amazonian forests, stating “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” – on the basis of a non peer-reviewed WWF report whose lead author, Andy Rowell, is a free-lance journalist.
However, being “human” myself – although some would hotly dispute that assertion – I appear to have made a mistake in my analysis, charging that in the document referenced by the IPCC, there is no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change.”
Actually, that is the charge retailed by James Delingpole and by Watts up with that, whereas what I actually wrote was that the assertion attributed to the author of the WWF report, that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” is nowhere to be found in the report.
The WUWT post, however, evoked a response from a commentator, “Icarus”, who noted that there was a reference to a 40% figure references in the WWF report, as follows:
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.
That is very much my mistake, having completely missed that passage, thus charging that the IPCC passage was “a fabrication, unsupported even by the reference it gives”.
With that, though, the story gets even more interesting, as the assertion made by Rowell and his co-author Peter Moore, is referenced to an article in the Nature magazine, viz:
Thats the second ref to 3000 pages I have seen, first was in the Today program this morning by a Green activist. All previous refs were that the IPCC report is 1600 pages long. The bigger it gets the lower the error rate I suppose.
Hey, what’s the link to Dr. North’s site? It’d be helpful to have a direct link. 🙂
How pathetic. It looks like Prof Andy Pitman is going out of control in australia.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/monckton-replies-to-prof-andy-pitman/
Even Joe Romm is lying about the world record storm in LA last week.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/26/preparing-for-frankenstorms-the-most-powerful-low-pressure-system-in-140-years-of-record-keeping-slams-the-southwest/
I think the collective of all the ‘gates’ recently should now be known as FloodGate!
Link is up at the top of the article… The text reading “The corruption of science”
Thank you Dr. North. The IPCC and others love to twist words into new meanings.
If I were an MD and made the kind of “honest mistakes” that these guys have made #1 I better pray that my malpractice insurance is up to date and I have lots of coverage and #2 I would get my license to practice medicine revoked.
Prof. North is revisiting the same territory that Bjorn Lomborg opened up almost 10 years ago. He is highlighting the fact that environmental activists are driven to misrepresent and misstate facts. That the IPCC would reference anything that the WWF produced is amazing. The equivalent would be the WHO citing research funded by BAT. As the saying goes, Fish rot from the head down Pachauri has some more explaining to do.
Aaaaaargh
I just watched the plonker prince greeting Dr Jones at UEA saying he fully supported his work and then he was shown in front of the hockey stick being told how it shows A. climate change.
JohnH (09:49:19) :
Thats the second ref to 3000 pages I have seen, first was in the Today program this morning by a Green activist. All previous refs were that the IPCC report is 1600 pages long. The bigger it gets the lower the error rate I suppose.
That’s okay. So far I’ve seen the IPCC numbers go from 2500 scientists up to 3000, who of course are completely representative of the absolute consensus of all (real) scientists about the truth of AGW.
Still, going by how many of those IPCC “scientists” were really political appointees and activists, assuming an equivalent situation and working backwards, I suspect IPCC AR4 is really only 1000 pages long. With the “intentionally blank” filler sheets. Actually by the way things are looking, by the time you go through it and remove the non-peer reviewed stuff, identify the real tested-and-verified science, and cut away the meaningless political fluff, AR4 v2.0 could make a nice pamphlet. Although a larger-print booklet-sized version should also be available.
So one mistake in 3000 pages has become 2 mistakes in as many days. What makes me angry though, is that by taking this research out of context, they are making the very real problems of deforestation morph into a ficticious CO2 issue. Although the alarmists will deny this is what they are doing, it is a fact that by making bogus claims, they have eclipsed real environmental issues. For in this example, forest destruction is made out to be a problem that will be solved by burning less fossil fuels, and has nothing to do with forestry management.
When will enviromentalists wake up and see the monster that has been created in their name?
John H,
I think the point of referencing the size of the report is that an argument is being made that these types of mistakes are representative of the entire report both here and by Dr. North. By Ms. Laframboise’s count, there are about 20 citations of WWF papers. That’s likely fewer than 5% of the report’s cited sources. So these sources are not representative. If they are not, the mistakes they involved are not representative either.
That said, the report should not contain any such non peer-reviewed papers. The fact that it does contain a very small proportion, however, does not by any standard of reference call its other observations and conclusions into question. There is an entirely different debate for that.
This 40% figure never made sense to me. Now it all makes sense. I consider myself an environmentalist. I find all this very disconcerting how the IPCC and WWF hijacked the science process. Heads need to roll and it should first start with the heads of the IPCC and WWF.
What would be the reaction if a skeptic wrote a paper that used, for example, the book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” as a reference source for materials originally in MBH papers?
Do you think the AGW crowd would quietly sit back and allow the author to get away with it?
If not, then why should the IPCC be allowed to use a WWF report as a reference source for materials originally (supposedly) in a paper by Nepstad et al 1999
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/01/25/global-boiling-frankenstorms/
Here is a sample from the wonk room. It is an article that comingles fact and fantasy. 8 feet of rain in 23 days.
It is very deceptive. It is intentionally deceptive.
What “is” to come. If you don’t have facts, you can alqways make something up. The IPCC would print it as did Climateprogress because they are both dishonest and desparate.
Thank you. I hope Bjørn Lomborg will weigh in on this somewhere. He’s had a lonely path for his integrity on WWF-Greenpeace-type statistics, and deserves proper recognition.
Thank you, Dr. North. From your article “Firstly, these combined areas relate to a total forest area of between 4-6 million square kilometres, and thus represent perhaps as little as ten percent of the total area.”
So what we’re really looking at is 40% of 10%, or 4% of the area, from logging. To translate that into 40% of the forest at risk due to climate change is buffoonery, apparently good enough for the IPCC.
“JohnH (09:49:19) :
Thats the second ref to 3000 pages I have seen, first was in the Today program this morning by a Green activist. All previous refs were that the IPCC report is 1600 pages long. The bigger it gets the lower the error rate I suppose.”
No, that’s not the reason. In fact they switched the IPCC switched their printer setting to one-sided. It doubles the amount of carbon sequestered.
Hard times call for drastic measures.
“Gate de Jour” doesn’t sound right. It doesn’t sing.
More apt (but possibly no more musical) is “Daily Climate Scandal”
Note the comment from IPCC:
“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.”
So what is plant available water?
According to the latest research in Nature Geoscience we just don’t know. This study challenges everything we thought we knew about soil water storage and tree root utpake. A short synopsis can be found on Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121173452.htm. Paper would seem to also challenge the assumption of negative impacts from short term or small precipitation events.
Bernie (10:02:32) : “Prof. North is revisiting the same territory that Bjorn Lomborg opened up almost 10 years ago. He is highlighting the fact that environmental activists are driven to misrepresent and misstate facts.”
And “our” Willis Eschenbach has already highlighted another of Dr. Lomborg’s points, i.e. that species aren’t disappearing at the “alarming” rate activists claim:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
Wolf! Famine! Tipping point! Doom! The sky is fall– Wait! Come back! This time I’m really telling the truth!
Vincent (10:15:15) : When will enviromentalists wake up and see the monster that has been created in their name?
Bjørn Lomborg is one. Lawrence Solomon is another. Peter Taylor is another. I’m one too. Click my name here; google the others if you don’t already know their work. Probably there are many more, unable to speak out. And yes, there are still many fools of the worst kind in the greenie camp.
Let me see, and what exactly was the charter of the UN’s IPCC? Wasn’t it something like the very best peer reviewed science available was to be assembled, or something …
The floodgates have opened on the UN’s man caused scam.
“It was simply a ‘human mistake'”
…which should have been picked up by the rigorous peer review process employed by the IPCC!
It was more like a mistake, compounded by an error and missed by an oversight.
With all these numbers being tossed around it stuck me that there seems to be about one page per scientist involved. How much money did all these scientists spend on research, then travel to IPPC meetings, reviews, more travel, a report for VIPs, and so on.
We’ve learned that actual scientists had less input to the reports than advertised and frequently their input was ignored.
Their (the real scientists) insights were thrown on the cutting room floor and replaced by WWF propaganda.
What say you, scientists? Do you enjoy being treated this way?
Anthony,
Are we going to see any response to
Dr. Menne’s new paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, “On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
??
This AR-4 that the Carbon Cult has published……is it paper copies ? How many 3000 page’s filled with voodoo science did they distribute?
How many tree’s had to die ?
How many jumbo-jets had to bring it to the USA, to Europe, to the UK, to Australia….?
What was the Carbon footprint? Why didnt they distribute it using sailboats?
Or did they only use electronic publishing? Using high tech from the Western sivilisation?
When they have all these summits, (how many do they need? Isnt the science settled already?) why don’t they use video conferencing? Like we do in the private sector?
When they eat, why do they need Caviar? Why not settle for vegetar salat?
John Galt (10:32:38) :
“Gate de Jour” doesn’t sound right. It doesn’t sing.
Couldn’t agree more, how about “Daily Fail”?
maxwell (10:18:59) : “That said, the report should not contain any such non peer-reviewed papers. The fact that it does contain a very small proportion, however, does not by any standard of reference call its other observations and conclusions into question. There is an entirely different debate for that.”
Well, every “hockey stick” reference is questionable, whether peer-reviewed or not. I wonder how that affects the report’s credibility. IIRC storm damage estimates are now discredited, too. And as WUWT readers know, the record of surface temperature “measurements” (i.e. adjustments) is also “ro-busted”.
Right now AR4 is starting to look a lot like a swiss cheese.
The Sunday Times article on Pachauri fielding grants with bogus data – opens many more gates. Part of the 2.5M pound EU “High Noon” grant went to the UK Met Office – the greater share went to Pachauri’s institute TERI (formerly Tata Energy Resource Inst.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
So, the Met Office accepted funds from EU taxpayers based on the false claim that Himalayan glaciers were melting. This would be the same Met Office whose CEO is paid more than the PM and got a fat bonus last year.
You could only make this stuff up.
So, the Amazon rain forest totals 4-6 mil km² and of this the original real study looked at 270,000 km² plus 360,000 km² or a total area impacted by drought in logged areas of 630,000 km². In other words, the study looked at 15% to 10% of the total rain forest. And of that area, the original study found that 10% to 40% were impacted by an extreme El Niño.
So, the real percentage figure of the Amazon rain forest impacted by logging and a strong El Niño is from 1% to 7.5%. [10% of 10% = 1% and 40% of 15% = 7.5%].
The IPCC thrives on creative writing and lying with statistics.
Just released – new sci-fi/fantacy blockbuster – DEATH OF A PLANET – the complete works of the IPCC. (based on a true story) with guest authors from around the globe. Now in a supermarket near you.
Gary,
that is exactly my point though. The hockey stick is not questionable because Mann cited some non peer-reviewed papers in the original Nature paper. There are sophisticated scientific reasons why one should questionsits conclusions. But this pandering to the idea that a handful of non peer-reviewed citations in an overwhelming sea of peer-reviewed ones somehow marks the report as suspect is really neither here nor there. I am merely making a distinction. I am not questioning anyone’s ability to critique the report, but rather saying if one is going to critique it, use a criteria strong enough for the task. Not an unrepresentative one.
On one hand, you have the warmist enviros claiming global warming is causing the forests to burn down, and on the other hand you have big money being poured into naturalist enviro lawsuits that claim it’s natural for the forest to burn, so you cannot manage the forest.
I suspect that this is intentional, and that our forests are nothing but pawns to them.
The eyes say manage the standing dead and overgrowth, and do something useful with the resource.
The agenda says it’s due to something odorless and colorless, you can’t see it, but let us tax you into the dirt and you can be green conscious.
Meanwhile, the forests need managing and continue to burn uselessly.
” kwik (10:45:59) :
This AR-4 that the Carbon Cult has published……is it paper copies ? How many 3000 page’s filled with voodoo science did they distribute?
How many tree’s had to die ? ”
Putting aside the carbon sequestration jokes, it should be noted that most paper is produced from trees grown in commercial plantations, and of course they’re immediately replanted. So print all you want and stop feeling guilty about it.
And, by the way, C02 does leave an acid taste in the mouth.
Do you get up every morning and have the taste of Coke in your mouth?
Chances are, you’re drinking too much soda pop, but you don’t get that taste in your mouth from 380 ppm C02.
Lying is a “mistake.” Sometimes it’s because you have your hand in the cookie jar; sometimes it’s because you are directing genocide. The importance of the “mistake” is the effect it has on others. The effect of lying on the liar, however, is the same is the same in all cases – he ceases to be trustworthy. Clearly the IPCC has been lying by both omission and commission and therefore is not to be trusted with any pronouncements or findings. It’s time for a complete do-over, but this time with real transparency and honesty.
Until it is proved that (a) carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere catastrophically, and that (b) curtailing human use of carbon based fuel will prevent the worst of the projected scenarios — there are important and direct things that might be done for the good of people and the environment.
Also, see
Vincent at 10:15:15 who makes a good point that should be widely circulated.
I’m looking forward to, and fully expect a similar revelation every day for the next n days, where n=number of pages in that IPCC report (n is not currently available as it is undergoing value added adjustment)
Don’t worry about the amazon jungle, it is not yours. Worry about your own countries which are being devastated by wrong policies. The armageddon you are so fond of is a present from above just for you to enjoy. Don´t you see it?. Sorry but you are done! (No joke, ask anyone who you think will speak frankly to you from any part of the world south of the equator).
@JohnH
“Thats the second ref to 3000 pages I have seen, first was in the Today program this morning by a Green activist. All previous refs were that the IPCC report is 1600 pages long. The bigger it gets the lower the error rate I suppose.”
Maybe the IPCC has been quietly sending out double-spaced copies to journalists?
I don’t want to sound picky but:
– Gate Of The Day would be Gate-du-jour.
– Gate-de-jour means Daytime Gate.
REPLY: Good point, I defer to your expertise and changed the title, foreign languages are my worst subject – A
Would it be correct and sequentially correct to summarise the revelations of the last few months as consisting of:
1. Hockey-stickgate – wherein is described the distortion, hiding and manipulation of temperature data as evidence of a hypothesis.
2. Climategate – wherein is described the corruption of the peer-review process by an AGW “mafia”
3. Pachaurigate – consisting of actions (or omissions) which have converted the supposedly scientific and peer-reviewed credentials of the IPCC AR4 report into an advocacy document, and in turn encompassing:
3.1 Glaciergate wherein is described the exaggeration of non-peer reviewed press articles (with no scientific backing) to further a particular political agenda, and
3.2 TERIgate wherein the exaggerated claims of Glaciergate are used in support of obtaining funding for research projects, and
3.3 Disastergate wherein it is implied that there is a clear statistical link between natural disasters and global warming where there is none, and
3.4 Amazongate wherein a postulation that there is a linkage between the Brazilian forest and rainfall is morphed to become a linkage between the Amazon forests and global warming
Guardian:
Henry chance (09:54:02) :
Even Joe Romm is lying about the world record storm in LA last week.
It’s easy to point to big weather events and cry apocalypse. I grew up
in L.A. and remember asking my dad why there were concrete channels
all over town. He said they were for water runoff. I asked why they
were always empty. He said they were not always empty, and if we
didn’t have them, L.A. would flood. Young people can be fooled my
Romm and others, but not those of us who have been around. Those
channels are huge and have been around for over 80 years.
Why Romm?
For those young people who don’t want to be manipulated by lies,
here is a link.
http://www.lastormwater.org/siteorg/general/lastrmdrn.htm
memory is slipping, here’s the link to Guardian on Obama will omit climate change in speech :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/25/barack-obama-climate-state-union
OMG! How can we (IPCC) be sure that our report is 100% accurate? So we included some false info. What’s a few white lies amongst friends?
How can anyone trust the information in AR4? The wheels are off thanks to this site and the many like it. Thank you for all of your hard work, this is like a tax cut or rather the avoidance of unnecessary taxes and regulation!
It might be useful if climate skeptics applied some of the same skepticism to other environmental sciences, such as the widespread quango claims that the Amazon is currently being deforested, or that Amazonia is a wilderness untrammeled by man until recently.
In fact, Amazonia has been inhabited by human beings for 10,000 years or more. The residents cleared, planted domesticated crops, grew fruit and nut orchards, altered soils, mounded, ditched, fish farmed, and burned vast areas. People have been creating and extending Amazonian grasslands and savannas through annual burning for millennia — not merely slash-and-burn swidden, but landscape-scale adaptation of whole regions to conditions suiting human survival and prosperity.
Large urban civilizations occupied the putative Amazon “wilderness”. In the aftermath of mass population decline following the introduction of Old World diseases, the forests grew back. That process continues today as abandoned fields quickly reforest.
The idea that once removed, tropical forests are lost forever is alarmist poppycock. Just as the seas are NOT going to boil, neither are the forests of Amazonia disappearing. It may be comforting in a sick way to assume that humanity is the scourge of all life, but just ain’t so.
Biology is not fragile. The Earth is not in a precarious state. People are foolish. These are eternal verities.
Given the Amazon mistakes, scientific citations in IPPC reports carry no more weight than a Hollywood movie that says “based on a true story.”
I was wondering when they were going to play the “we’re only human” card.
@Maxwell
Unless of course that 5% are related to the bulk of the major catastrophic affects studied in the IPCC. So at this point, with the two references we can question “destruction of the Amazon rain forest” and “water shortages in basins fed by Himalayan glaciers”.
Now about the 5% assumption, you have to assume that the only quotes taken out of context are the ones from the WWF. Heres the problem, the citations of the IPCC of the WWF shows one of four things.
1. The scientists on the panel don’t know what peer reviewed literature is, and therefore would not know that they shouldn’t include a WWF citation.
2. The scientists on the panel do not ensure that the content they are releasing is consistent with the literature they are quoting.
3. The scientists on the panel know there is a possibility that they are wrong, but realize that nothing will be done about the problem (alledged) unless there are a few exageration made.
4. The scientists on the panel know there is a possibility that they are wrong, but refuse to make waves lest they jeapordize their own careers.
I’m not a scientist. I don’t play one on television. I do understand rudimentary logic, statistics and math and can tell you that if you read the original peer reviewed literature and then the IPCC statements, you should be able to easily pick up that they are not close in intent or meaning.
In a way, the IPCC process reminds me of why I quit the debate team in high school. No matter what we were debating (helping the homeless, space exploration, etc…) it always led to nuclear war or the prevention thereof. I can honestly say that I was never able to find that book or article that made the explicit link between helping battered women and nuclear war, but it was proven countless times on the debate field through daring leaps in logic, twisting of definitions and omission of relevant facts and circumstances. I see these same tactics going on with the IPCC report and it instantly throws the entire body of work in doubt.
If it were just one reference, section or particular author I might be able to let it go, but the fact is there are multiple author biases, reference inclusions and fact twisting/omissions that have already been demonstrated. And by multiple, I mean more than just the two being referenced now. Either way, a reboot of the process with greater transparency is the way to go at this point, at least if you want to have a document that is the least bit useful for policy making. If that is not the goal of the IPCC report, then it should just be disbanded because it is otherwise pointless.
DirkH (11:14:30) :
But Dirk, you forget that Gaia will be hurt!
I think this is a harsh assessement; more likely, they do not understand nor comprehend qualifying statements, units of measure and the maths for same.
Via SM’s & MM’s work we _know_ they do not understand statistics for instance …
Call it ‘comprehension difficulties’ under self-induced hysteria or stress.
.
.
“Richard Lawson (09:55:44) :
I think the collective of all the ‘gates’ recently should now be known as FloodGate!”
Well, as catchy as that is I think Reportgate is more descriptive.
Also, I don’t like how everyone says it is just one or two errors. By my count there have been at least 7 errors in the last few days. The lead author of the glacier section pointed out five major errors in the glacier section alone (I put them up on the IPCC section of wikipedia but they are gone now). Add those to the non-peer-reviewed and inaccurate statement about extreme weather events and now the amazon rain forests and we are talking about a real pattern here.
So someone went around and measured 40% of the Amazon forest for climate sensitivity. Bull.
A little math: 2000 scientists, 3000 pages. Low productivity.
Lord Monckton had a few words this morning on the breakfast show on New Zealand national radio, on the heels of his Aussie tour. Too bad he’s not coming to NZ
Of course they blown up the numbers from 1600 pages to 3000 pages in order to make the errors appear as only footnotes. What is amazing an “error” (if they want to call it like that) one one page or in 1600 pages still does not make it right. I find that strange that 2500 supposed scientists wrote only 1600 pages. Considering that there are many pages that talk about politics, it would appear that each of their 2500 scientists contributed for a few lines and maybe a paragraph each at most.
It seems to me that the IPCC will just continue to make excuses and stall for time until they can come up with new data and new studies that support the same conclusions. At worst, the UN may decide to disolve the IPCC and replace it with something new (like they did their Human Rights body) but the new entity will just have a different name with different positions, but the same core of people with the same agenda behind it (like what happened with the “new” Human Rights body).
If I may, the only way to slay this dragon is for climate models to be built using:
publicly available data;
public source code based on;
public scientific theory;
with publicly verifiable results.
Now if only we had some way for many many people to collaborate in this fashion. If only there were some way that thousands of people could contribute their data, knowledge, and software skills toward such a goal. Sort of like Linux for Climate Analysis. Open Source Climate Analysis and Research (Oscar for short). I’m sure there must be a way to organize something like that…
Mind you, a high performance compute cluster with terrabytes of storage would be needed to run the code. That might be harder to borrow.
Re: New Paper cited by Kip Hansen at 10:45
I looked at the ten temperature graphs from 1980 – 2008. In every case, the temperature at 2008 was not higher than that in 1980. Yet, that didn’t prevent the computer(?) from showing a 2-3 deg C temperature increase per century as being representative of the data. If I had been a peer reviewer of this data, I would have asked for a range of interpretations, not just the one extreme: favorable to “global warming”. Not mentioned, of course, is the data (GISS,
Fig D) which shows temperatures in the period of 1930-1940 were 0.5 deg C higher than that in 1980.
What an embarrassing retraction by Dr North. Yet many here are so blinded by their denial of AGW they would not care to admit it.
roger samson
This 40% figure never made sense to me. Now it all makes sense. I consider myself an environmentalist. I find all this very disconcerting how the IPCC and WWF hijacked the science process. Heads need to roll and it should first start with the heads of the IPCC and WWF.
A rote, groupist environmentalist thought he’d get me by saying that I couldn’t call myself an “environmentalist” and I agreed. Along with AGW and some other things, I objected to the Religion of the Pacific Northwet Salmon, where the real goal seems to be to tap into big funding and tear down big dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers while wailing on and on about “clean energy”.
The whole Environmental Movement is corrupted by self-serving Organizations, Lawyers, and Useful Idiots. I’m trying to restrain myself from going on and on about it just from my own experience. Environmentally, nothing makes any sense anymore.
Dr. Krishna Pillai (11:36:31)
3.4 Amazongate wherein a postulation that there is a linkage between the Brazilian forest and rainfall is morphed to become a linkage between the Amazon forests and global warming
The source document at the base connects logging and rainfall in Brazil to forest endangerment. Otherwise your list is quite good.
Not exactly on topic, interesting articles in the BBC:
“In his regular column, BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin looks at how the world’s leading authority on climate science has been rocked by allegations of serious faults in its key report.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8479972.stm
and
“If the case for tackling climate change is backed by science, why do so many green campaigners rely on the language of religion?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468233.stm
What eventually brings down a political scam is the early denials. The more the IPCC denies a systemic fault the better in the long run for the destruction of the scam. And in the internet age each denial is gold.
“Extreme cold weather in Mongolia kills one million livestock”. Wonder if they’ve got a weather station.
A rather interesting archeological assessment of sea levels on the Israel coast
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-tsl012610.php
The article gives reasons why the changes there relate to water levels rather than other factors. It made the interesting observation that:
Another closet climate denier???
Vincent (10:15:15) :
… Although the alarmists will deny this is what they are doing, it is a fact that by making bogus claims, they have eclipsed real environmental issues. For in this example, forest destruction is made out to be a problem that will be solved by burning less fossil fuels, and has nothing to do with forestry management….
Very good point. I’ve seen people hacking down rainforests to provide firewood for cooking to be shipped to large cities like Managua. If they used more fossil fuels instead they would better preserve the rain forests and also have better air quality.
Several people have been sceptical about the 3000 pages often cited as the size of the IPCC AR4.
The report weighs in at around 1000 pages for WG1
840 pages for WG2
800 pages for WG3. There is also a synthesis report at 50 pages and a summary for policy makers included within the relevant report, so around 2700 pages, which includes addendum
There are vast numbers of references, guidance, errata, summaries, contents, index and contributors listed (as they should be)
In the paleo climate section this sort of material consisted of some 16 out of 50 pages. This was a high ratio but other Chapters are close to it, so around 25% appears to be non technical material (although essential for a report of this size so it has a proper structure).
The actual technical pages of AR4 therefore consists of around 2000 plus pages.
The number of scientists involved is rather more debatable, as WG2 and 3 have numerous non scientists, including representatives from Oxfam and Greenpeace, plus Insurance assessors, Bankers, Engineers etc. All relevant to their working group content, but certainly not scientists.
I read once that around 650 scientists were involved in AR4 in total, with key Chapters sometimes being relatively light on active working Scientists.
However, someone more closely involved with the process can tell me if this number is correct.
Tonyb
“MJK (11:53:23) :
What an embarrassing retraction by Dr North. Yet many here are so blinded by their denial of AGW they would not care to admit it.”
Though to his honour, it has to be stated that he didn’t accuse Icarus of Voodoo science or call him arrogant.
There is a serious risk that overuse of the suffix “-gate” will dilute and/or undermine the strategic importance of the event that was Climategate. If the average person becomes inundated with sensational news stories about “this-gate” and “that-gate” then it will seriously diminish the intrinsic value of the Climategate story. We should not underestimate the importance of limiting the “-gate” suffix to include only revelations of deception that are sufficiently massive to be truly game-changing. Climategate easily met that requirement but I fear these latest “-gates” fall short.
I am not questioning anyone’s ability to critique the report, but rather saying if one is going to critique it, use a criteria strong enough for the task. Not an unrepresentative one.
How about failure to follow their own rules. The ones in big print. Not the disclaimer, 200 pages printed in two point type.
There’s three gates in the East
There’s three gates in the West
There’s three gates in the North
There’s three gates in the South
That makes twelve gates to the city, hallelujah
Rev. Gary Davis
Q: Why does the amazon basin is a forest while the sahara is a desert? Both being neighbours of the atlantic ocean in the middle. That´s because of the LOD and not because of any IPCC anthropogenic phantasy,
Looks like Andrew Neil, the BBC’s political presenter is starting to have grumblings too.
— The Dam is Cracking —
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html?s_sync=1#comments
Correct if I am wrong , the deal of Mr Pachauri cs is working like this :
First you tell like big Al the science is settled .
Second you claim you are publishing a peer-reviewed study.
Third you insert all bullshit serving your goals like the Himalaya story .
Then you cry this deserves studying.
Then the generally leftist politicians free a pool of money , because they are the ones that really care and make it available , how good of them !
In the meantime you install your own institute lined up to cash this money .
Again they write a report giving more questions than answers with highly disturbing prophecies .
In the meantime you cash the maximum in subsidies possible . And the game is not over now , it starts again and if you are able to stonewall your critics you have created the perfect money machine, a kind of perpetuum mobile stealing from the rich governments and licensed by politicians more interested in profile than in truth finding . Are you a modern Robin Hood or a macchiavellian crook or are you considered smarter than the rest ?
It understandeable that George Bush made this man to the head of IPCC , given his attitude trying to make the maximum amount of bucks . Madoff tried to do the same as an independent businessman . Pachauri should be asked to represent himself only and not the rest of the world , so he cannot make excuses any longer and his fellowmen could really ask for some kind of reckoning .
Thinking back to my undergraduate schooling, had I turned in an essay with these types of errors and references I would have received an F. And, speaking of those days (which were not that long ago), I was constantly amazed to see how many fourth year university students could not even write a paper, let alone properly cite references. Sadly, the ability think critically is not the norm in academia. Our institutions of higher learning emphasize comformity more than creativity. And, unfortunately, the cream doesn’t always rise to the top.
“MJK (11:53:23) :
What an embarrassing retraction by Dr North. Yet many here are so blinded by their denial of AGW they would not care to admit it.”
Yes instead of the IPCC paraphrasing activist propaganda with no scientific backing, the IPCC paraphrased activist propaganda that distorted and twisted a journal letter that was totally unrelated to AGW. Within 24 hours Dr. North had corrected the record and the conclusions are just as damning. Hardly an embarrassing retraction.
You can do better than that, MJK.
JustPassing (12:37:30) : From the link you gave:
it is now clear that the majority of those involved in the IPCC process are not scientists at all but politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.
…..Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman often wrongly described in the media as the world’s leading climate scientist (he’s actually a railway engineer (*)
(*)Railway engineer: A train driver, a train chauffer.
“NATURE463, 269 (21 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/463269a; Published online 20 January 2010
Climate of suspicion
Top of page
Abstract
With climate-change sceptics waiting to pounce on any scientific uncertainties, researchers need a sophisticated strategy for communication.”
What a bunch of crock!
As if the IPCC, the MSM and all the governments’ sponsored science conferences, brochures, TV, kid’s pressure, astroturfing foundation such as Suzuki’s, Hoggan etc… stuff was not enough…
What’s next? Forced indoctrination?
“Nature” on the climate change issue as a scientific journal keeps discrediting itself to the point of non-return. Shame on them and on the publishing group that backs such blattant bias.
maxwell (10:18:59) :
John H,
I think the point of referencing the size of the report is that an argument is being made that these types of mistakes are representative of the entire report both here and by Dr. North. By Ms. Laframboise’s count, there are about 20 citations of WWF papers. That’s likely fewer than 5% of the report’s cited sources. So these sources are not representative. If they are not, the mistakes they involved are not representative either.
It is not the number but the weight that matters. If I get 5 hits on a battle ship with three inch guns it will make hardly any difference. If I get 5 hits with sixteen inch guns it is going to hurt.
There are more than two mistakes: Every WWF reference is a mistake. Every could/might caveat is a mistake, of the 3000 pages, does that include the references and pretty pictures? How much of the document is actual, readable text?
If this was someone’s thesis, they’d be out on their ear!
Okay, I figured it out, George Bush appointed Pachauri in an attempt to embarrass the IPCC. It is all his fault!
Because, despite being the dumbest president ever, he is also a criminal mastermind!
I’ll bet money that some blog or newspaper advocates such a crazy theory.
@JohnH
“Thats the second ref to 3000 pages I have seen, first was in the Today program this morning by a Green activist. All previous refs were that the IPCC report is 1600 pages long. The bigger it gets the lower the error rate I suppose.”
I once had the pleasure of directing an animated tv show. A scriptwriter asked me how many pages of script I needed for each five minute episode. I said it worked out about a minute of screen time for a page of script so five pages. She said she’d only written four pages for the episode she was working on.
I told her to use a larger font.
The list of “mistakes” by the IPCC is far too long to be long to be excused as just a small issue. I like to see two lists, one that shows the findings that have been shown to be false, and one that shows the remainder of the their findings. I bet the first list is much longer. The disparity between the two lists must now be so large that it’s clear the IPCC could be proven to be corrupt in a court of law.
MJK (11:53:23)
You’re right. Very embarrassing. He should have just deleted it and then come up with something like ” If something is wrong, it gets fixed. You should be happy.” It’s much more embarrassing to admit your mistake and explain how it occurred rather than just getting uppity about it. No?
I know which approach I prefer, well done Dr. North.
Denialist? No, I accept global warming is happening (partly because “it’s an inter-glacial, get over it”). But, if you want to waste my hard-earned, and the lives and the futures of all those I hold dear you had better prove it is “man-made” (rather than “Mann-made”), that it will be “catastrophic” and that I need to change my behaviour (and also that changing *will* make a difference, otherwise…).
The standard I require for such a shift in my thinking is “beyond all reasonable doubt”. Fair enough? No more spin. No more distortion. Everything out in the open and fairly debated and tested. I’m not someone who accepts that science needs “consensus”. Testable truth or falsehood will do. Any else is just “don’t know” in my book.
Too hard for you? Thought so.
Dave
________________
According to Alfredo R. Huete of The University of Arizona in Tucson, sponsored by NASA.
Reported by NASA in 2006 – Huete had been sponsored by NASA to develop techniques for mapping global vegetation…
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=29754
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/AmazonEVI/
I write this from the middle of the eastern China coastal Plain where particulate air pollution is out of control, water pollution is out of control, solid waste management is out of control, industrial conversation of Ag land is out of control, all of which is reduced to side show by fixation on the trivial warming effects of a trace gas. The legitimates causes of pollution control and conservation have been hijacked by a scientific freak show, demanding that the entire world fiddle while substantial portions of the planet burn. Those forces (political and industrial) that have no interest in addressing reality will happily spar forever in the fantasy shadow game of carbon control.
CHILIBRE, Panama –
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html?_r=2
maxwell (10:18:59) :
John H,
I think the point of referencing the size of the report is that an argument is being made that these types of mistakes are representative of the entire report both here and by Dr. North. By Ms. Laframboise’s count, there are about 20 citations of WWF papers. That’s likely fewer than 5% of the report’s cited sources. So these sources are not representative. If they are not, the mistakes they involved are not representative either.
maxwell (11:06:06) :
But this pandering to the idea that a handful of non peer-reviewed citations in an overwhelming sea of peer-reviewed ones somehow marks the report as suspect is really neither here nor there.
You seem to believe that because these instances are small in number they should not be granted much significance, but the justifications for the draconian public policies looming like the Sword of Damocles over our heads to counter CAGW don’t really relate to the GW, or even that much to the A. The locomotive hauling our collective destinies toward the precipice is the C. Absent the hype and propaganda of catastrophe AGW would in all likelihood remained an academic curiosity and “climate science” an impoverished backwater in the research community.
The reason these instances have significance far beyond their number is because they comprise, if not the heart and soul at least the liver and lungs, of the body evidence of the supposed catastrophe that awaits us.
Although if you did a Google search today on “disappearing glaciers” or “disappearing Amazon rainforest” you’d likely get mostly hits relating to this evolving scandal, if you had done a similar search only a month or two ago you’d have found a mountain hits that would have had their genesis in these bogus citations.
Also, since you seem to think the peer-reviewed portions of the IPCC’s work is unassailable, I would suggest you take time to review Mr, Goklany’s post from yesterday, which shows that their efforts to hype the negative consequences was not limited using numbers the WWF extracted from its anal orifice.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/25/the-ipcc-more-sins-of-omission-–-telling-the-truth-but-not-the-whole-truth/
Interesting.
Following the link to the EUreferendum site it seems to track to this passage here:
QUOTE
Although logging and forest surface fires usually do not kill all trees, they severely damage forests. Logging companies in Amazonia kill or damage 10-40% of the living biomass of forests through the harvest process. Logging also increases forest flammability by reducing forest leaf canopy coverage by 14-50%, allowing sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor, where it dries out the organic debris created by the logging.
END QUOTE
This refers to the impact of logging.
One presumes that the affected areas are thus those that are logged.
The question that must follow is: What proportion of Amazonia has been logged? That is because these percentages must refer only to that portion that has been logged. It says nothing about the rest of Amazonia.
So, any one got any ideas about just how much of Amazonia has been affected?
Interesting how the IPCC have morphed this into 40% of the entire Amazon forest.
As commentators have pointed out, the Internet makes these
sort of long-running scams harder to sustain.
I am peripherally involved in the debunking process of two
other rather large scams involving the same general cast.
WWF, UN, various parts of the State of California, and others.
FOIA requests, software to do analysis of linkage of documents,
satellite photographs, and occasional DNA analysis are beating
the crap out of cozy grant-funding and peer-review circles.
The -gates will keep flowing.
Elizabeth (12:59:36) :
“…And, unfortunately, the cream doesn’t always rise to the top.”
In this situation the gold settled down and was refined, and it was the slag that rose to the top.
If the lunatics have taken over the asylum who is left to put it right? It seems as if idealists have worked their way up in several organisations and hijacked them. I just can not see where any ‘correction’ can come from.
Also, they believe their own lies : Greenpeace’s executive director, Gerd Leipold –
http://www.businessinsider.com/greenpeaces-director-is-busted-for-lying-about-the-effects-of-global-warming-2009-8
“On July 15th, Greenpeace put out a press release saying the arctic ice caps would melt by 2030, a claim that Leipold now admits is false. Rather than own up, and say it was a mistake and he’d never let it happen again, he says Greenpeace is “a pressure group” that has to “emotionalize issues, and we’re not ashamed” of it.”
This ’emotionalising’ [a good spin word for propaganda] is passed off to their members and the rest of the world as truth. This in turn stiffens the backbone of other members and organisations who in turn feel they are justified in doing their own ’emotionalising’. As they have no reason to doubt each others lies, they believe them, and so become even more committed to the ’cause’.
In the end the illusory edifice arises, built on half-lies and fantasy, with all the inhabitants firmly believing their own creation is built on solid foundations and impregnable.
Coming back to my original point : who is in a position of power, and intellectually competent enough, to actually pull this edifice down? I can’t see anyone at the moment, and that worries me.
Is it possible to create an anti-IPCC? An organisation which can be a central focus for all non-AGW research and modelling, saving all untainted raw data, taking readings from trusted meteorological stations, etc.
I keep thinking of Fahrenheit 451 – there are a lot of people around with their own ‘books’, but we need to build a library. Governments can dismiss individuals but organisations are more difficult to ignore. I am sure that many people who follow this website would become members and help to support such an organisation.
“Large seasonal swings in leaf area of Amazon rainforests
Seasonality in LAI Time Series.
Leaf area data for the Amazon rainforests exhibit notable seasonality, with an amplitude (peak-to-trough difference) that is 25% of the average annual LAI of 4.7 (Fig. 1 A). This average amplitude of 1.2 LAI is about twice the error of a single estimate of MODIS LAI, and thus is not an artifact of remote observation or data processing (see SI Materials and Methods). The aggregate phenological cycle appears timed to the seasonality of solar radiation in a manner that is suggestive of anticipatory and opportunistic patterns of leaf flushing and abscission. These patterns result in leaf area leading solar radiation during the entire seasonal cycle, with higher leaf area during the shorter dry season when solar radiation loads are high and lower leaf area during the longer wet season when radiation loads decline significantly. This seasonality is roughly consistent with the hypothesis that in moist tropical forests, where rainfall is abundant and herbivore pressures are modest, seasonal increase in solar radiation during the dry season might act as a proximate cue for leaf production (1, 2, 4). ”
[National Academy of Sciences] 2006
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/12/4820.full
great input as usual.
andrew neil blog at http://www.bbc.co.uk just gets better. well worth a read.
one contributer to andrews blog is Jack Hughes. a real comedian
he says ”there are 2 WWF’s the World Wildlife Foundation and the World Wrestling Federation (name since changed i believe)
one is a blatantly commercial organisation – money making by staging over-hyped unbalanced events containing plenty ad-libbing, with a pre arranged conclusion.
the other other one runs wrestling events.”
it is often said that the real downfall of the old USSR started with satirical humour.
maxwell (11:06:06), the bogus reference issue is really no different from the other shortcomings I mentioned (and one I didn’t, i.e. the deliberately omitted “good news about global warming” that Indur Goklany just pointed out at WUWT). All these (and revelations yet to come) are symptomatic of the incredibly sloppy “science” of the IPCC. No single issue “disproves” the IPCC’s conclusions, but the growing list of blunders (and lies) is collectively devastating. The alarmists would like to pretend the unreferences are an isolated issue; they shouldn’t get away with that.
Mike D. (11:39:31) & Jimbo (13:59:18), (14:34:09), thanks for pointing out even more things the IPCC somehow “forgot” to tell us.
MJK (11:53:23):
“What an embarrassing retraction by Dr North. Yet many here are so blinded by their denial of AGW they would not care to admit it.”
Are you serious? Did you go read Dr. North’s “retraction” on his web page? Contrary to your implication, Dr. North explains that what the IPCC did in this case is much worse than we thought. Sheesh.
I don’t understand where the 40% figure came from. The figures cited are 270,000 and 360,000 km^2 and the area of the Amazon rainforest is 5,500,000km^2 which gives
(270000+360000)/5500000 = 11.45%
Was there an extra fudge factor added or did I miss something?
Meanwhile, the warmist blog Common Dreams continues to push the melting glacier story: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/26-5
IanM
“That’s okay. So far I’ve seen the IPCC numbers go from 2500 scientists up to 3000, who of course are completely representative of the absolute consensus of all (real) scientists about the truth of AGW.”
I’ll see your 3000 and go 4000! Patchy cited this number on Aussie TV, last year:
“RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, fortunately, look at the process by which the IPCC functions. We mobilise the best scientists from all over the world. In the fourth assessment report, we had a total of about 4,000 people that were involved. Whatever we do is very transparent. Every stage of the drafting of our report is peer reviewed, and whatever comments we get from the peer review process are posted on the website of the IPCC, and the reasons why we accept or reject those comments are clearly specified. Where we accept a comment we say, “Yes. Accepted.” Where we don’t, we have to adduce very clear reasons why the authors don’t agree with the comment. So it’s a very transparent process. And finally, the summary for policymakers of every report have to be approved by all the governments of the world. So, you know, if the IPCC’s work is not carrying conviction with some people, I would say that they better look at the whole process by which our reports are produced, quite apart from the substance that they carry and think objectively.” http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2700047.htm
Irony, thy name is Patchy.
maxwell (11:06:06) :
” But this pandering to the idea that a handful of non peer-reviewed citations in an overwhelming sea of peer”
Max, you’re putting up a good fight, but give it up.
Those two mistakes = hundreds of billions of dollars.
No water, and no rain forest
Have you actually read the report on glaciers?
Do you know where it went, and what they did with it?
And what their voodoo science was going to cost people?
Possibly a sign of things to come?
Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, said: “Climate scientists get kudos from working on an issue in the public eye but with that kudos comes responsibility. Being open with data is part of that responsibility.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/britains-chief-scientist-john-beddington-calls-for-engagement-with-climate-sceptics/story-e6frg6xf-1225823874671
Don’t forget Yamal-gate.
Re: hswiseman (14:03:51) : Yes, Yes, Yes!
The neglect of serious and fixable environmental problems is why hunting the CO2 Snark (ref to Lewis Carrol nonsense poem) is such a disaster and makes many sceptics so angry!
May I encourage all to major on this point when trying to show up the AGW scam? Otherwise we just seem as deniers for the sake of it, and/or get the “precautionary principle” quoted at us! Or peak oil!
Appeals re money, taxes, etc per se also seem less effective than talking what else the money could be spent on: concrete eg’s rather than abstract.
Thanks for the blog, Anthony, and to those who post.
It was fixed within two days, thanks to the nature of the Internet. Just as the IPCC’s “2035” figure would have been, if their group had been open to significant contrarian input. The fact that it wasn’t implies that their deck was stacked, and s suggests that online peer review is the way to go for science in the future.
“We are going to reinforce the procedures to try [to ensure that?] this does not happen again.” — Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
And to what does the “this” refer? Mayhap to “getting caught?”
patrick healy (14:34:15) :
Now THAT’S funny! Thanks.
I read a concession by some neutral or warmist biggie (Geoffrey Lean??) that Glaciergate is worse than Climategate, because it substantially affects one of the pillars of alarmism (less water from the Himalayas) and impacts the credibility IPCC, which is more of a pillar of alarmism than the CRUsaders, who could be seen as a rogue fringe.
Amazongate and Disastergate also undermine key threats in the alarmist list of potential disasters.
I read recently a seemingly knowledgeable comment on a blog that he worked for a railway as an “industrial engineer,” which meant in earlier parlance that he was a time-and-motions man.
Big error: “…due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil.” Most of the water that is used by plants is near the surface; the water at 2, 3 or 5 meters is irrelevant. And no amount of water in the soil will keep a green tree from burning given the right conditions. Here’s how forests burn:
All you need to have good wildfire conditions is for the duff, the organic matter on top of the soil, dry out. That layer of dead needles, leaves, twigs and branches is what carries the fire. On the news you see the whole trees go up in flames, but that’s what is spectacular to show. The fire is carried in the duff and burns into low dead limbs as well as piles of dead limbs and other combustible material (such as trees that have fallen down) go up in flames when the fire in the duff reaches them.
Green trees burn when they get preheated and dried by the fire in the duff and brush below. This is most likely to happen when the fire is burning uphill, where the heat is carried ahead of the fire, up the hill. And when the fire below is hot enough to dry out a green tree, no amount of water in the soil below will prevent the tree from burning. It simply can’t draw the moisture up fast enough.
Some trees will root as deep as five meters, but those trees are generally trees that normally grow on very dry sites. Most roots are confined to the upper 1 to 1.5 meters and many trees only root a half a meter down.
Whoever used the 15 meter figure knows little or nothing about how forests burn.
Here is some analysis you may find interesting.
The IPCC working groups consisted of 850+ contributing authors, 400+ leading authors, and around 2,500 scientific reviewers. Dr. William Schlesinger, IPCC Lead Author and former dean at Duke University, quantified the reviewers as “something in the order of 20 percent had some dealing with climate.” The numbers cited above are somewhat inflated. Many reviewers served on two or more working groups. The IPCC added all members of all three working groups without subtracting duplicate names.
The working groups were broken down as follows:
Working Group I – Causes and future forecasts of climate change. This group consisted of approximately 600 scientific reviewers.
Working Group II – Impacts of climate change Working Group III – Response strategies
Collectively WG II and III consisted of around 1,900 scientific reviewers.
What were the methodologies of the review process? Only 308 of the official IPCC experts commented on the final draft before release to government organizations. Of the 308, only five commented on all 11 chapters.
Only 62 reviewers commented on the pivotal Chapter 9 – the chapter that spelled doom and gloom. Eight of these were representatives of governments, 55 had vested interests in the report because they were the authors and were working under government funding focused on establishing human activities as the basis of global warming. Only one (1) scientist actually endorsed the worst case projections of Chapter 9 and 11!
The “Summary for Policy Makers” (SPM) was a shorter condensed version of the IPCC report intended to present the findings and recommendations of the IPCC to government policy makers. A total of 51 subject matter experts worked on the SPM – 33 of them drafting authors and 18 contributing authors. The SPM was drafted at a governmental plenary session attended mostly by government representatives and representatives of environmental organizations.
The SPM was signed by 51 individuals. According to IPCC lead author, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, the SPM “represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nation’s Kyoto representatives), rather than scientists.” Significant changes to the main science content of the reports were made to the SPM after the reviewed work was submitted. As one IPCC official put it “it was necessary to ensure consistency.”
The SPM is presented as the body of scientific consensus of thousands of the world’s foremost climate scientists. The facts are approximately 10 climate scientists around the world actually reviewed the IPCC report and endorsed it to varying degrees. Only one agreed with the dire predictions of Chapter 9 and 11. Most others were government officials, sociologists, and other non-climate related scientists. The greatest majority were getting paid by government grant money.
For more in-depth reading, there is an excellent analysis of the IPCC 4AR WG 1. A PDF of the paper can be downloaded at http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
The proper term for a series of many gates to bob and weave through is a slalom course. Looks like Pauchauri is bobbing and weaving through the IPCC slalom event better than Bode Miller. Besides, we already know he’s going for the GOLD!!!
I didn’t see anyone point this out yet….. on the original thread, omnologos (15:04:49) responded to icarus within 45 minutes saying (stated roughly) that the article was about logging, not climate change. EUReferendum subsequently confirms this in detail. Props to omnologos.
Looks like we have peer review at Watts Up with That…..
By the way I have the EUReferendum sight in my normal rotation along with WUWT, CA, Bishop Hill and yes Real Climate.
EUReferendum is more focussed on the political side of AGW which is great, plus they work very hard, its updated with new stuff all of the time, lots of links… highly recommended.
On the occasion of Dr Pachauri’s accession to the IPCC throne,
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=.txt
Fri, 19 Apr 2002
“WWF is concerned that oil and gas interests had too much to
say in the removal of Dr. Watson as chairman of what should
be an impartial, scientific body,” said Jennifer Morgan,
Director of WWF’s Climate Program.
But, Morgan said, the “IPCC is a vibrant group of scientists
and WWF looks forward to working closely with Dr. Pachauri
to protect the integrity of the IPCC and ensure that it
continues to produce sound science on climate change.”
Hank Hancock
That is great information. If people tie this in with my post at 12:23:54 they will have a good idea of the number of pages and the people involved
Tonyb
Pachauri’s theme song (with apologies to The Clash)
maxwell (10:18:59)
You seem to be missing the problem, which is that the IPCC does not follow its own stated procedures. The inclusion of non peer-reviewed papers is just one part of that. Other parts (among many) are the ridiculous responses to the reviewer’s comments, the denial of valid peer-reviewed papers, the secrecy in what is supposed to be a “transparent” process, the exclusion of certain scientists who hold opposing views. Of these, the “review process” is the most egregious.
Here’s the theoretical review procedure. The draft is circulated. Reviewers comment on the draft. Their comments are either included in the final report, or are responded to by the author in question. All comments and responses are published.
Here’s the real review procedure. The draft is circulated. Reviewers comment on the draft. Their comments are either ignored without response from the author, or it is claimed that their comments were included in the final version … except they aren’t included. All comments and responses are kept secret.
I truly don’t see how that is anything less than a huge problem. The peer-review issue is only the tip of the iceberg, a small part of an organization-wide failure to follow its own guidelines. As a result, we end up with a political statement rather than a scientific statement … double-plus ungood, as they say in “1984”.
For example, in the glacier debacle, the lead author of the section said that he knew that the WWF paper wasn’t peer reviewed, but he kept it in anyhow:
So you see, the issue is that it’s not just an accidental mistake that 5% of the sources are junk. The issue is that there is a pervasive belief that the job of the IPCC is to “impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take concrete action”. What does that have to do with science? That is politics and persuasion to push a fore-ordained conclusion, and it is about as far from science as you can get. It is the IPCC-wide delusion that they are an advocacy body that is the problem, not the 5% non peer-reviewed papers. The IPCC sees its job as pushing the scare, and they are not about to let facts get in the way.
Mr. Watts, people do make mistakes, but the important thing is that you acknowledged your mistake promptly upon being made aware of it and stated so publically with a reasonable explanation for the mistake.
This is the mark of a reasonable & fair man and one that respects the scientific method and the give and take of good scientific process.
That’s why multiple sets of eyes are important in the scientific process.
If mistakes or errant assessments are acknowledged upon being pointed out then it’s all part of the scientific method. Mistakes happen.
What we have seen in Climategate is people who won’t acknowledge mistakes when pointed out and have no give and take, rather, they defend the indefensible and rely on their “authority” to get away with it until the continued denial robs them of all credibility.
And they smear people that disagree with their opinion and attempt to keep them from being heard.
This website is a credit to the free flow of information, evidence, and frank expression of opinion.
Cheers
Maxwell, here’s a citation for just one example (among many) of the egregious flouting by the IPCC of their own rules and procedures:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/ipcc-statement-on-trends-in-disaster.html
Like I said, the 5% unreviewed papers is just a tiny part of the problem, it is merely one symptom among many.
Kip Hansen (10:45:54) :
“Anthony,
Are we going to see any response to
Dr. Menne’s new paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, ‘On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record’.”
Until he does, you might be interested in this.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-data-massaging.html
Trust the NCDC at your own risk.
I really get a kick out of the illogical spinning that occurs when a flaw is exposed (on both “sides.”) Tell me, warmer-folks, if you found that 5% of the information in a prospectus was bogus, would you invest in the fund/stock?
Willis Eschenbach (17:54:12) :
“Like I said, the 5% unreviewed papers is just a tiny part of the problem, it is merely one symptom among many.”
Like they say, the iceberg you see is just 1/8th of all that’s there.
JAE (17:59:24), actually it’s a minimum of 5% bogus info.
Yes, you should all look at the EU Referendum site – it is well worthwhile. Follow the Pachauri trail.
Willis,
Your ability to convey all the essential points so succinctly makes your comments and posts a joy to read. Hope there’s another post coming soon!
This has a place in discussion of the Amazon. Always take the long view when contemplating change; and then look even further back…
Ancient Amazon civilisation laid bare by felled forest
I looked at the linked climate progress article about the LA storm. I don’t follow the logic : a series of blizzards dump snow across NE USA, the UK and much of Europe, breaking cold/snowfall records but that’s weather. A large storm dumps a lot of rain on SW USA and sets a record for low pressue (and size of system? I couldn’t follow), so that’s evidence of climate change.
My head is spinning. Is weather evidence for climate change or not?
Following on from the comments by Pat Moffit (10:34:14) and Richard North (16:23:07), I too was taken back by the 5m soil moisture profile comment. The Nature article (actually a letter) is http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs23/lecture12/Fire_nature.pdf . The relevant comment is Amazonian forests can tap the
water stored in deep soil layers to maintain evapotranspiration
during periods of low rainfall. We assume that forests become
Flammable only when soil moisture is depleted to five metres depth,
based on field studies of soil moisture, leaf shedding.,this was fed into their model.
Just eyeballing Fig1.,I cannot find a high correlation between the two color illustrations comparing the same Amazonian area for Logging intensity and Forest soil moisture. One would think it to be a perfect match
The roots of this climate scandal reach deep into the very heart of the people’s right to self-governance. Democracies only work if the people have access to valid information.
It cannot be a coincidence when international organizations like the UN’s IPCC, the Norwegian Committee distributing Nobel Prizes, political hacks like Al Gore, prestigious journals like Nature and Science, and national organizations like the US’s NAS, NASA, and DOE all spout the same misinformation.
I was personally blacklisted by Nature after pointing out that neutron repulsion explains many of the mysterious energetic cosmic events published there:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2007/05/the_biggest_bang_of_them_all.html
There is much more to this unholy alliance – politicians, scientists, publishers and news media – than meets the eye. It seem remarkably like 1984!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Oliver K. Manuel (21:22:13) :
I was personally blacklisted by Nature …
Can you document this? if so, please do.
Willis Eschenbach and Hank Hancock have written important posts on the IPCC (not far above me here), and Hancock’s rundown of how the IPCC Policy document was arrived at ought imo to be the subject of a blog post on its own. If more people – and i include especially the Tory leadership and Prince Charles her ein the UK and the curretn regime in the US – understood how these apocalyptic warnings on warmings were arrived at, they might be less credulous. The ‘science’ truly is a house of cards
While we are all passing round the praise, and quite rightly naming certain individuals, mention must be made of Christopher Booker, who ploughed a lonely furrow for years on this and related matters in his Sunday Telegraph column (at one point being relegated to the back of the paper by the awful Sarah Sands). Booker has worked closely for many years with Dr Richard North of EUReferendum, and it’s long been impossible to understand the way we are governed here in the UK without reading his articles.
He has been exposing the Global Warming scam for many years; and in March last year wrote this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4990704/Nobody-listens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.html
It was his work which first got me interested enough in the AGW controversy to start reading up on the science, and to follow this blog. When I first started researching seriously, about three years ago, I noted several threats from the usual suspects on RealClimate to try to get Booker and North sued for their views.
I shall be pleased to see them vindicated at last; they were out on a limb for a long time, which took much courage. They have also both always understood how the AGW scam and the EU post-democratic ‘big government’ project mesh together.
Leif Svalgaard (21:39:18) quotes Oliver K. Manuel (21:22:13) :
“. . . was personally blacklisted by Nature …”
Leif asks: “Can you document this? if so, please do.”
Leif, how do you manage to spread yourself everywhere at once?
The Hindu gods with multiple arms have nothing on you!
My Nature subscription number is NUS 2755564
Below is a copy of a few of the e-mail exchanges with Nature:
– – – – – – –
From: Oliver Manuel
Subject: Re: Your Nature Registration; End of Blacklisting?
To: “Nature”
Cc: “Nature Headquarters”
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 10:11 AM
Thank you for the message.
Is this in response to the message, “CENSORSHIP AT NATURE [Incident: 090127-000020] [Incident: 090207-000059]” that I sent yesterday from ?
Does this mean that I will no longer be blacklisted by Nature and can enjoy all of the benefits of being a subscriber if I choose to renew my membership?
Beneath your message, I have copied and pasted some of the earlier communications between Sunil Kumar at “registration@nature.com” and me at
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Customer #2755564
— On Tue, 3/3/09, Nature wrote:
From: Nature
Subject: Your Nature Registration
To: omatumr@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 6:02 AM
Dear Oliver Manuel,
Welcome, and thank you for registering with nature.com.
You are currently set to receive the following e-mail alerts:
Your chosen preferred email format is: HTML
You can update your account details, change your password, revise e-mail alert
preferences or associate your subscriptions with your registration account to
gain online access by logging in to nature.com and selecting My Account:
http://www.nature.com/myaccount/
If you need any further assistance, please contact:
registration@nature.com for technical support, comments and feedback
subscriptions@nature.com for all subscription enquiries
– – – – – –
From Oliver Manuel
To “registration@nature.com”
cc Nature Headquarters
bcc omatumr@yahoo.com,
Date Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Subject: CENSORSHIP AT NATURE [Incident: 090127-000020] [Incident: 090207-000059]
Dear Sunil Kumar,
I received no “email for the activation of email address”.
My personal subscription to Nature will expire this month (March 2009) .
For three months (January, February and March), Nature has denied me
electronic access to my subscription (Customer #2755564).
How very sad that Nature — once the world’s most reputable scientific journal — now uses electronic blacklisting to prevent Nature subscribers from posting critical comments on the misinformation that it publishes about the Sun, the cosmos, the birth of the solar system, and fundamental interactions between nucleons (neutrons and protons).
I will again copy the central Nature office.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
“Truth will prevail”
Mundake Upanishad 3.1.6
and Qur’an 17.85
– – – – – – – –
On 2/25/09, registration@nature.com wrote:
>
If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 7 days.
>
Subject: Re: Change of e-mail address [Incident: 090127-000020]
>
Discussion Thread
Response (Sunil Kumar)02/26/2009 03:39 AM
Dear Oliver K.Manuel,
>
Please note that I have sent an email for the
activation of email address once again. Please click the link received in the email to activate the account.
>
We thank you for your time.
Customer (Oliver Manuel)02/25/2009 08:40 PM
– – – – – – –
Dear Sunil,
>
No, I did not receive an e-mail message at omatumr@yahoo.com with instructions to prompt activation of my account.
>
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:04 PM, registration@nature.com wrote:
>
If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 7 days.
> >
* Subject* Re: Change of e-mail address [Incident: 090127-000020] *
Discussion
>
Thread* * Response (Sunil Kumar)*02/24/2009 03:04 AM
– – – – – – –
Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
> >
With reference
to the below concern regarding your email address, your registered account omatumr@yahoo.com was not activated.
> >
so I have sent the activation email. Please confirm whether you have received that email and followed the prompts to activate the account.
> >
After activating the same, please try to log in with the following details:
> >
Email: omatumr@yahoo.com
Password: nature
> >
Please let me know if you need any further assistance.
* Response (Sunil Kumar)*02/23/2009 03:36 AM
– – – – – – –
Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
Your communication has been forwarded to the relevant staff member for further assistance.
> >
Please allow some time to get the issue resolved and I will let you know the status very shortly.
> >
We thank you for your time and co operation.
* Customer (Oliver Manuel)*02/20/2009 10:10 PM
> >
> > ==================== text File Attachment
====================
> > Attachment 5.txt, 5725 bytes, added to incident * Customer (Oliver Manuel)
> > *02/20/2009 10:10 PM
> >
> > ==================== text File Attachment ====================
> > Attachment 4.txt, 5725 bytes, added to incident * Response (Sunil
> Kumar)*02/20/2009
> > 03:31 AM Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
> >
> > Apologies for the on going inconvenience caused to you.
> >
> > Please note that I have changed the passwords on two different occasions
> > only to verify if online access is possible, however, I have found your
> both
> > email addresses as non functioning after changing the password.
> >
> > As a resultant, I requested for your another email address to associate
> and
> > provide you the access to the online articles.
> >
> > So, in this case, I again request
you to provide me the new email address
> > apart from these two (omatumr2@gmail.com & omatumr@yahoo.com) as you will
> > not be able to log in and access your account via these email addresses.
> >
> > We thank you for your time and co operation and await your response for
> > further action.
> >
>
> ********************************************************************************
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who
> is
> not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in
> error
> please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other
> storage
> mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not
> expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers
Limited or one of its
> agents.
> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
> accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail
> or
> its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
> Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
> Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number
> 785998
> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
> ********************************************************************************
> Response (Sunil Kumar)02/24/2009 03:04 AM
> Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
>
> With reference to the below concern regarding your email address, your
> registered account omatumr@yahoo.com was not activated.
>
>
so I have sent the activation email. Please confirm whether you have
> received that email and followed the prompts to activate the account.
>
> After activating the same, please try to log in with the following details:
>
> Email: omatumr@yahoo.com
> Password: nature
>
> Please let me know if you need any further assistance.
> Response (Sunil Kumar)02/23/2009 03:36 AM
> Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
>
> Your communication has been forwarded to the relevant staff member for
> further assistance.
>
> Please allow some time to get the issue resolved and I will let you know the
> status very shortly.
>
> We thank you for your time and co operation.
> Customer (Oliver Manuel)02/20/2009 10:10 PM
>
@ Oliver Manuel
There seems to be quite a list of scientists blacklisted by the journals inside the AGW bunker. An even worse problem in many ways is the continual and determined editing out (ie censoring and falsifying) of climate information on Wikipedia, including that by experts in their fields, as cited above (and often previously).
Almost all of this is at the hands of one man, the uber-Green and AGW fanatic William Connelly (God know how he manages to hold down the day job!). How and why the Wiki owners allow this is just one of the dirty little secrets. Luckily there is a website about the painful history of Connolly’s banning as Climate editor on Wiki and subsequent reinstatement… (sorry can’t find the url this minute). But see also:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
and – from ClimateAudit where his antics have been well covered:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/
(commnets on this link are indicative! inc of the Wiki/Connolly links to RC and the CRU cabal etc))
The significance of this is of course that the Wiki is still the place where all too many people seeking their first information on a topic will go to find it. It’s trusted; and people have no idea until they look into an instance like Connolly, how much power one individual can have. The Wiki pieces on climate are yet another very big reason why so many people think ‘the science is settled’ – they cite and refer only to websites and papers which are in the loop. Dissenting voices are deleted. Orwellian indeed
We can all be sure that the effort being made even now by governments to control the web is going to intensify. It’s only via the web that this worldwide anti-democratic attempt to control us politically and economically is beginning to unravel.
On a brighter note, if the next US regime decides finally to stop funding the UN, the whole thing would collapse, and with it a lot of the problem (at least for those outside the EU)
Oliver K. Manuel
Uh, I let that through because Leif requested it, but having trouble accessing your account and fighting with customer service is more of an issue for a consumer complaint blog.
Oliver K. Manuel (22:13:30) :
“. . . was personally blacklisted by Nature …”
Leif asks: “Can you document this? if so, please do.”
In spite of all the emails, they never said you were blacklisted. Sounds like paranoia on your part.
Thanks, Charles.
I have subscribed to Nature for many years.
Recently I received a call asking if I wanted to renew my subscription.
I asked the caller if I would get the services promised if I renewed my subscription, or if I would still be blacklisted and unable to post comments.
She said that she would check and call me back.
That was a week or two back. She hasn’t called back.
In 1983 Nature acknowledged the importance of our findings in a news report, “The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the solar system” [Nature 303 (1983) page 286] after publishing some of our more controversial findings:
1. “Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in neon and xenon,” Nature 227, 1113-1116 (1970)
2. “Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”, Nature 240, 99-101 (1972)
3. “Noble gases in an Hawaiian xenolith”, Nature 257, 778-780 (1975)
4. “Xenon record of the early solar system”, Nature 262, 28-32 (1976)
5. “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)
Climategate is only the visible tip of an unholy alliance of politicians, news reporters, scientists and publishers that have corrupted our best research institutions and scientific journals – and weakened our democratic form of government.
Thank you for helping us get to the bottom of this mess.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
charles the moderator (22:21:36) :
I hate to do the butting in thing, but I read that mess of email communication as a technical difficulty, one relating to the email account used to register, not a blacklisting from Nature. Specifically, what seems to most likely be an incorrect email address or incorrect spelling of an email address.
For some reason, with all the other gates, no-one seems to be flagging up another obvious IPCC fraud, the supposed threat of disease spreading due to “Climate Change”. I guess you could call this Mosquitogate or Aguegate or Malariagate if you felt the need.
Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris is of course the great debunker of this particular IPCC shroudwaving exercise. It has been covered both here and in numerous other blogs and books.
see clip from the superb Great Global Warming Swindle on:-
But I must say that, IMHO, the biggest IPCC mistake was setting up the crooked, politically tendentious scam in the first place.
I look forward to the day when “scientists” seeking employment (having been sacked from their comfortable tax funded positions) are as unlikely to put down previous work for the IPCC on their CVs as they would be to list necrophilia amongst their preferred pastimes.
Oops, sorry ctm, I misread your message. That is a boneheaded thing I do sometimes.
Oliver K. Manuel (22:49:58) :
OK, but do you go to the email they send you confirming registration, open it, click on the hyperlink, and then enter the information to login? Seems like the problem is in this process somewhere.
The lady you talked to on the phone was a salesperson. Odds are, she took your response as a no.
Maybe this has already been pointed out, but I found this reference to the New York TImes in WGII 14.4.6:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4-6.html
The reference reads (Wilgoren and Roane, 1999) and is the source for the following claim:
Unreliable electric power, as in minority neighbourhoods during the New York heatwave of 1999, can amplify concerns about health and environmental justice.
The AR4 reference page can be found here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-references.html
It reads:
Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999
That article can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/08/nyregion/aftermath-heat-wave-neighborhoods-cold-showers-rotting-food-then-lights-then.html?pagewanted=1
I’m not sure who peer reviewed it.
Dave F (23:28:00) :
charles the moderator (22:21:36) :
I hate to do the butting in thing, but I read that mess of email communication as a technical difficulty, one relating to the email account used to register, not a blacklisting from Nature.
The ‘blacklisting’ is just paranoia on Oliver’s part. I know of no documented case [his included] where a Journal has refused to sell you a subscription for any reason [perhaps excepting that you didn’t pay]. Ditto for submitting papers to it. Now, your papers may be rejected if it ain’t any good [or for nefarious political reasons], but there are no lists of people that are not allowed to submit papers.
It seems that everyone from the IPCC to Greenpeace only make “errors” related to overstating the impact of AGW. If these “errors” were truly random – wouldn’t one expect to see some errors understating the case for AGW. Only explanation I can see is that it reflects bias or a deliberate act.
Quote: Dave F (23:37:24) :
“OK, but do you go to the email they send you confirming registration, open it, click on the hyperlink, and then enter the information to login? Seems like the problem is in this process somewhere.”
Yes, I have followed Nature’s instructions many times without gaining access. That does not seem to be the problem. [There were many, many more correspondences besides the ones I forwarded to WUWT.]
At one point, Nature’s representative (Sunil Kumar) said that he was also denied access using the correct information (e-mail account, password, etc.). He requested another e-mail. I gave him omatumr2@gmail.com
After trying two different two e-mail accounts Sunil Kumar wrote: “So, in this case, I again request you to provide me the new email address apart from these two (omatumr2@gmail.com & omatumr@yahoo.com) as you will not be able to log in and access your account via these email addresses.”
The service I purchased from Nature was suddenly not available. Nature’s representative (Sunil Kumar) experienced the problem too.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (05:34:03) :
“The ‘blacklisting’ is just paranoia on Oliver’s part. I know of no documented case [his included] where a Journal has refused to sell you a subscription for any reason [perhaps excepting that you didn’t pay].”
Nature did not refuse to sell me a subscription. Nature took my money.
But suddenly neither of e-mail accounts could access part of the services that I had purchased.
See above message too.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
To Richard Lawson (9;55;44)
Have a heart calling it FloodGate. What have I done to deserve that?
Vincent (10:15:15) :
“…..When will enviromentalists wake up and see the monster that has been created in their name?”
The enviromentalists got taken over by the UN at Maurice Strong’s first Earth Summit in 1972. The UN sanctioned NGOs was an absolutely brilliant move. Young political activists are recruited and used to further the UN’s political agenda of “Global Governance” It is no coincidence that Maurice Strong is a member of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance.
“Strong discussing the role the Earth Summit would play in the emerging system of global governance…
“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.” http://www.nationalcenter.org/DossierStrong.html
Oliver K. Manuel (09:13:20) :
But suddenly neither of e-mail accounts could access part of the services that I had purchased.
And you have never heard of poor IT structure, bugs, bad database management, etc? Just yesterday, when I tried to access a service [Carbonite] that I have purchased, I was refused: “account unknown”, just a day after I had gotten an email confirmation from their customer service that my subscription was renewed for yet another year. Today, the access is working. Happens all the time. The IT-infra structure at many companies is dismal. Kumar asked you for yet another email address. This is no indication that they had blacklisted you, just that they have a problem in their data base, perhaps lost all the ‘oma’s. Have you tried again? as he suggested.
KeithGuy (10:43:54) :
“It was simply a ‘human mistake’”
…which should have been picked up by the rigorous peer review process employed by the IPCC!
It was more like a mistake, compounded by an error and missed by an oversight.
Yeah right It was nore like a deliberate lie. As Chris Landsea stated in his letter:
“After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns…..
If the concerns of expert scientists are “dismissed” because the report has become “politicized” the correct word is the IPCC was knowingly lying and it was done for political reasons. Landsea is not the only one who claimed the report was politically skewed.
MJK (11:53:23) :
“What an embarrassing retraction by Dr North. Yet many here are so blinded by their denial of AGW they would not care to admit it.”
Dr. North is honest. The “retraction” was even MORE d@mning of IPCC than the original statement. I do not see how that is embarrassing or a problem for skeptics.
hswiseman (14:03:51) :
I write this from the middle of the eastern China coastal Plain where particulate air pollution is out of control, water pollution is out of control, solid waste management is out of control, industrial conversation of Ag land is out of control, all of which is reduced to side show by fixation on the trivial warming effects of a trace gas….
Thank you for putting the Global Warming circus into perspective. The multinational corporations running the world through the World Trade Organization and the UN, are not really concerned about Global Warming, the environment or anything but power and wealth. Maurice Strong, father of Global Warming and the environmental movement claims he is a “socialist” yet his power company is the biggest CO2 producer in Canada. Now he is hiding in China to avoid sticky questions about his business ethics and the Oil for Food scandal. He now works for a engineering and construction corporation getting ready to use the money stolen from the west to build more polluting factories in China.
Richard Scott (16:23:05) :
Big error: “…due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil.” Most of the water that is used by plants is near the surface; the water at 2, 3 or 5 meters is irrelevant. And no amount of water in the soil will keep a green tree from burning given the right conditions….
You can add to that how fast cut over forests sprout regrowth. By the time the slash left from logging has dried out sufficiently to be a fire hazard, the stumps are sprouting with re-growth. As you said the dried out debris under the forest is the real hazard and that is where logging makes its biggest impact, by increasing the amount of dry material available for burning.
Quote: Gail Combs (10:54:03) :
“Thank you for putting the Global Warming circus into perspective. The multinational corporations running the world through the World Trade Organization and the UN, are not really concerned about Global Warming, the environment or anything but power and wealth. Maurice Strong, father of Global Warming and the environmental movement . . . ”
You are right, Gail. Beneath the Climategate scandal is the shadowy outline of an international alliance of politicians, scientists, news organizations and publishers that are using the AGW and Green movements to gain power and wealth.
This alliance uses public funds to manufacture consensus “scientific facts” and then uses well-known emotional propaganda techniques like fear and guilt to manipulate the public – the way that cowboys drive cattle to market.
If we avoid slaughter this time, we will still need to design ways to keep science from becoming a propaganda tool in the future.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Mistake my A. They knew the glacier information was bogus and published it anyway. They already admitted this.
Maybe the WWF should apologize to Vince McMahon. It seems that they are just as much show and theatrical tricks as is the former World Wrestling Federation, whom they fought for the right to the acronym. You can’t believe anything your eyes see with them either insofar as any connection to reality is concerned. At least with Vince & Co. everyone knows better.
…and so, on a Saturday, the BBC finds room to comment on IPCC
citations of WWF Amzonian “studies” being somehow inappropriate
when there’s “good science” floating around that weren’t used.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8488395.stm
The stuff not cited probably wasn’t peer-reviewed by the right sort
of people.