Climate agency going up in flames
Exit of Canada’s expert a sure sign IPCC in trouble
A catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they’ve been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.
If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress.
Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports.
For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some “dangerous crossing” of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.
Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangerous line between hype and science.
More sign of serious trouble appear in Britain’s papers everday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246404/Top-climate-change-adviser-John-Beddington-calls-honesty-scientists-global-warming-debate.html
Too bad the American press think they can keep the AGW alive and part of their ‘progressive’ agenda.
Congratulations!
Much, much more filth will be exposed as the Climategate iceberg melts away under the spotlight of public attention.
Keep up the good work,
Oliver K. Manuel
This illustrates why it’s important that we not let Pachauri be the fall guy… the IPCC and it’s process are wholly corrupt. The IPCC was designed to corrupt science and it enables this type of behaviour worldwide. Don’t let those complicit with fraud off the hook.
Well that didn’t come a moment too soon.
The environmentalist spin on this one is going to be something to savour since they’ve been using the “it’s not as bad as it looks…let’s all take a deep breath and ignore it” line for a little too long now.
Why do I have Mr. Rogers singing “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood” stuck in my head? The unfortunate part about all of this is that no one abandoned ship until the proof became so overwhelming they could not hide anymore. If this came about because of due diligence and a desire for unbiased research on the part of the IPCC and their cohorts I’d feel much better. Still, it’s a “victory” I will enjoy.
The IPCC needs to be closed down. Whoever it is who runs it in the future, it will be a very long time before anyone will believe anything it barfs out. And just changing its name wont work either.
And while I’m on the subject, close down the UN too. Self serving politicians to a man…
I’m not that surprised about the “discovery” that the IPCC is dressing up science as bald-faced advocacy. However, we must continue the pile-on until world leaders see the bad politics at play here and abandon policies based on false claims of man-made climate change.
Wow.
I used to be a AGW believer, up until I had the time and motivation to check out the science. One book I bought was Weavers book. It took about 4 to 6 months of reading of other books and blogs before I came to the view that Weaver was misleading me in his book(eg, his explaination of Manns bogus hockey stick, and McIntyres work). Further, he directed me to two blogs, RealClimate and DeSmogBlog for further information. That was a misdirect, for both blog sites spew out only one side of the discussion through the screening of comments, and the banning of posters who disagree.
How Weaver is allowed to teach at the University of Victoria is beyond me. He brings discredit to what is called a “higher education”.
And the UK’s chief scientific adviser, John Beddington, is today calling for reform of the IPCC in the Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece and even that sceptics can sometimes be right!
“He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues. ”
It’s less than 2 months since Gordon Brown called climate sceptics ‘flat-earthers’ !
The name of the IPCC is fundamentally flawed. By putting “Climate Change” in the organisational name, their reports require a pre-determined conclusion.
Similarly, USHCN temperature data is kept and manipulated by the “Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.” Shouldn’t it be the Temperature Analysis Center? Their reason to exist centers around CO2 warming.
Hmmm – maybe a lot of people have been quietly waiting for an exit to appear so they can use it.
It seems to me that the whole thing has been obvious for years (as stated before, I used to believe the AGW hypothesis until I actually started looking at it). If you’re a scientist who is supposed to be studying AGW then you probably figured it out some time ago. But nobody wants to be “first”, since they’ve all seen what happens to anyone who speaks out.
So yeah, hold open a clearly marked “EXIT” sign, and step out of the way, because you might get trampled in the mad rush.
Now they can just say “oh, those CRU/GISS/IPCC people were falsifying data, but we didn’t know before.”
Mr Weaver’s advocacy may have contributed to the intolerance of climate scepticism in the past However many of the posters on this blog have gone through some form of awakening in our attitudes to CAGW (mostly due to Steve McIntyre in my case) and I welcome Mr Weaver’s realignment with the scientific method. However I reserve the right to withdraw my welcome if his enlightenment does not prove to be genuine.
Running for the exit is NOT redemption. Weaver if you were wrong, you are bad news. It means we were in the wrong if we trusted you. Andy is added to the list of tarnished peer review clowns.
Toyota is recalling cars by the millions today. Is andrew weaver going to recall books?
No. There is no reason to. You can peddle anything you want.
I am trying hard not to criticize the flaws in an “intergalactic ‘ballistic’ missle.”
It is clear that the IPCC has failed in its mission:
1) We are not warming – their mission has been cancelled.
2) They cannot show warming legitimately – mission gone.
3) Fabricating science always is exposed eventually
– adulterated mission failed.
Perhaps it is time to dissolve the IPCC. It has certainly done more damage than good.
I have no sympathy for good or bad scientists who were funded through the IPCC. It is time to seek finding elsewhere.
It is a specious argument to keep the IPCC going with the wishy-washy approach that dissolving it does away with some jobs. It is not mission of the IPCC is not to create jobs. Put the money back into the taxpayers’ pockets and jobs will be created.
Good scientists will find jobs. The others, hey . . . find some one who cares.
Sound of rat leaving ship …
I enjoy being a flat earther at least I know which way is up!
Speculation is being passed off as Science. see below to Met office and I have had no reply!
On the 24th November the British Met office issued a joint press statement on Climate Science. I can only assume this is in the wake of the CRU e-mail hack and was an attempt to assure the public on the veracity and openness of Climate Science
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091124a.html
Authors were those of the highest reputation:-
Prof. Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist, Met Office
Prof. Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive, Natural Environment Research Council
Lord Rees, President, the Royal Society
This statement included the following passage:-
“Year-on-year the evidence is growing that damaging climate and weather events — potentially intensified by global warming — are already happening and beginning to affect society and ecosystems. This includes:
In the UK, heavier daily rainfall leading to local flooding such as in the summer of 2007.”
Anybody reading this passage is left with the strong impression that Scientific Evidence existed that proved the floods of 2007 were caused by Climate Change or were part of likely climate change scenarios for the UK. I am further confused because the next line down says that the summer drought and heat wave of 2003 was also part of likely climate change scenarios. So according to the statement a cool wet summer in UK and a hot dry summer are both indicators of trends caused by CO2 induced climate change !!!!!!!
I was unlucky enough to be directly involved in the 2007 Avon/Severn flooding, I got my feet wet! so I did, out of interest, keep up to date with any science reporting of the likely cause of these floods.
An excellent scientific analysis was produced on the 2007 floods by CEH a part of Prof. Alan Thorpe’s Natural Environment Research Council.
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/news_archive/2008_news_item_05.html
And I quote from the press release for this report:
Lead author, Terry Marsh, comments: “The river floods of summer 2007 were a very singular episode, which does not form part of any clear historical trend or show consistency with currently favoured climate change scenarios.”
Mr Marsh adds: “The exceptional river flooding last summer fuelled speculation that flood risk is increasing due to global warming. Due to the inherent variability of the UK climate, any extreme hydrological event cannot readily be linked directly to climate change.”
Are these 3 eminent scientists reassuring me on the validity of climate science by choosing to illustrate their statement with events that their own peer reviewed science says are not part of likely Climate Change scenarios.Or perhaps you can point me to the scientific studies that this passage in the statement were based on.
So what do I make of all of that? It diminishes the credibility of the whole Climate Science statement. I find little wrong with the rest of the statement.
Ruth: don’t forget the numerous government ministers who have said “the science is settled”.
A bit off topic but might be helpfull to UK bloggers.
Contact any or all MPs with this e-tool,
If you have a current cause or campaign this free and easy to use tool will simplify and ensure that every Member of Parliament is aware of it.
(it does not appear to allow attachments).
http://www.mensaid.com/megaphone/parliamentary.htm
So I wonder how long it will be before “Doctor” Weaver ends up on the board of the WWF? ;->
LOL…for you ‘deniers’ and ‘contrarians’, you will found this interesting…
Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1419
Funny how station maintenance was not really discussed. He even goes as far as to site NCDC analyses and state and poorly sited stations actually measure cooler temperatures….yes, you read that right. Anyway, there is a glancing attempt to tie Anthony to the fossil-fuel and tobacco industries through the Heartland Institute. It would be interesting to see what the readers here think…
Waterloo, Ontario – Andrew Weaver, who was among a select group of scientists that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore for their work on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will speak at The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) October 28, as part of CIGI’s 2008-2009 Signature Lecture Series
Why am I not surprised? These are the core members that can proffer “peer review”.
Hey Mr. Weaver, too late now buddy!, no way, gotto go to the arena and face the lions!
Thank you for posting this excellent essay from the National Post. Weaver deserves to be exposed for what he is and Corcoran does a superb job. Ironic that UVic’s (and Canada’s) most vocal spokesman turns out to have the least amount of backbone of the bunch. Any takers that Weaver will simply turn back into an oceanographer as if nothing had happened?
From the IPCC web site: “Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers.”
Translated: We are political wolves tending the scientific sheep.
Conclusion: Scientists answering to politicians was destined to turn into politicians wearing lab coats.