Meanwhile NASA GISS scientist Lacis, who was highly critical of the chapter 9 executive summary draft says that:
I am actually encouraged by the all criticisms that the IPCC AR4 report is receiving.
He makes some valid points and provides insight into the review process. More in comments at Andrew Revkin’s NYT Dot Earth blog here
From the Australian, news on that IPCC “overhaul” in Nature:
Scientists say IPCC should be overhauled or scrapped
INTERNATIONAL scientists have called for the world’s peak climate change body to be revamped or scrapped after damaging controversies that have dogged the expert panel in recent months.
The scientists suggest a range of options, from tightening the selection of lead authors and contributors to the International Panel on Climate Change, to dumping it in favour of a small permanent body, or even turning the whole climate science assessment process into a moderated “living” Wikipedia-IPCC.
Writing today in the journal Nature, five US, British, German and Swiss climate scientists – all contributing or lead IPCC report authors – agreed a mechanism for assessing the facts and impacts of climate change was critical.
But they acknowledged that calls for reform had intensified after what Nature called “recent furores”. Last month, for instance, it was revealed that flawed communication between teams of scientists led to the IPCC’s inaccurate claim that most Himalayan glaciers would melt almost 300 years earlier than forecast. In November, the release of hacked email messages between climate scientists triggered widespread media reports of scientific wrongdoing.
According to Mike Hulme, from Britain’s University of East Anglia, the structure and process of the IPCC has passed its sell-by date. “The IPCC is no longer fit for the purpose,” he wrote in Nature.
In Australia, Barry Brook, the director of climate change research at Adelaide University, agreed, saying: “I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,” he said.
Full story at the Australian here
SCRAP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to Tim Lambert, over at that font of truth Deltoid, Lacis’ objections were only to a “draft” of the report and he was mostly pleased with the final product.
If this is true an acknowledgement of this fact would seem in order.
If not then a clarification would seem appropriate.
It could just be that Lacis retreated to the safety of the orthodoxy after sticking his neck out.
As seen by the latest news, they are shifting focus from the bad science behind AGW to the problems with IPCC in the way it works or doesn’t work. This is to support their argument that the science behind AGW is “robust”. Of course we know it is not but they want to dilute and change subject… simply unacceptable!
Rearranging the garden furniture won’t change a thing.
A “Wikipedia-IPCC” ?! He must be kidding !
There should only be a need for a “guide for policy makers” when policies are needed to correct something, for which there is hard evidence, that man has significantly and dangerously effected. The first step is to present some actual evidence that man is causing global warming.
Much more than IPCC needs an overhaul.
It cannot be a mere coincident when –
The BBC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Nature, Science, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the US National Academy of Sciences, major newspapers, APS, ACS, AGU, major research institutions and universities, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, NASA, DOE, the UN’s IPCC, Al Gore, George Bush, Barack Obama, and the Met Office –
Add distributed the same misinformation.
Nature cannot regain credibility now by suggesting an overhaul of IPCC.
Regretfully,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
And several papers in Nature
Do you really trust this kind of thing? It sounds to me like painting the banger without fixing the engine. What of the dodgy data? The peer review problems? The Paradigm in general? Why would any report other than one supporting the paradigm be relevant to policy makers? I’m sorry but I just don’t buy it.
Oliver K. Manuel (13:52:52) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
CORRECTED
Much more than IPCC needs an overhaul.
It cannot be a mere coincident when –
The BBC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Nature, Science, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the US National Academy of Sciences, major newspapers, APS, ACS, AGU, major research institutions and universities, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, NASA, DOE, the UN’s IPCC, Al Gore, George Bush, Barack Obama, and the Met Office –
All distributed the same misinformation.
Nature cannot regain credibility now by suggesting an overhaul of IPCC.
Regretfully,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
And several papers in Nature
Even our own Canadian IPCC contributor, Andrew (Lloyd) Weaver said it recently… Weaver from U Vic-gate…
“relevant to policy makers” … and this is the one of the problems.
*sigh*
wOwZA!
I don’t want to read any more rebuttals starting with, “According to AR4…”.
Lookit. Those are lead authors saying the IPCC is toast and AR4 is… (self snip). Well, they were far too polite.
No….wait… if Mr. Hulme gets anything to say in creating a new organisation….. we will be back in square one….
Kath: … and this is the^h^h^h one of the problems.
*double sigh*
Great comments from Lacis! Can’t wait for the “More on this topic later” from him
As I suggested the other day: Scrapped.
The UN should be in charge of nothing. It should simply be a meeting place for nations if it continues to exist at all. The UN has become Graft and Corruption Central for the entire world, no matter what the field of endeavor. At best, it should only receive enough money to keep the place cleaned and the lights on. But then, they would screw that up too.
Drudge is linking to a similar shorter article:
Scientists seek better way to do UN climate report…
Lacis backs down…but Revkin holds out on the core issue of human forcing:
But unfortunately he makes the point too stongly:
Is anyone asking for no error bar? Unequivacal? What I see as lacking (what Lacis saw lacking?) is some evidence to support the statement: “Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations”
Bravo to Revkin for holding to the point at issue just as the politics begins to swollow it up once again.
“Wikipedia-IPCC” ??? Do they really need to create one?
Isn’t that what we have over at RC??
It would be the same thing – – – wouldn’t it?
Before they are scrapped, they HAVE to give the Nobel back!!!
Ecotretas
This outfit has been shown to be sooo irrelevant.
We don’t need irrelevant 1.1.
Start over from scratch. First get the real raw data even if it means going back to the handwritten data for each station and copying it to a data base. No more adjustments!!!
Why does it HAVE to be under the auspicies of the UN? (Answer: It does not) The UN is a political organization, not a science organization. It was a mistake to formulate such an organization under the UN to begin with, because what we see as a result is what anyone who studies the UN history would expect.
Why not start a new international organization, that is in NO WAY connected to the UN, and whose primary purpose is the practice and promulgation of veridical science? It charter could be written such that it follows the scientific principal of falsifiability, with the understanding that once someone’s theory is falsified, it goes on the scrap heap in favor of new ones.
kwik (13:43:53) :
SCRAP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And after Nature is gone, you can scrap the IPCC too!
🙂
It’s a smoke curtain.
The UN IPCC is beyond repair, let alone ripe for an “overhaul”.
In the wake of it’s collapse we will see criminal investigations that will end on the plates of all the “contributors” of UN IPCC AR-4 and their use of public funding, which will include the responsible politicians.
In Europe, if the collapse of the Monetary Union does not bring down the EU, the Lisbon Treaty needs to be rewritten and in the USA, NASA, NOAA and all the Universities and Institution riding the false AGW bandwagon are in a desperate need of a clean-up.
It’s hard breaking to see the hardcore of so called “climate scientists”, responsible for AR-4, posting Open Letters with statements like “There were some mistakes in the IPCC report but the underlying science is sound” and “The UN IPCC is no Mafia”, but they are defending an ever faster sinking ship and by doing so discrediting the very core of science on her way down.
What makes this entire publication so cynical is the fact that “Nature” has been one of the magazines at the core of the fraud. They have been instrumental and therefore
responsible and liable for the current mess we’re in.
Due to it’s past, Nature is the last resort to make any suggestions about what should happen with the UN IPCC. They have lost their right to comment the IPCC a long time ago when it bend the rules on scientific objectivity leading to a total loss of their integrity as a Scientific Magazine.
That’s it.
It’ll be interesting to watch all the King’s horse and all the King’s men try to put Humpty together again.
The wheels are falling off the gravy train so they are going to put some new ones on.
The problem is always going to be the conflict between science and advocacy. The IPCC was created for the purpose of advocacy, not science.
Join the dots
Yesterday, a post from Professor Ravetz stating:
“Indeed, if we look at the definition of ‘post-normal science’, we see how well it fits: facts uncertain,values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent.”
” But climate change had never been a really ‘normal’ science, because the policy implications were always present and strong, even overwhelming. ”
And now this:
“Writing today in the journal Nature, five US, British, German and Swiss climate scientists – all contributing or lead IPCC report authors – agreed a mechanism for assessing the facts and impacts of climate change was critical.
According to Mike Hulme, from Britain’s University of East Anglia, the structure and process of the IPCC has passed its sell-by date. “The IPCC is no longer fit for the purpose,” he wrote in Nature.
In Australia, Barry Brook, the director of climate change research at Adelaide University, agreed, saying: “I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,” he said.”
Here it repeats – the same alarmist language – “a mechanism… was critical”, “something more timely” “stakes high”, “decisions urgent”
And here it repeats again – the emphasis on policy – “policy implications even overwhelming”, “relevant to policy makers”
These guys are singing from the same post-normal hymn sheet. And they’re WRONG!!!
If what is require is “a mechanism for assessing the facts and impacts of climate change was critical”, then how about jettisoning all the PNS bull and sticking to due scientific process. It’s due scientific process that best assessed the facts, and whether or not global warming is even happening, let alone having critical impacts.
This is their new battleground – they wish to be the ones defining what the process is for assessing climate science. They want to be the ones who define the truth, who define the mechanism for assessing climate science, who define the process, who define what form of peer review is acceptable, who define this post-normal scientific method. This is what they want.
But they were IPCC authors themselves – they’re the ones who are unfit for purpose. The failure of the IPCC is their failure. We must make them own that failure.
Oliver K. Manuel (13:54:15) :
Nature cannot regain credibility now by suggesting an overhaul of IPCC.
—————————
Nature, Science, PNAS and all other high impact journals have been publishing unlikely and minimally tested claims in all fields, particularly biological sciences. They think of it as their job to publish important controversial articles. It’s a statistical certainly that many will be proven wrong. That is what makes them “high impact factor”. So, bad climate science isn’t all they publish.
That said, their editors drank the kool-aid w.r.t. AGW. The editors failed and need to go. The American Physical Society is another matter. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/dissenting-members-ask-aps-to-put-their-policy-statment-on-ice-due-to-climategate/. The APS has a long history of enforcing orthodoxy in physics. I bet they thought this issue was no different. The whole organization has been corrupting science for so long people think it’s the way things are done. What to do with this sort of organization? They appear to control jobs. Orthodoxy is great stuff when you are keeping the nutjobs out of a field rather than keeping them in it.
Was Lacis’ quote:
” am actually encouraged by the all criticisms that the IPCC AR4 report is receiving.”
or was it:
“I am actually encouraged by all the criticisms that the IPCC AR4 report is receiving.”
(correction requested)
Before any consideration of the continuation of the IPCC we first need to redo very carefully the temperature indices maintained by NOAA and afilliates, GISS, CRU and the Hadley Centre, which have all been shown to be hopelessly corrupt.
Even the satellite based series are corrupted by the fact that they had to be calibrated using GISS and/or HadCRUT.
Until the very basis of current policy is rigorously recalculated there is no point in continuing with IPCC.
It is simply amazing that important economic indices are rigorously calculated by professional organisations such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics under fully transparent procedures yet the temerature series are calculated by a bunch of bumbling amateurs who want us all to take their word for it rather than show their workings.
For example, GISS (Gavin Schmidt) openly admits to spending half a man day per month on this.
Until this work is redone using professional statisticians and fully transparent procedures under the full scruitny of all concerned another IPCC report is irrelevant.
The Emperor’s New Clothes!
Buy one get one free:
“Scientists say Nature should be overhauled or scrapped”
The IPCC should be scrapped. But it probably won’t be.
ChooChoo Pachauri insists the IPCC is not a UN entity. I wonder about that. He’s mendacious and self-dealing.
But if the IPCC is brought back under the auspices of the UN, they should be required to publicly archive on-line, in real time, all data [both raw and adjusted, and all methods used]; all computer codes, algorithms methodologies and notes, at the same time that any statements, papers, findings, assessment reports, or conclusions are made. In other words, complete public transparency of the process that led to the conclusion.
Anything less will result in exactly the same situation we have currently: gaming the system for money and political power by scaring the populace.
Scrapping is a very good idea. But will it really happen. The UN isn’t just going to roll over, and play dead. Even if many scientists stop contributing, there will be enough of them staying on board to continue on for whatever reason. But revisions will happen to some degree, I’m sure.
The climate change issue has gone well beyond being just an enviro thing. I think Lord Monckton has shown that very well. Climate change is being used by folks in the world who are looking for a one world government, and if it gets derailed, they will just use something else. It’s just a means to there goal.
The passions of the warmist crowd are being used by these folks. They are nothing but pawns. That’s the sad part.
The bright side, though, is that climate science has really moved forward. We are continually gaining new insights on our climate. And that’s a good thing. Climategate has been a very helpful thing. So kudos to the snitch.
“Smokey (15:08:49) :
[…]
But if the IPCC is brought back under the auspices of the UN, they should be required to publicly archive on-line, in real time, all data [both raw and adjusted, and all methods used]; all computer codes, algorithms methodologies and notes, at the same time that any statements, papers, findings, assessment reports, or conclusions are made. In other words, complete public transparency of the process that led to the conclusion.”
Celebrity Big Brother. I like that. Include fly-on-the-wall cameras in the toilets to film the bribery.
Science worked very well in the centuries before the UN or any other transnational body existed, and it would continue now to work very well without one. Galileo, Copernicus, Watt, Lorenz, Einstein, you name ’em, they didn’t need anything but the occasional conference of scientists to spread the word around. In today’s world of instant communication and Internet connectivity, I can’t see how an international bureaucratic body would have any value to add.
Onion – yes; as Kim put it on the PNS thread: “No surprise he who drew the map finds the treasure” (or words pretty close to that!) 🙂
1. Bin IPCC.
2. Set up new, smaller scientific body to analyse climate data gathered by GISS, UAH, RSS and others (but not HADCRUT).
3. Exclude all “evidence” of climate disasters from NGO and advacatist bodies such as the WWF, FoE, etc.
4. New climate monitoring body to publish an annual report of findings, freely available to all, including access to raw and amended data.
5. Experts on statistical analysis to have executive overview of statistical methods to be employed and to ensure configuration management is sound.
6. All reports to be peer reviewed by the most eminent scientists in physics, astronomy, geology and ecology; not just climatology.
7. First task for new body: to critically review climate change data fed to IPCC and amend or discard as necessary.
8. Get WUWT Bloggers to agree findings – the hard part!
The UN has never shown itself to useful as anything other than a money pit. The suggestions, as correctly observed by previous commenter’s, amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The only thing I know, with any degree of certainty, about conditions a hundred years from now, is that my great-grandchildren will still be paying for the spending going on in DC.
…kudos to the snitch.
Yeah, what about that “snitch”? Since it’s impossible to impose a complete and total grapevine blackout, doesn’t ANYBODY have an idea (informed, perferably) on who it was?
Can we just disband the U.N.? Fixing the IPCC doesn’t seem logical. If Pachy goes away, there will be another to take his place. If the Climate Change issue doesn’t accomplish the goals of it’s advocates, another issue/cause will show up. (as several recent articles here have alluded.) To be sure, a major change in our socio-economic behavior will be necessary to thwart the impending doom.
In 2010 AR4 is no good, but it was fine in 2007.
Did it get changed for the worse in the meantime, or is it just that someone finally read the thing?
Science is looking for a way out of the deep pit they have dug for themselves. And John Christy wants to help them but his price is dismantlement of the IPCC.
They want a way out but is the science still settled? Science will have to come clean and that means Mann and Penn State, Hansen and NOAA/NASA GISS, and Nature’s own jury rigging must be held to account. The lies must not be allowed to stand.
For Penn State and NOAA/NASA GISS next November 11 is not all that far away and is getting closer every day.
Tick-tock.
Mike Ramsey
Did anyone else automatically start looking for flaws in the article because it started with “Scientists say…..”? Isn’t that how all this CAGW mess started? Which takes me to a slightly O/T subject, in the end, the consensus was Gavin, Hansen and Phil? They in turn dispatched Mann and Briffa? Was that the consensus? I seem to recall a guy named Tamino, too, but was that the thousands of scientists in consensus? Most of the other stuff I’ve read seemed to rely heavily on those guys.
Lance (13:45:42)
This issue is raised – and I think addressed – in Bishop Hill’s blog:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/10/its-worse-in-context.html
“So, if you are publishing research articles that use computer programs, if you want to claim that you are engaging in science, the programs are in your possession and you will not release them then I would not regard you as a scientist; I would also regard any papers based on the software as null and void.” 2/5/10, UK Guardian, Darrel Ince, professor of computing, Open University. I tried Revkin’s site again today but he continues to make sweeping conclusions without substantiation.
At the bottom of all this is the human propensity to allow or facilitate corruption. It seems that there is nowhere that is free from this cancer of human nature. That it has seeped into scientific endeavour is a real travesty we should be concerned about. That it was then able to infect the thinking and endeavours of so many governments in Europe and the Anglosphere is frightening. That so many people in everday life talk about and accept the ‘official version’ of climate change as though it is a fact of life shows how easy it is to capture public opinion.
The ,fourth estate’ has abrogated its responsibility. That is also a travesty. How do you root out corruption?
We’ve already seen how a ‘Wiki’ would work, and it’s much worse than CRU.
I agree with the sentiment that the IPCC is just becoming the scapegoat, and the ‘science’ will not take the beating it deserves. the science has taken a massive beating here in the blog-sphere, and we did not really concentrate on the IPCC. That one fell over at the merest feather-blow, it seems.
NOW is the time to push all the science truth we can. The vampire IPCC is dead, having been exposed to the light of day. Let’s expose the science to the light of day and see if that survives any better.
Wikipedia? What, with William Connelly maintaining it???
Scrapping the IPCC and replacing it with something new won’t change a thing. It will be just like the time the UN scrapped their human rights body because it had become completely politicized. They installed a new body with a new structure, new mandate, new name, new management…. and if you didn’t know that it was new you would be pretty certain it was the same one as before.
the “scientists” calling for a new body aren’t asking for a re-examination of the science. They’re asking for a new body that isn’t burdened by the loss of credibility of the old body, so it can be more effective at selling the same agenda.
Anthony,
A little OT but congratulations; your surface stations project paper got a pretty nice write-up by John Lott in this Fox Op-ed piece
…and congratulations to Joseph D’Aleo as well of course.
So “Nature” wants to throw the “IPCC” under the buss. I think they need to reconstitute their “peer review” selection process, as they were a part of creating the problem.
Keep the UN out!! It is a corrupt organization incapable of doing anything without political influence/dominance. We can thank Al Gore, John Kerry, etc for turning the IPCC into a political machine without integrity.
You think the data manipulation, and the writings in AR 4 are bad, just wait until someone looks at the computer models? Imagine the liberties they took in those models that are likely full of exaggerated fudge factors and inaccurate equations.
No one seems to be looking at this issue yet.
I suspect that things like CO2 residence time, and feedback will be controversal.
Those previously involved should be ineligble to get involved in the audit except to provide info for review.
Honestly. Who are we kidding? The entire exercise has been a bust. The mechanics of the system are immaterial now. What MUST be addressed first is corruption – and those who have allowed it to damage our most sacred institutions.
Make over??? Sorry, that’s for girls with stringy hair. We’ve got corrupted souls to clean up, or cast out. Forget the facelift and refits and cosmetic patches – apply some adult law. At a minimum to start, there should be a panel on amends. There are many needed.
All of the hysterical defenders of the IPCC a few months ago are now scrambling to keep their cash cow of government grants alive by calling for a new body. Example. Barry Brook says shutting down the IPCC would be ok “provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,”. Yah right Barry, lets just create some concise policy advice quickly without all this arguing about the validity of the science. After all policy is what this is about, not whether global warming is an issue for mankind. AGW is accepted as a given by “scientists” like Brook, he just wants to write the suggested policy actions for government.
“I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,”
Slam on the brakes! RED FLAG!!
Still will be left in the hands of policy makers.
Same ole, same ole.
p.g.sharrow “PG” (16:20:36) :
So “Nature” wants to throw the “IPCC” under the buss. I think they need to reconstitute their “peer review” selection process, as they were a part of creating the problem.
================================================
Just take the funding for co2 study and put it into something else, voilà, no more problem.
I think there should be a WUWT Guide For Policymakers…
I know that at least one of the recommendations should be,
“Keep your darn dirty paws off our CO2!”
The Australian is also running an opinion piece by Alan Oxley about the WWFand how they should be careful sticking to the facts lest they lose whatever credibility they may still have:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/wwf-concocts-its-own-beautiful-set-of-numbers/story-e6frg6zo-1225828934265
To counterpoint how useless The Age/SMH are, their contribution to the climate change story is a picece about Lord Monckton supposedly getting heatstroke in Adelaide:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/climate-denier-under-weather-20100210-nsd3.html
Notice “denier” in the URL… those sad sad rags of our two biggest cities have become no more than News of the World type tabloids.
Andrew Revkin over at Dot Earth contacted Lacis: “The revised chapter was much improved,” he said. “That’s different than saying everything in there is nailed down, but I think it’s a big improvement.”
It would be interesting to compare the first and final versions to see just how much it was toned down. Seems to me that his original comment describes the final draft quite well.
I see Joe Rohm is blowing a head gasket today with Anthony as well as Revkin in the cross-hairs, John T. Pfaffinger
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/10/revkin-dotearth-science-wattsupwiththat-climate-sensitivity-jerome-ravetz/
Who pays for this organization? UN dues? Or independent contributions? No matter, you can assume that the bulk of it comes from the USA. So what has to be done is to get the Congress to forbid another penny being spent on the IPCC or any similar organization.
How could this happen? Simple: don’t elect any more liberal Democrats, or for that matter anyone who will not pledge to stop this taxpayer-paid climate alarmism in its tracks.
/Mr Lynn
OT. but worth looking at.
Reports of record temps in Rio (46.3C) don’t appear to be substantiated! Record temp for whole of Brasil is 43C. An extra 3.3 degrees…I smell a hoax or a major typo.
sSee Facts toasted in reporting Rio Roast for more detail
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/facts-toasted-in-reporting-rio-roast.html
It appears the rats are scurrying around in all directions.
There are still many CAGW believers that are still in “denial”. Romm and Obama head the list. What we see here is that many of them have reached the “bargaining” stage. “Acceptance” is not that far away. We need to keep the pressure on.
Here’s a You Tube on a Garratt locomotive on tour in England.Garratts lasted longer than most steam because they were fairly efficent. Not used much in the
US, Austraila and South Africa used them until quite recently, especially South Africa… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPBjxFLJ_DM
Scrap the IPCC,indeed.Save the Garratts…
If there was one thing I’d sell my soul to the devil for, it would be for Dr Richard Feynmann to come back from the dead and give his lecture about “cargo cult science” to the UN and congress.
Changing personnel or amending the way the IPCC works would be like polishing the hub caps on a broken down automobile. It’s ignoring the fact that the fundamental system became corrupt, with corrupted science input into the system and those operating it then covering it up.
Has anyone ever explained what the ‘hockey stick’ graph was all about ? The problem is that despite all the evidence of derisory standards of scientific accuracy and honesty, major examples of incompetence or dishonesty are being glossed over. If someone comes in each day trying to bank a dud cheque, I don’t care after day 3 even if the cheque isn’t dud, I’ll reject it.
I don’t care how many pages of science they have. Science isn’t measured by it’s weight. You don’t win a scientific argument because your work weighs more than your opponent’s work. It’s the quality of your wok that counts, and all the evidence points to the work of the UEA CRU and IPCC being hideously contrived.
The dismissal of Climategate as being inconsequential is pure bluff on the part of people who have been caught red handed, as what was revealed was horrific, both in revealing the vicious campaign run by a band of zealots driven to achieve a result with no regard to any scientific ethic. The greater surprise is that any scientist would wish to taint their reputation by working with them any more.
The scientists involved have betrayed climate science and THAT is a tragedy, but you can’t unscramble an egg and it would be very unhealthy to scoop this mess off the floor and try to serve it up again as if nothing happened.
I can guarantee that the UK inquiry will find the UEA CRU free from any wrongdoing, but that’s only going to make matters worse. Why governments can’t let go of this failure I can’t explain, but those that do are hitching up to a lost cause and fully deserve to end up in the same trash can.
UN ruined that car, maybe a turbocharged quadturbine “Green Monster” truck. (EPA rating: 0.05001632375664238231 MPG)
Nature also needs to be overhauled or scrapped. And so do many other scientifically corrupt journals.
This is just too rich. I like Dylan Ratigan but the MSNBC explanation that global warming causes Snowmaggedon is just off the charts.
Dylan Ratigan: Snowstorms Are Evidence Of Global Warming (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/10/dylan-ratigan-snowstorms_n_456945.html
Here is the GPO ad MSNBC is talking about.
12 inches of Global Warming
Here’s a novel idea. Why not get rid of the IPCC, and instead of having a digest of the “best” information on global warming replace it with, I don’t know um………peer reviewed studies? One requirement though, the peer reviewed Journals need to require that the authors make all data available to the public.
Dr A Burns (13:51:10) :”A ‘Wikipedia-IPCC’ ?! He must be kidding!”
Isn’t that exactly what we have now?
Oliver K. Manuel (13:52:52) : “Much more than IPCC needs an overhaul. It cannot be a mere (coincidence) when the (MSM) (all) distributed the same misinformation.”
Well, yes, it’s pretty frightening.
RockyRoad (15:33:05) : “…doesn’t ANYBODY have an idea…on who (the snitch) was?”
And why the hell would they snitch on the snitch? The IPCC goon squad would would toss her down a UN building stairwell. DUH²!!
http://cryptogon.com/?p=11788
>>We can thank Al Gore, John Kerry, etc for turning the IPCC into a political machine without integrity.
I think that’s a bit strong. The UN was a political machine without integrity long before Gore and Kerry came along. They just figured out how to use it to their benefit.
The UN like the League of Nations before it is an organization based on a flawed concept, giving equal status to free nations and failed nations in search of “social justice”. Unfortunately, much like every other socialist program tried by the UN, AGW proposes not to raise the standards of the poor countries but to instead lower the standards of the successful ones.
The IPCC does not need to be reformed, you don’t reform a turd, you flush it. The world doesn’t need consensus it needs proof. If one scientist, just one, could provide conclusive proof of man having an affect on climate the world would respond. But after decades of study after study, grant after grant, summit after summit, there is no proof. Just a lot of hot air.
Find a new racket.
I know. I know. That’s to close to reality for a joke.
Acting for decades in bad faith, under false pretenses, the kakistocratic UN and its patently deceitful, self-serving agencies such as the IPCC deserve to be abolished root-and-branch, forthwith. Some things are unforgivable, and multi-trillion dollar global fraud from 1988 is one of them. Any multi-national venture of integrity such as CERN is capable of fending for itself on merit; the rest is but a bureaucratic charade, even as a clearing-house. If worldwide scientific communities have any sense, they will excrete the criminally malfeasant perpetrators of Gore’s “global warming” scam and stay very far away from invariably corrupt State influence in future.
It appear the guilty (or partly guilty) parties are all for throwing the bus under the bus. Reminds me of this:
The Six Stages of a Project:
1. Exultation.
2. Disenchantment.
3. Confusion.
4. Search for the Guilty.
5. Punishment of the Innocent.
6. Distinction for the Uninvolved.
I’d say Nature, et al, are standing around, trying to look uninvolved even before we reach Stage 3.
The entire edifice of corrupt science must be destroyed from the top down. We need another Eisenhower.
I hope that NASA GISS scientist understands that the reputation NASA has at the moment ain’t what we saw in “Apollo 13”, but is more in tune with “Space Balls”. Maybe he should clean his own dirty house before complaining about someone else’s.
I wish some AGW pusher would go over to my brothers house in Virgina and help him shovel the 4 feet of global warming in his driveway.
In the Daily Telegraph (England) today, sixteen peers in the House of Lords published a letter in the letters column. In this letter, these eminent scientists in the House of Lords stated, “There are important issues about scientific process and conduct that must and will be adressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia”.
Do we see why this statement is wrong? The reason is that the errors and tricks of the IPCC and the UoEA render these organisations incapable of addressing the processes and conduct. It is amazing that sixteen Peers of the Realm cannot see this.
To make things worse, these Peers go on to assume that all ‘peer reviewed scientific evidence’ is correct (“The overwhelming body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows that climate change is happening and is very likely to be caused by human activity”) and therefore these Peers derive the consequence that ‘support for a global deal to reduce emissions, building on the Copenhagen accord’ is required. Why? Because it is possible that ‘the risks are major and delay in action is dangerous’.
These sixteen Peers amaze me. They mention the phrase ‘climate change’ five times in this rather short letter, but they never mention the word ‘warming’ once. It seems to be awful to mention the word ‘conspiracy’, but could it be possible that they are covering their bums? Could it be possible that, if the world cools, they could then claim that they warned us that ‘climate change is happening’? Surely not! But if they mean ‘warming’, why not use the phrase ‘climate warming’? What is the problem?
One more thing. It has always been true, scientifically, that experimental confirmation is required in order to raise an ‘hypothesis’ to a ‘postulate’. I am not sure, here, whether the words that I am using are correct – what I mean is, to change a ‘possibility’ (a theory) into a ‘principle’ (a law of physics). In climate matters, there is no experimental confirmation, and therefore all climate change stuff is theory.
This is my idea in regards to future of IPCC – LOL
1.Suspend all activities immediately
2.Within 48 hr every employee must provide declaration of possible conflict of interest
3.Create teams of investigators (forensic auditors) chosen randomly from members states of UN
4.Repeat # 2 ( replace “employee” with “investigator”)
5.After reviewing conflict of interest declaration, first batch of taxpayer funded orange jump suits should be awarded immediately and recipients of this award should be removed from premises
instantly and transferred to nearest “ClubMed” office for future investigation.
6.Continue investigation for fraud, data manipulation and any illegal activity)
7.Reorder orange jump suits as necessary
8.Go to # 6 and repeat
9.If no more orange jump suits required close the door, switch off the lights and change the name
from IPCC to MCIPUN (most corrupted intergovernmental panel of UN)
10.Organize conference for climate science ( reps from any field of science are welcome)
11.Chose the chair by unanimous vote (LOTTO machine will do)
12.Repeat # 2
13.Create organization chart. FOIA policy and conflict of interest policy
14.Change the name from MCIPUN to IPES (Intergovernmental Panel on Earth Science )
15.Invite scientists from all the world to participate ( chose the best from the best)
16.Repeat # 2
17.Create website with all documentation so it can be reviewed by others.
18.Start from scratch
19.First AR1 of IPES should be ready Jan 01 2015
Will the “hockey stick” resurrected again? Will the spaghetti graph have move lines? Will the Climate computer models be V & V? Will all “Temperature” gathering equipment meet any type of standard? Will there be proper accounting For the UHI?
Big Al, I want my money back.
How can you overhaul a system that will put in the same trained scientists?
Right from the education they recieve to the government grants they accept, the same education is taught without regard to any solid evidence from elsewhere.
After all…We have a Nobel Peace Prize so were smart.
Well….doppy…doppy…me!
Junican (18:19:10) :
They also changed “the average ocean temperature” is cooling but the “surface ocean temperature” are increasing.
Smokey (15:08:49) : “The IPCC should be scrapped. But it probably won’t be.”
It should be scrapped and not replaced by anything, if only because China, India, and other developing countries are making it irrelevant. Our atmospheric “experiment” will proceed with or without an IPCC.
“But if the IPCC is brought back under the auspices of the UN, they should be required to publicly archive on-line, in real time, all data [both raw and adjusted, and all methods used]; all computer codes, algorithms methodologies and notes, at the same time that any statements, papers, findings, assessment reports, or conclusions are made. In other words, complete public transparency of the process that led to the conclusion.”
I was thinking the same thing when I saw the headline. It’s not a complete solution, especially with today’s overly credulous MSM, but it’s a step in the right direction.
When it comes to science, Nature now ranks somewhere between Popular Mechanics and The Inquirer.
There will only be reform when science is free from politics and people are free from political classes stealing their money via tax systems to fund science so as to purchase scientific validation of social, political and environmental ideology.
Western Society is in dire need of defunding this huge bureaucratic machine that threatens to distort our freedom and economy.
Money is power…. We have to stop giving them our money for nothing. Otherwise they will just change the name and keep playing the game.
I think its clear that since we can’t actually predict the climate, grand solutions that we put in place could do more harm than good. As many have pointed out, the damage may be irreversible and it might already be too late. What we need is a mitigation strategy that can be implemented incrementally on an as needed basis.
We could start by erecting structures for people to live in. This may sound like science fiction to a lot of people, but there are actually technologies available to control the climate inside of a structure. If it gets too cold, there’s a thing called a furnace. If it gets too hot, there’s a thing called an air conditioner. These technologies are not only proven to work, but cost effective and widely available.
Our next problem would be food. Places that grow food now might not be able to anymore. But places that can’t grow food now would become capable of growing it. We’d have to figure out which food grows the best where. We could put prices on food based on how much we need of a certain kind, and then farmers could figure out how to get maximum revenue from the land based on what it could grow the best. The historical record shows that this has happened in the past with farmers changing the kinds of crops they grow over the centuries in a given area, so we could do it again.
Of course some countries wouldn’t be able to grow enough food for themselves. But other countries would grow too much. What we could do is set up a system where countries that grow too much could trade it for other stuff they need with countries that grow too little. We could give it a fancy name… like World Trade or something.
I know this sounds awful complicated, but I bet it could be made to work, and I don’t think we would even need something like the UN to run it. It might just run on its own.
Quote: Mike D. (18:41:22) :
“When it comes to science, Nature now ranks somewhere between Popular Mechanics and The Inquirer.”
Very sadly, Mike, I agree with you.
I once ranked Nature as #1 for integrity. Lost credibility will not be easily restored.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
David Shepherd,
Thanks for the link.
Seems that Lacis was more worried about the clumsily worded and obvious overstating of the desired warmist conclusions than the conclusions themselves.
He’s all for misleading people with circumstantial evidence so long as it isn’t totally obvious and easily criticized by “skeptics”.
Too bad. I had hopes that one of these NASA guys would step forward and say that the Emperor was naked.
Why do we need any international organization at all. There’s no IPHP (intergovernmental panel on the Higgs particle) or genetics or artificial intelligence or cloning or … Well, I think you get the picture.
Let climate science be handled like any other. It’s not like there’s a problem that needs any more attention than any other science.
The game is over. Do not give an inch.
Lots of luck jettisoning such an international gravy train as the I.P.C.C.! Has anyone informed our President’s administration that “the gold standard” of AGW science is under attack by certain mainstream climate scientists? I find it interesting those scientists apparently could not determine AR-4 was junk science on its face and only turned against the report like back-biting dogs after having read bad things about it in the news media.
I think what we’re seeing here is more about fashion than science. The only thing some of these scientists know today that they did not know a year ago is that a large segment of THE PUBLIC now finds the IPCC to be ludicrous and those scientists are suddenly scrambling to get on the right side of the wave.
Actually, that’s not a Garratt. Here’s one:
Notice the two sets of drivers, fore and aft, and none under the boiler. But I agree with the sentiment, entirely!
/Mr Lynn
Scrap the IPCC, and the closely related instituions that feed along side of it.
The infestation is near 100%, the damage too complete. Totaled.
Cheaper to raze it to the ground and start anew.
I thought long & hard as to how to rebuild it, we had the technology, but that too has been outsourced. There’ll be no 6 million dollar Pachauri Man.
I have an idea. How about individual scientists publishing their respective findings in journals or on-line journals/fora, in which venues the press science reporters can wirte articles so the general public and policy makers will know what the leading experts from both sides of the issue conclude, and there would be no political organization which serves as the clearinghouse and megaphone of what it perceives as the relevant or important findings.
Oh. What’s that you say? That’s the way science actually DOES operate, and ALL other branches of science work perfectly well and have done for 100 years?
Let’s hear some calls to GET POLITICS OUT OF SCIENCE ALTOGETHER. NO NATIONAL OR WORLD BODIES CONTROLLING ANYTHING.
Reporters all tell us over and over. “We don’t write the news, we only report it.” Well we scientist need to stand up with our corollary. “We don’t invent the natural world* – we only observe, measure and try our best to make sense of it.”
*With the exception of some ClimateGaters
Pamela,
Yeah, Apollo 13 was a high point in “oh crap, what do we do now” engineering, but you have to admit, the Martain rovers are pretty good answers to a problem too.
That being said, I think there are still some engineering heads there, trying to fight the good fight from inside. I hate to say this, but feeding a family with a “secure” job sometimes means not getting shot outright – but being ethical and working to change the system. I’ve seen these folks in action, and they, sorry to say, sometimes move the corporate machine further than those who stand up and take the bullet. Both are needed, but these folks deserve credit too.
I wish the world were a little more black and white. The grey fogs my vision.
Mike
Pamela,
OOPS! just saw the double entendre there – no play on your name intended. You do make me think…
Mike
@ John from MN
Thanks for the link and laught – didn’t know I was “Anti-Science” until now… is that better or worse than being a “denier”?
😛
I’d be wary of a Wikipedia type IPCC when Wikipedia itself seems to have a very warmist bias. The page on the MWP has some dodgy graphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
The hot air has gone out of the IPCC balloon and it is falling fast from grace. My major concern is that the premise that trace amounts of CO2 produces a catastrophic change in climate is not dead yet. As a result, while IPCC lies under the bus, the planet’s politicians will climb on board the bus but will still control the research purse strings and will find another coalition of scientists that are willing to conduct research to show that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant that dooms the planet and therefore must be controlled by selling, buying and trading carbon credits. Destroying IPCC does not change the political situation that led to the collapse of IPCC. However, we know their tactics and we will be watching.
Hey, we can’t be having any Gray fog! It’s evidence of CO2! Water Vapor Feedback! Global warming! Tipping points! etc, etc, etc.
A little detail about me. I talk a lot. Therefor I could be adding to the CO2 problem. My one and only squeeze would say this about my causing global warming by talking too much, “ayauuup”.
OT We need an article on this one… from the USA Today
Could chicken manure help curb climate change?
WARDENSVILLE, W.Va. — Here’s a low-cost solution to global warming: chicken manure.
At Josh Frye’s poultry farm in West Virginia, the chicken waste is fed into a large, experimental incinerating machine. Out comes a charcoal-like substance known as “biochar” — which is not only an excellent fertilizer, but also helps keep carbon in the soil instead of letting it escape into the atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse gas.
Former vice president and environmental advocate Al Gore calls biochar “one of the most exciting new strategies” available to stop climate change. For Frye, it means that, before long, “the chicken poop could be worth more than the chickens themselves.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-02-10-cheap-carbon_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
Tom G(ologist) (20:01:36)
The problem with all these magazines of science is that they have whole heartedly published a great deal of the garbage science as science. It is set up that a panel of their piers looks to see if the theory is somewhat credible.
This leaves real science in limbo of who looks at it really objectively.
I have many times come across physicists who have missed massive chunks of actual physical science that our planet has changed in the last 50 years except they know that the ice is melting and the climate is warming. NASA is of absolutely no help as they have created a totally enclosed system that any new science is potentially conflicting with the current research so you’ll never find a person who will talk or help.
Ruth Curry’s work is pivotal in understanding how an Ice Age is occurring. Along with a great deal of physical evidence shows that the additional pressure build-up in our atmosphere is the cause. This additional pressure is hard to measure as rotation is pushed it up into the atmosphere but look how pretty our higher mountain sides are getting.
Sorry Pamela,
I have the opposite problem…too many beans.
davidmhoffer.
Correct your first sentence to read…’cannot CONTROL climate’ and your post makes even more sense than otherwise (although I think that that is what your really meant). Your thought about ‘living in bubbles’ makes me think of an Earth which is uninhabitable except outside the bubbles. In reality, we should be thinking that any marginal increase in temperature should be an opportunity. It is not inconceivable that there could be a mass migration of people to Africa to take advantage of the new opportunities there. Is that idea impossible to conceive of? May it not be true that, as a result of ‘warming’, more rain might fall on Africa? Who knows?
This thought only reinforces my idea that the Peers of the Realm do not know what they are talking about, eminent scientists or not. Or, they may be corrupt.
Mike D.
The publications that you should be referring to are ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Star’. The publication ‘Nature’ is obviously just another ‘tits and bums’ publication.
Joe.
The oceans are the key. For billions of years, the oceans have been ‘pulling’ on the moon. That is why why the moon always shows the same face to us and spins only once a month. The oceans are vast beyond imagining and have enormous power. The oceans will absorb any surplus CO2 and splash it about and re-emit it, and sink it, or whatever. Do you know that if you stood the whole human population of the world side by side, we would all fit onto the Isle of Man, give or take a bit? I say this only to illustrate the minimal nature of the effect we have on the World.
The last thing that I have to say is this. It is a well known scientific fact that the mere burning of fossil fuels, in itself, does not necessarily warm the atmosphere. Any scientist with knowledge of history will know that, as regards the steam engine (railway trains to me and you), clever engineers and scientists worked out how best to convert the heat of steam into motion.
Extrapolating from this idea, it is not true that aircraft burning ‘oil’ (aviation fuel) significantly heat the atmosphere – almost all the heat is converted to motion. This is not an easy concept, and I stand to be corrected. I really, really, really wish that a scientist would correct me, if I am wrong.
Finally, for some reason that I do not understand, REAL scientists (people who experiment) are not allowed to speak. Only those who say what the government want them to say get funding. THAT IS THE FACT.
Michael J. Bentley (20:07:50) :
Pamela,
“… I’ve seen these folks in action, and they, sorry to say, sometimes move the corporate machine further than those who stand up and take the bullet. Both are needed, but these folks deserve credit too.
I wish the world were a little more black and white. The grey fogs my vision.”
—…—…—
An excellent science fiction writer (I believe, but am not certain) named Micheal Stackpole once had his character explain “The Gray Fallacy” this way:
“If one side claims something is white, and the other side claims it is black, then the public tends to believe that both are somewhat correct and its real color is actually gray.
It might actually be gray; but if the enemy is lying, the object will always remain white. Regardless of what “everybody” thinks, the object will still be pure white.”
Junican said: “Extrapolating from this idea, it is not true that aircraft burning ‘oil’ (aviation fuel) significantly heat the atmosphere – almost all the heat is converted to motion”.
Okay, so then what becomes of that energy?
Christopher K (15:01:35) :
Before any consideration of the continuation of the IPCC we first need to redo very carefully the temperature indices maintained by NOAA and afilliates, GISS, CRU and the Hadley Centre, which have all been shown to be hopelessly corrupt.
Even the satellite based series are corrupted by the fact that they had to be calibrated using GISS and/or HadCRUT.
Is this true that the satellite data has been calibrated using GISS and or Hadcrut?
I thought I read they were calibrated in a lab before launch. Either way, the data cannot be relied upon, as the satellite sensors can’t only detect the SST signal, detect the heat from the whole troposphere. To get round this problem the scientists have to program the hardware to only look for what they think the frequencies/signal should be and then measure the difference from what they expect it to be. So a few assumptions there. See posts by D. Ch. (13:11:08) and George E. Smith (15:10:38) and vigilantfish (17:36:24) on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/spencer-record-january-warmth-is-mostly-sea/ Doesn’t this issue deserve more investigation?
Very appropriate illustration (of course!), just the locomotive for tight turns or even three-point turns such as on the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway.
http://www.dhrs.org/index.htm
IPCC (Intergovernmental Partnership of Cargo Cultists)
From that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia: Cargo_cult_science:
Cargo cult science is a term used by physicist Richard Feynman during his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology, United States, in 1974 to describe work that has the semblance of being scientific, but is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty”.
Feynman cautions that “We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.”
Junican (20:57:06)
The oceans are the key. For billions of years, the oceans have been pulling on the moon.
The planet has been pulling on the moon. The density of the oceans is greater than the land and is flexible to disruptions. This also gives us our wobble.
Most of your science is correct. Man contributed to the hastening of our current situation but the planet has a cycle. When the plant life and animal life are at there peek of giving off energy and gases a protection mechanism kicks in to protect water from mass evaporation.
This is salinity changes. The unique thing that happens is that it starts on the surface on the oceans. If it was started in all the oceans would mean a heavy evaporation had occurred to concentrate salt. By starting on the surface to a few inches would suggest atmospheric intervention.
The area science totally forgot was rotation. The pulling of salt to the surface.
Our atmosphere is elastistic and can stretch to a point as colder layer block from moving higher making the atmosphere more dense. Changing the speed of the atmosphere being pulled along.
What real damage we have done to the planet is the total removal of water from the biosphere cycle. Putting thousands of billions of gallons of water deep into the planet for the pressure to pump oil.
All the surface trappings we do with water is interfering and holding water from it’s natural evaporation cycle. This is only a minor irritant to the vast amounts still left. We as a species can do some serious damage if gone on for an extended time.
Oliver K. Manuel (13:54:15) :
************************
I would add National Geographic to the list. As late as last week, Google was still running their advertisement here with “proof” that AGW is a clear and present danger.
The individuals that run these organizations have been lying to their constituencies. If they believed the AGW hoax, then they have been gullible fools. If they did not believe the hoax and repeated it anyway, then they have been worse than fools.
In either case, they have betrayed the trust of their constituencies.
I personally will not trust them again. I may be just a red neck rube but I am not a fool.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
@Junican (18:19:10) :
“In the Daily Telegraph (England) today, sixteen peers in the House of Lords published a letter in the letters column. …. It is amazing that sixteen Peers of the Realm cannot see this.”
Not when you realise that the lords are all placemen whose continued acceptance, gravy train membership, social status etc., depends heavily upon toeing the line.
Quote:
“…flawed communication between teams of scientists…..”
End Quote.
Well that’s rather polite way to put it.
Nobody was lying, nobody was corrupt, nobody was playing politics with science, nobody was perpetrating a fraud. It was all an honest mistake and not their fault.
Why don’t they say “fraud” when they mean “Fraud”?
To judge from some of the dicey articles it has published recently, doesn’t Nature itself need an overhaul?
They are obviously trying to find a way to retell the LIE, to adjust it, fix it and concot a new fairy tale aimed at the simple people (the majority) of the earth, then scare them to death and conveniently prepare the next mexican jamboree.
No way!. Make sufficient stocks of feathers and tar (a fossil fuel). Russian hackers has been put in alert too.
Buy more popcorn!
Error: “Russian hacker HAVE been…
Joe (03:56:01) : Are you the Seattle Indian who wrote a letter to President Franklin Pierce in 1855?
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1985/spring/chief-seattle.html
Stories like this will appeal to the naive sentiment of people to support their money making and seeking power agenda which is behind all this.
As George Carlin would put it:
When we ask ourselves Why am I here and what for am I here, God responds from above: Plastic! (to make plastic)
and:
“Oh Beautiful for smoggy skies, insecticided grain,
For strip-mined mountain’s majesty above the asphalt plain.
America, America, man sheds his waste on thee,
And hides the pines with billboard signs, from sea to oily sea.” ☺
Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/george-carlin-environmental-quotes-460608#ixzz0fF4ghlMc
JonesII (07:19:36),
That kind of propaganda irks me. The U.S. is one of the cleanest, most pollution-free countries on Earth, if not the cleanest.
Billboards have been illegal in most places in the U.S. for decades [the ones you see are grandfathered]. Strip mining must be covered and replanted when the mining is done. Insecticides are tightly regulated by the FDA; but if you want worm-eaten apples and packages of rice complete with dead insects, go to your grungy natural food store, they have ’em at premium prices. And fully one-third of the smog on the West Coast comes straight from China – which is certainly responsible for a major portion of the ocean’s pollution.
Smokey (07:47:38) :
So clean…but not enough yet. You gotto clean more jobs out from the market and reach higher than 20%, like ecologically friendly Spain has done with all their windmills and all Brussels ISO’s. Happily BROKE! they have changed the old good spanish wines for a better drink: Kool-Aid.☺
Have you realized that all greenies, ecologists, gobal warmers, climate changers, world government promoters, UN officials, and all of the kind, DO NOT really work?
However they gather in paradise islands where all of them arrive in private planes and now are planning their next jamboree in Mexico, perhaps because there they will easily find a product of their daily consumption (or rather absorption?), and I am not thinking of any “tamales” or “tortillas” but something more expensive which provokes some nice fights among “cartels” down there.
This substance is the main inspirer for their deep studies on climate science, as recently shown in Climate Gate.
However, and let’s dig deeper, their masters or patrons do not either drink, nor inhale, they, instead live austere lives,
Can’t say more.They are just a few, less than ten people perhaps.
“the structure and process of the IPCC has passed its sell-by date.”
It was putrid from the get-go, with only the heavy aroma of pseudo-science to keep people from realizing how bad it was.
It needed to be scrapped yesterday.
We’re in the middle of the wake, we haven’t buried the these poor IPCC folks yet. Let’s finish our drinks, get a good night’s sleep, go to the funeral, bury their wothless corpses, get over our loss by a short time of mourning –perhaps 10-20 years– and then talk about it. The world has had a great loss. We should not fly off the handle in our present condition and do anything rash. Now, where were we… oh yes… Barkeep! Another Ortleib bitte bitte… (snif)… they was such ‘fine’ fellas too.. (snif) from India, and the UK, and the US, and… (snif)… never really knew them personally… understand they wrote detective thrillers or something and loved to bask in the Sun… (snif)… Barkeep! Another Ortleib…. did you have any trouble getting here? That snow must be five feet deep…
What did really bother us of this IPCC thing?, I think it was their restore to silly lies to get their agenda, they could have used instead (well, if they were really scientists) the more scaring material, just from here in WUWT…all that stuff of Sun turning from a nice incandescent warm yellow light shining above to a ecologically friendly sun, just cool, Ap numbers down to the ground, lowering magnetic earth shield, increasing Oulu neutron counts rising to the top and never going down…the cosine and sine curves from Vuk…oh, such a lot of themes.
There was enough scary material for two IPCC and many soap operas and they preferred the global warming tale. Poor guys, what a lack of imagination!!!
Oops>resort instead of restor
“I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,” he said.
Yeh, that’s the ticket. Just make sure it’s robust./sarc
What is not being discussed here is that there is also, in addition to the ‘Opinion’ piece, a full length article by many academics across Europe and the US about ‘next generation models’.
This would imply that full-steam-ahead modelling will continue, with attempts to push out ‘beyond 2100’.
The article has one rather interesting quote:
‘Although the IPCC scenarios and process were productiwe, new scenarios and a new process for selecting and using them are needed. Nearly a decade of new economic data, information about emerging technologies and obserwations of enwironmental factors such as land use and land cower change should be reflected in new scenarios’.
That says to me that the fundamental paradigms of the modelling will remain the same.
With the lack of congruence of current models to 1998 climate onwards, isn’t that rather a strange starting point to be taking??
Rhys Jaggar (10:49:22) :
What is not being discussed here is that there is also, in addition to the ‘Opinion’ piece, a full length article by many academics across Europe and the US about ‘next generation models’
That would mean a challenge target for viruses’ programmers. That will benefit the whole world. DO IT!, such a good action would compensate for all your past deeds.
“I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers.”
Another confused scientist that thinks his recommendations equate to anything resembling Science or honesty.
Can’t believe that Nature, that premier bastion of the green revolution and bad science is calling time on the IPCC fraudsters…
Pot. kettle spring to mind.
Joe.
Thanks for info re oceans. Very interesting.
Oliver Ramsay.
The energy of motion becomes part of the mass of the thing moved.
E = Mc(squared). The increase in the mass of the thing moved is minuscule since, by re-arranging the equation,
M = E/c2, the energy, E, has to be divided by a very, very big number.
The energy of motion becomes part of the mass of the thing moved.
E = Mc(squared). The increase in the mass of the thing moved is minuscule since, by re-arranging the equation,
M = E/c2, the energy, E, has to be divided by a very, very big number>
Impossible. All energy relationships are strictly linear. Ask any climatologist if you don’t believe me.
Re davidmhoffeer.
You may well be right about ‘energy relationships’ – I am not sure what you mean by that phrase. As I understand nature, Force = acceleration, which is non-linear unless you create a graph which specially designed to make the non-linear linear.