Here in the USA, WUWT readers probably don’t have a true handle on the firestorm that is going on in India over Pachauri’s “glaciergate”. It is making headlines and the people there are quite angry, because they’ve been led to believe that their Himalayan water supply was seriously threatened in the not too distant future (2035) as reported in the IPCC AR4, and now they find out it’s a bogus, and that a Pachauri peer now specifically admits the 2035 date was known to be false, and used anyway to scare policymakers into action.
Dr. Richard North, who co-wrote the first story with Christopher Booker of the Telegraph that got the inquiry started over two weeks ago, now says on an interview on Indian television that ” If Dr Pachauri does not resign voluntarily, he will be forced to do so.”
Here is video and partial transcript of that interview.
It was not until the Sunday Times last week actually highlighted it that he was forced to take action. And on that basis I don’t think he has any credible alternative but to resign and he is either going to resign voluntarily or as the media are increasingly saying he is going to be forced.
It is a very clearly recognisable tactic where he simply denies the undeniable and for a while if you are in a very elevated position you get away with it. He hasn’t yet recognised that his position is already untenable and the more he denies, the way the media works the more evidence they are going to find until such time as his denials will be so lacking in credibility that he will be unable to operate .
Transcript via Liberty New Central.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Mailman (01:39:24): ‘Unfortunately the BBC and the Guardian continue to bury their heads in the sand over this.’
Too true. In fact, ‘Auntie’ is back banging the drum.
The BBC Today programme (millions – literally – of regular listeners) has, a couple of hours ago, given prominence to something called the New Economics Foundation, by means of an interview with a gentleman called Andrew Simms, who is described as the Foundation’s ‘Policy Director’ and Head of their ‘Climate Change Programme’.
http://neweconomics.org/programmes/climate-change
Among the ‘facts’ to which the Foundation wishes to draw attention is that ‘Climate change could cause 200 million people to become refugees by 2050’. Needless to say, no evidence is provided to support this ‘fact’. Amongst its recommendations is this: ‘If we are to prevent catastrophic climate change and stay below the “safe” 2°C threshold then much of our remaining fossil fuel reserves will have to remain firmly in the ground.’
The web site also states that ‘We may have only a matter of months before we pass a crucial climate tipping point.’ Indeed so.
Disappointed to see Viscount Monkton use the King Canute story the wrong way round.
In his letter to Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, he wrote: “...I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in. …”
The story, or legend, is that King Canute had his throne taken to the shore to demonstrate to his (foolish) subjects that even a king could not stem the tide.
This is a powerful statement, and worthy of accurate usage.
Many have suggested that the media is still too silent on all the recent revelations of mistakes, lies and data corruption. It’s hard to know if this unwillingness of the media will last much longer. In any case I see no other alternative but to go down another road. That of charging the AGW fraudsters and taking them to court. This I believe will be the only way we can end all this nonsense definitively. It will take time and money but I believe it will be worth it in the end as it will reveal the end result honest scientists really want – the truth. Of course we could get lucky and public opinion will force the media to wake up to themselves before they become entangled in the mess too far and be smeared with the same stench. In some ways that wouldn’t be such a bad outcome as that way the media will be shocked into their senses and stop playing dumb. They need to be more vigilant in the reporting of the facts, and not be so one sided and blind. Otherwise, they will stay on the current path of becoming less and less relevant with the Internet taking over as the source of real news. Perhaps that’s the ultimate destiny of the media anyway, especially newspapers and TV news shows (which in most cases are just reporting trivia and rubbish anyway). I won’t miss the demise of them as I stopped reading newspapers and watching the main TV news a long time ago. I prefer to listen to certain radio shows, in particular 2GB in Sydney, which has a wealth of news and information. For example, the discussion between Monckton and Alan Jones on 2GB was really good. A transcript is on their web site: 2gb.com
Shouldn’t Mr Pachauri be in line for an Oscar?
Former UN Environmental Advisor, Peter Taylor, talks about the conflicting science regarding climate change and the ensuing confusion.
http://www.bbc5.tv/news/story/peter-taylor-climate-change
Poor Poochie — don’t be looking for any $45 mil severance package such as the one Coco got to leave NBC. Count yourself lucky if they give you your hat and coat when they show you the door.
But here’s a friendly bit of advice — stay well clear of any approaching buses.
“Pachauri says the “IPCC’s credibility has increased”
Who’ll do that Voodoo like you do?
The WooWoo is doo-doo as we now know
Time to go – Gore is hiding – in the snow plough
Don’t let the door hit, your a*se, on your way now
“He’ll stay on and the U.N. will look the other way.”
This one has the most votes.
This means that a majority of the public is saying the UN and IPCC are too corrupt to fix themselves.
I have no idea why so many here are proposing x or y as the “new IPCC Chairman”. We may as well be proposing someone as the chairman of the IPSSS, otherwise known as the “Intergovernmental Panel on the Sun Still Shining”.
We know the climate changes in the same way that we know the sun is still at the center of our little bit of space. Why do we need an expensive panel to tell us these self-evident truths?
While we are on the subject of changes, why not give the United Nations the opportunity to have a brand new headquarters in Addis Ababa or similar hellhole. It may concentrate their minds somewhat, and have the added advantage of eventually dwindling away to nothing. Then nations will actively talk to each other, rather than trying to score points, dollars, euros, or pounds off of each other.
Just my humble opinion…..
OT: Wow, the sun looks weird today! 😀
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
Maybe Pachauri has already left the IPCC and is working at SOHO, getting of to a bad start… 😉
China has ‘open mind’ about cause of climate change,
But Mr Xie, China’s vice-chairman of national development and reforms commission, later said although mainstream scientific opinion blames emissions from industrial development for climate change, China is not convinced.
“There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude,” he said.
“It is already a solid fact that climate is warming. The major reasons for this climate change is the unconstrained emissions produced by the developed countries in the process of industrialisation. That’s the mainstream view [but] there are other views. Our attitude is an open attitude”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html
It’s astonishing that the BBC Environment correspondent won’t pick up on this story and won’t mention the change in “weather” caused by Climategate. In Richard Black’s latest offering, they hardly feature, so much so that it looks fishy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/reflections_in_a_confusing_cli.html#comments
In Comment #20 to the blog entry I referenced above, it looks like somebody has tried to paste in a reference to surfacestations.org, and the comment now reads:
‘I have to give Anthony Watts some credit for his involvement in the now published study On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
The authors graciously acknowledge his contribution:
“The authors wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at
surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations.”‘
So what do you think? Is the URL unsuitable, or broken?
vibenna (23:54:43) : malaria spread,
Like much of the rest of your list, this is just wrong. Malaria has nothing to do with warmth. Malaria has a great deal to do with mosquito abatement programs.
For example, Malaria was endemic to California in the times of the ’49’ers gold miners up in the Sierra Nevada mountains due to the Anopheles Freeborni that thrives up to 7000 ft in those “Snowy Mountains” – yes, that’s what the name means in translation. And if you go to 7000 ft right now, you will be about 1/3 of the way from the lower lodge end of the ski run toward High Camp at Squaw Valley… so take your snow gear.
http://www.squaw.com/winter/snoreport.html
right now has “skies: snow” and “storm total 61 inches” (or over 1.5 M) on a 100 inch base… Here are the web cams so you can see for yourself what it’s like at the altitude where these bugs can survive:
http://www.squaw.com/squaw-web-cams
From:
http://www.napamosquito.org/Mosquitos/WesternMalariaMosquito.htm
Talking about said Freebornii:
This species occurs in the Western United States north to Southwestern Canada and south into Mexico. It extends to the southeast as far as El Paso, Texas, but is probably most abundant in the great Central Valley of California. It has been found from elevations below sea level and as high as 7,000 feet.
Note the locations includes Canada. Not exactly the tropics…
Four species of Anopheles are found in California, but only two are considered effective carriers of malaria, they are Anopheles freeborni and Anopheles punctipennis. Anopheles freeborni is currently considered to be the most important vector species. California has been virtually free of malaria due to intensive mosquito control activities and modern drugs which have suppressed this disease. However, malaria could be re-introduced into a local community by an individual returning from overseas with the malaria parasites in their bloodstream. In such an event, mosquito abatement and public health officials would take rapid action to prevent an epidemic. California does have a few dozen introduced cases of malaria each year (see California Department of Health Services,
Notice it says NOTHING about ridding California of malaria by making it colder… It just doesn’t work that way (as snow is already pretty darned cold…)
So please, take just a minute for each of the claims you are parroting and look into the reality. You will find a lot of hype and not much reality. Just like with Malaria. It’s a “sounds good sound bite”, nothing more.
Similarly, African crop yields have nothing to do with more CO2 (which increases yields) and there is NO increased hurricane intensity (it is dropping, not rising. Notice how many Cat 4+ hurricanes made landfall this season in the USA?… Yeah, can’t get much lower than that.)
Same kind of things for the rest of your panic list.
and the science in the high quality peer-reviewed journals.
Um, don’t know how to break this to you, but “peer-reviewed” is presently about as valuable as “Act Now!” and “Limited Time Only!!” and “I did not have sexual relations with… ” as the CRU crew showed in their emails that they were indulging in subornation of the peer review process, suppression of dissenting evidence and reports, influence peddling with and pressuring of the editors, etc. etc. So please keep it in mind that as of now when you say “peer reviewed” most of us hear “Pal Reviewed” and some of us hear “crooks and manipulators selected propaganda”… Due entirely to what the CRU crew said they did in their own words.
You can also look for yourself. Arctic ice retreat is clear from the last few decades data.
Which has far more to do with wind patterns and current shifts with the PDO than anything to do with “warming”. There is no less ice than at MANY other times in the past in the Arctic and more than many. There is nothing unusual at all there.
For my money, to undermine AGW, you would have to show that all the global data sets post 1850 are wrong.
Well, no. Since CRU have said their data is 90%+ the same as GHCN, and since GHCN is used by NCDC to make their alarmist adjustments, and since GHCN is also the basis for 98% of the surface of the earth temperatures as fed into GIStemp: And since I’ve shown that GHCN is broken and corrupted by thermometer bias with cold thermometers being removed from the recent data and warmer ones left in. All that is needed to to show that GHCN is hosed, and it is.
The “cookage” is done by rewriting the past colder (prior to satellite data). The Satellite data are from far too short an interval to say anything about climate (PDO, for example, is a 60 year cycle. You need more than that history to avoid being fooled by a partial cycle of natural systems of that duration). And, a bit of research showed that the key frequencies used by the satellites are being increasingly polluted with various radars and TV re-broadcasters, are strongly influenced by water and ice in the air, and it is very unclear how they deal with that…
So given that we know 3 of these “clocks are wrong”, anything that agrees with them is showing it has a problem… (Lucky for us the Satellites are diverging from them…)
Oh, and that 1850 is a blatant “cherry pick” of a cold local bottom to the temperature curve. It is presently just about the same temperature as it was back in about 1720, but not quite as warm as during the Roman Optimum, and way colder than it was in about 3300 BC just before a major cold snap dumped Ice on top of Otzy the Ice Man (and, incidentally, put an ice cap on top of green plants in the Andes of Peru that has not seen the light of day until now. Where, at the glacier margin, we’ve found the carbon dated plants being exposed for the first time in 5200 years…. so we KNOW it was warmer then since those plants can not grow there now due to the cold and glacier on top of them.)
Now, for bonus points: Go to the window. Look outside. If you are just about anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere north of about 40 N you will likely be looking at snow, or cold rain. Even Australia has had summer snow in the mountains. Pull your head out of theoreticals and computer models and just look at the reality. It’s cold, and getting colder. Reminds me a lot of the 1970’s (just about the last time the PDO was in this cold phase that we’ve just entered, again…)
It is a natural cyclicality, nothing more. It’s just one with a cycle time longer than many folks lives, so only the old folks remember it.
So make some warm cocoa, put on your snow boots and coat, and go shopping for winter preparedness equipment. You’re going to need it… for about the next 30 years… And, to quote a very wise book: “DON’T PANIC!”
😉
Quote: Veronica (England) (03:54:34) : It’s astonishing that the BBC Environment correspondent won’t pick up on this story and won’t mention the change in “weather” caused by Climategate.”
Veronica, the international alliance of politicians, scientists and PUBLISHERS now includes, unfortunately, many of our most prestigious publications and institutions.
Influential publications that have been suckered into this fraud now appear to include Nature, Science, BBC, CBS and NBC.
That’s how it appears from here,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Former NASA PI for Apollo
The IPCC would fail miserably in school science.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/global_warming_and_the_science.html
Finally, finally, finally. Channel 10 Late News here in Australia featured Lord Monkton’s speaches/debates around the country starting on the 27th (I think. The 27th has another significace for me). There was almost no spin in favour of AGW. I think the worm has stopped and paused for thought.
Re: World Climate Widget on the sidebar.
I looked at the page where you provide the html and for the life of me I can’t find the baseline for the anomaly. And you know several people asked about it in the comments.
This is not up to your usual standards. And don’t just tell me here in a moderator comment. Add it to the page. I understand there may not be room in the widget. But please. Not on the linked page?
[The linked page says:”This experimental widget uses the UAH lower troposphere temperature data as well as the Mauna Loa CO2 data combined with NOAA SWPC solar information.” It is pretty commonly known that the standard UAH baseline is 1979-2000.. -the mods]
“E.M.Smith (04:10:30) :”
Hi there Mr. Smith. I mentioned in another blog your findings about thermometer reading inputs to the NCDC database dropping 75% from ~6000 devices and the Surface Stations project and the reply was (The concept of using warm biased devices and the project) was “Silly”.
Some people are not prepared to look outside the AGW box.
Patrik (03:51:33) :
OT: Wow, the sun looks weird today! 😀
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
Maybe Pachauri has already left the IPCC and is working at SOHO, getting of to a bad start… 😉
When I noted it 30 minutes before you at the “Tips and Notes” section, I also had noticed other problems with the SOHO Real-time images. Using the “SOHO Movie Theater” for the last 5 images, I can see data dropouts on the two latest images for multiple channels.
Is SOHO going down, is this a glitch, or something that’s expected to happen?
Apologies if this link has already been posted:
Glaciergate: Hitlers last straw (another spoof on Downfall )
enjoy.
What is that recently seems to have landed on top of Pachauri’s head?
The extract below helps explain everything – this is the guy quoted by IPCC etc; he believes their comments/interpretation are ‘astrology’; it is difficult to disagree.
Speaking to Al Jazeera on Saturday, Hasnain said that he had been misquoted.
“It is a journalistic substitution. It has nothing to do with my research because it’s not reflected in my research papers, it’s not reflected in my reports,” he told Al Jazeera.
“So how can it be an authentic thing? It can’t be. I’m not an astrologer to predict the demise of the glaciers and it’s not possible.”
The UN panel says a team of climate change sceptics uncovered the error, which could cast a shadow over the panel’s climate change research.
Most certainly Pachauri should resign without delay and the IPCC wound up immediately in favour of a panel of scientists and experts who do not have any finincial interests on the result of their findings. Furthermore, the Seretary General of The United Nations Ban Ki Moon should also resign. He, together with Pachauri and supported by Al Gore has done so much to force world governments into spending billions of dollars in the name of corrupted science. And when are we going to get a statement from Gordon Brown and David Cameron pointing out that their proposed multi £billion taxes will not go ahead until the science is proved one way or the other by a new panel?
Patrick Davis (04:29:58) : Hi there Mr. Smith. I mentioned in another blog your findings about thermometer reading inputs to the NCDC database dropping 75% from ~6000 devices and the Surface Stations project and the reply was (The concept of using warm biased devices and the project) was “Silly”.
Well, I posted a link to the (admittedly crude) benchmark I ran on GIStemp. (See: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/gistemp-witness-this-fully-armed-and-operational-anomaly-station/ ) The error band will be large (due to the need to adjust for the 2% area of the USA being the only changed data and the 50% of the N.Hemisphere being the report basis), but you get 2/100 to 4/100 C changes with taking out / putting in the USHCN data (i.e. modulating the GHCN set with a more complete set). Adjusting for that 1/25 area ratio, that gives 1/2 C to 1 C of sensitivity to the thermometers. (Yeah, the area has some error bar to add and yeah, the annual number didn’t change as much as the monthly; but it DOES change. Even if it’s only 1/4 C and 1/2 C after error bar, it’s still there are still large.
So they can take their “silly” and I’ll take an actual run of GIStemp on real data showing that the anomaly DOES change… “Silly”, meet “benchmark”. And benchmark wins…
Some people are not prepared to look outside the AGW box.
Well, when you are stuck in a box it’s sometimes hard to see what’s on the other side of that wall…
The Australian ABC (like the BBC) ran a story in the main national news tonight. It was a rambling thread mixing up the Himalayan Glaciers (although they got the facts wrong), Monckton’s visit to Australia and some other talking head scientist who was good for a couple of ‘the scientific consensus is…’
They actually gave Monckton a couple of undedited sentences, where he got his point across about no stastically significant warming for 15 years, although the voice-over was quick to throw in the bit about 2009 being Australia’s hottest year since 1910. The roped-in scientist to present the view was trying to debunk the ‘scientists on the gravy train’ meme by comparing them to cancer researchers, implying that cancer researchers would never wish for more cancer to research, and thus climate scientists wouldnt’ overstate climate for more research money. He must have missed the endless reports that state you get cancer from everything from mobile phones to drinking bottles.
Anyway, my point is this : the ABC actually ran a story on global warming and gave two sides to the story, and allowed both sides to say their piece. This, in itself, is a massive shift in position. If the government broadcaster is doing this, when the commercial stations start running with it, you’ll see a lot more people starting to rethink what they have been told.