I reported yesterday on Dr. Richard Norths findings on what he coined “amazongate” related to yet another WWF reference in the IPCC AR4.
Yesterday I sent him a comment from WUWT reader “Icarus” that made a very valid point. However that point drew back the curtain for an even larger problem now uncovered by Dr. North as he writes in:
“We are trying to do the best job we can in assessing the quality information about climate change issues in all its dimensions and some do not like the conclusions of our work. Now it is true we made a mistake around the glacier issue, it is one mistake on one issue in a 3,000 page report. We are going to reinforce the procedures to try this does not happen again.”
So says Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC – as retailed by the famous Louise Gray, purveyor extraordinare of WWF press releases – in The Daily Telegraph today. It was simply a “human mistake”, he adds. “Aren’t mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution and I do not know of any human institution that does not make mistakes, so of course it is a regrettable incident that we published that wrong description of the Himalayan glacier,” he says.
So far though, the IPCC is sticking to its legend that this is only “one mistake”, burying its head firmly in the sand and ignoring the growing evidence that the IPCC report is riddled with “mistakes” – to apply that extremely charitable definition.
Another of those “mistakes” is the false claim highlighted in my earlier post on “Amazongate“, where the IPCC has grossly exaggerated the effect of climate change on Amazonian forests, stating “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” – on the basis of a non peer-reviewed WWF report whose lead author, Andy Rowell, is a free-lance journalist.
However, being “human” myself – although some would hotly dispute that assertion – I appear to have made a mistake in my analysis, charging that in the document referenced by the IPCC, there is no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change.”
Actually, that is the charge retailed by James Delingpole and by Watts up with that, whereas what I actually wrote was that the assertion attributed to the author of the WWF report, that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” is nowhere to be found in the report.
The WUWT post, however, evoked a response from a commentator, “Icarus”, who noted that there was a reference to a 40% figure references in the WWF report, as follows:
Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.
That is very much my mistake, having completely missed that passage, thus charging that the IPCC passage was “a fabrication, unsupported even by the reference it gives”.
With that, though, the story gets even more interesting, as the assertion made by Rowell and his co-author Peter Moore, is referenced to an article in the Nature magazine, viz:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, you should all look at the EU Referendum site – it is well worthwhile. Follow the Pachauri trail.
Willis,
Your ability to convey all the essential points so succinctly makes your comments and posts a joy to read. Hope there’s another post coming soon!
This has a place in discussion of the Amazon. Always take the long view when contemplating change; and then look even further back…
Ancient Amazon civilisation laid bare by felled forest
I looked at the linked climate progress article about the LA storm. I don’t follow the logic : a series of blizzards dump snow across NE USA, the UK and much of Europe, breaking cold/snowfall records but that’s weather. A large storm dumps a lot of rain on SW USA and sets a record for low pressue (and size of system? I couldn’t follow), so that’s evidence of climate change.
My head is spinning. Is weather evidence for climate change or not?
Following on from the comments by Pat Moffit (10:34:14) and Richard North (16:23:07), I too was taken back by the 5m soil moisture profile comment. The Nature article (actually a letter) is http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs23/lecture12/Fire_nature.pdf . The relevant comment is Amazonian forests can tap the
water stored in deep soil layers to maintain evapotranspiration
during periods of low rainfall. We assume that forests become
Flammable only when soil moisture is depleted to five metres depth,
based on field studies of soil moisture, leaf shedding.,this was fed into their model.
Just eyeballing Fig1.,I cannot find a high correlation between the two color illustrations comparing the same Amazonian area for Logging intensity and Forest soil moisture. One would think it to be a perfect match
The roots of this climate scandal reach deep into the very heart of the people’s right to self-governance. Democracies only work if the people have access to valid information.
It cannot be a coincidence when international organizations like the UN’s IPCC, the Norwegian Committee distributing Nobel Prizes, political hacks like Al Gore, prestigious journals like Nature and Science, and national organizations like the US’s NAS, NASA, and DOE all spout the same misinformation.
I was personally blacklisted by Nature after pointing out that neutron repulsion explains many of the mysterious energetic cosmic events published there:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2007/05/the_biggest_bang_of_them_all.html
There is much more to this unholy alliance – politicians, scientists, publishers and news media – than meets the eye. It seem remarkably like 1984!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Oliver K. Manuel (21:22:13) :
I was personally blacklisted by Nature …
Can you document this? if so, please do.
Willis Eschenbach and Hank Hancock have written important posts on the IPCC (not far above me here), and Hancock’s rundown of how the IPCC Policy document was arrived at ought imo to be the subject of a blog post on its own. If more people – and i include especially the Tory leadership and Prince Charles her ein the UK and the curretn regime in the US – understood how these apocalyptic warnings on warmings were arrived at, they might be less credulous. The ‘science’ truly is a house of cards
While we are all passing round the praise, and quite rightly naming certain individuals, mention must be made of Christopher Booker, who ploughed a lonely furrow for years on this and related matters in his Sunday Telegraph column (at one point being relegated to the back of the paper by the awful Sarah Sands). Booker has worked closely for many years with Dr Richard North of EUReferendum, and it’s long been impossible to understand the way we are governed here in the UK without reading his articles.
He has been exposing the Global Warming scam for many years; and in March last year wrote this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4990704/Nobody-listens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.html
It was his work which first got me interested enough in the AGW controversy to start reading up on the science, and to follow this blog. When I first started researching seriously, about three years ago, I noted several threats from the usual suspects on RealClimate to try to get Booker and North sued for their views.
I shall be pleased to see them vindicated at last; they were out on a limb for a long time, which took much courage. They have also both always understood how the AGW scam and the EU post-democratic ‘big government’ project mesh together.
Leif Svalgaard (21:39:18) quotes Oliver K. Manuel (21:22:13) :
“. . . was personally blacklisted by Nature …”
Leif asks: “Can you document this? if so, please do.”
Leif, how do you manage to spread yourself everywhere at once?
The Hindu gods with multiple arms have nothing on you!
My Nature subscription number is NUS 2755564
Below is a copy of a few of the e-mail exchanges with Nature:
– – – – – – –
From: Oliver Manuel
Subject: Re: Your Nature Registration; End of Blacklisting?
To: “Nature”
Cc: “Nature Headquarters”
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 10:11 AM
Thank you for the message.
Is this in response to the message, “CENSORSHIP AT NATURE [Incident: 090127-000020] [Incident: 090207-000059]” that I sent yesterday from ?
Does this mean that I will no longer be blacklisted by Nature and can enjoy all of the benefits of being a subscriber if I choose to renew my membership?
Beneath your message, I have copied and pasted some of the earlier communications between Sunil Kumar at “registration@nature.com” and me at
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Customer #2755564
— On Tue, 3/3/09, Nature wrote:
From: Nature
Subject: Your Nature Registration
To: omatumr@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 6:02 AM
Dear Oliver Manuel,
Welcome, and thank you for registering with nature.com.
You are currently set to receive the following e-mail alerts:
Your chosen preferred email format is: HTML
You can update your account details, change your password, revise e-mail alert
preferences or associate your subscriptions with your registration account to
gain online access by logging in to nature.com and selecting My Account:
http://www.nature.com/myaccount/
If you need any further assistance, please contact:
registration@nature.com for technical support, comments and feedback
subscriptions@nature.com for all subscription enquiries
– – – – – –
From Oliver Manuel
To “registration@nature.com”
cc Nature Headquarters
bcc omatumr@yahoo.com,
Date Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Subject: CENSORSHIP AT NATURE [Incident: 090127-000020] [Incident: 090207-000059]
Dear Sunil Kumar,
I received no “email for the activation of email address”.
My personal subscription to Nature will expire this month (March 2009) .
For three months (January, February and March), Nature has denied me
electronic access to my subscription (Customer #2755564).
How very sad that Nature — once the world’s most reputable scientific journal — now uses electronic blacklisting to prevent Nature subscribers from posting critical comments on the misinformation that it publishes about the Sun, the cosmos, the birth of the solar system, and fundamental interactions between nucleons (neutrons and protons).
I will again copy the central Nature office.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
“Truth will prevail”
Mundake Upanishad 3.1.6
and Qur’an 17.85
– – – – – – – –
On 2/25/09, registration@nature.com wrote:
>
If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 7 days.
>
Subject: Re: Change of e-mail address [Incident: 090127-000020]
>
Discussion Thread
Response (Sunil Kumar)02/26/2009 03:39 AM
Dear Oliver K.Manuel,
>
Please note that I have sent an email for the
activation of email address once again. Please click the link received in the email to activate the account.
>
We thank you for your time.
Customer (Oliver Manuel)02/25/2009 08:40 PM
– – – – – – –
Dear Sunil,
>
No, I did not receive an e-mail message at omatumr@yahoo.com with instructions to prompt activation of my account.
>
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:04 PM, registration@nature.com wrote:
>
If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 7 days.
> >
* Subject* Re: Change of e-mail address [Incident: 090127-000020] *
Discussion
>
Thread* * Response (Sunil Kumar)*02/24/2009 03:04 AM
– – – – – – –
Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
> >
With reference
to the below concern regarding your email address, your registered account omatumr@yahoo.com was not activated.
> >
so I have sent the activation email. Please confirm whether you have received that email and followed the prompts to activate the account.
> >
After activating the same, please try to log in with the following details:
> >
Email: omatumr@yahoo.com
Password: nature
> >
Please let me know if you need any further assistance.
* Response (Sunil Kumar)*02/23/2009 03:36 AM
– – – – – – –
Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
Your communication has been forwarded to the relevant staff member for further assistance.
> >
Please allow some time to get the issue resolved and I will let you know the status very shortly.
> >
We thank you for your time and co operation.
* Customer (Oliver Manuel)*02/20/2009 10:10 PM
> >
> > ==================== text File Attachment
====================
> > Attachment 5.txt, 5725 bytes, added to incident * Customer (Oliver Manuel)
> > *02/20/2009 10:10 PM
> >
> > ==================== text File Attachment ====================
> > Attachment 4.txt, 5725 bytes, added to incident * Response (Sunil
> Kumar)*02/20/2009
> > 03:31 AM Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
> >
> > Apologies for the on going inconvenience caused to you.
> >
> > Please note that I have changed the passwords on two different occasions
> > only to verify if online access is possible, however, I have found your
> both
> > email addresses as non functioning after changing the password.
> >
> > As a resultant, I requested for your another email address to associate
> and
> > provide you the access to the online articles.
> >
> > So, in this case, I again request
you to provide me the new email address
> > apart from these two (omatumr2@gmail.com & omatumr@yahoo.com) as you will
> > not be able to log in and access your account via these email addresses.
> >
> > We thank you for your time and co operation and await your response for
> > further action.
> >
>
> ********************************************************************************
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who
> is
> not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in
> error
> please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other
> storage
> mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not
> expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers
Limited or one of its
> agents.
> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
> accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail
> or
> its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
> Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
> Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number
> 785998
> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
> ********************************************************************************
> Response (Sunil Kumar)02/24/2009 03:04 AM
> Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
>
> With reference to the below concern regarding your email address, your
> registered account omatumr@yahoo.com was not activated.
>
>
so I have sent the activation email. Please confirm whether you have
> received that email and followed the prompts to activate the account.
>
> After activating the same, please try to log in with the following details:
>
> Email: omatumr@yahoo.com
> Password: nature
>
> Please let me know if you need any further assistance.
> Response (Sunil Kumar)02/23/2009 03:36 AM
> Dear Oliver K. Manuel,
>
> Your communication has been forwarded to the relevant staff member for
> further assistance.
>
> Please allow some time to get the issue resolved and I will let you know the
> status very shortly.
>
> We thank you for your time and co operation.
> Customer (Oliver Manuel)02/20/2009 10:10 PM
>
@ur momisugly Oliver Manuel
There seems to be quite a list of scientists blacklisted by the journals inside the AGW bunker. An even worse problem in many ways is the continual and determined editing out (ie censoring and falsifying) of climate information on Wikipedia, including that by experts in their fields, as cited above (and often previously).
Almost all of this is at the hands of one man, the uber-Green and AGW fanatic William Connelly (God know how he manages to hold down the day job!). How and why the Wiki owners allow this is just one of the dirty little secrets. Luckily there is a website about the painful history of Connolly’s banning as Climate editor on Wiki and subsequent reinstatement… (sorry can’t find the url this minute). But see also:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
and – from ClimateAudit where his antics have been well covered:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/
(commnets on this link are indicative! inc of the Wiki/Connolly links to RC and the CRU cabal etc))
The significance of this is of course that the Wiki is still the place where all too many people seeking their first information on a topic will go to find it. It’s trusted; and people have no idea until they look into an instance like Connolly, how much power one individual can have. The Wiki pieces on climate are yet another very big reason why so many people think ‘the science is settled’ – they cite and refer only to websites and papers which are in the loop. Dissenting voices are deleted. Orwellian indeed
We can all be sure that the effort being made even now by governments to control the web is going to intensify. It’s only via the web that this worldwide anti-democratic attempt to control us politically and economically is beginning to unravel.
On a brighter note, if the next US regime decides finally to stop funding the UN, the whole thing would collapse, and with it a lot of the problem (at least for those outside the EU)
Oliver K. Manuel
Uh, I let that through because Leif requested it, but having trouble accessing your account and fighting with customer service is more of an issue for a consumer complaint blog.
Oliver K. Manuel (22:13:30) :
“. . . was personally blacklisted by Nature …”
Leif asks: “Can you document this? if so, please do.”
In spite of all the emails, they never said you were blacklisted. Sounds like paranoia on your part.
Thanks, Charles.
I have subscribed to Nature for many years.
Recently I received a call asking if I wanted to renew my subscription.
I asked the caller if I would get the services promised if I renewed my subscription, or if I would still be blacklisted and unable to post comments.
She said that she would check and call me back.
That was a week or two back. She hasn’t called back.
In 1983 Nature acknowledged the importance of our findings in a news report, “The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the solar system” [Nature 303 (1983) page 286] after publishing some of our more controversial findings:
1. “Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in neon and xenon,” Nature 227, 1113-1116 (1970)
2. “Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”, Nature 240, 99-101 (1972)
3. “Noble gases in an Hawaiian xenolith”, Nature 257, 778-780 (1975)
4. “Xenon record of the early solar system”, Nature 262, 28-32 (1976)
5. “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)
Climategate is only the visible tip of an unholy alliance of politicians, news reporters, scientists and publishers that have corrupted our best research institutions and scientific journals – and weakened our democratic form of government.
Thank you for helping us get to the bottom of this mess.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
charles the moderator (22:21:36) :
I hate to do the butting in thing, but I read that mess of email communication as a technical difficulty, one relating to the email account used to register, not a blacklisting from Nature. Specifically, what seems to most likely be an incorrect email address or incorrect spelling of an email address.
For some reason, with all the other gates, no-one seems to be flagging up another obvious IPCC fraud, the supposed threat of disease spreading due to “Climate Change”. I guess you could call this Mosquitogate or Aguegate or Malariagate if you felt the need.
Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris is of course the great debunker of this particular IPCC shroudwaving exercise. It has been covered both here and in numerous other blogs and books.
see clip from the superb Great Global Warming Swindle on:-
But I must say that, IMHO, the biggest IPCC mistake was setting up the crooked, politically tendentious scam in the first place.
I look forward to the day when “scientists” seeking employment (having been sacked from their comfortable tax funded positions) are as unlikely to put down previous work for the IPCC on their CVs as they would be to list necrophilia amongst their preferred pastimes.
Oops, sorry ctm, I misread your message. That is a boneheaded thing I do sometimes.
Oliver K. Manuel (22:49:58) :
OK, but do you go to the email they send you confirming registration, open it, click on the hyperlink, and then enter the information to login? Seems like the problem is in this process somewhere.
The lady you talked to on the phone was a salesperson. Odds are, she took your response as a no.
Maybe this has already been pointed out, but I found this reference to the New York TImes in WGII 14.4.6:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4-6.html
The reference reads (Wilgoren and Roane, 1999) and is the source for the following claim:
Unreliable electric power, as in minority neighbourhoods during the New York heatwave of 1999, can amplify concerns about health and environmental justice.
The AR4 reference page can be found here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-references.html
It reads:
Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999
That article can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/08/nyregion/aftermath-heat-wave-neighborhoods-cold-showers-rotting-food-then-lights-then.html?pagewanted=1
I’m not sure who peer reviewed it.
Dave F (23:28:00) :
charles the moderator (22:21:36) :
I hate to do the butting in thing, but I read that mess of email communication as a technical difficulty, one relating to the email account used to register, not a blacklisting from Nature.
The ‘blacklisting’ is just paranoia on Oliver’s part. I know of no documented case [his included] where a Journal has refused to sell you a subscription for any reason [perhaps excepting that you didn’t pay]. Ditto for submitting papers to it. Now, your papers may be rejected if it ain’t any good [or for nefarious political reasons], but there are no lists of people that are not allowed to submit papers.
It seems that everyone from the IPCC to Greenpeace only make “errors” related to overstating the impact of AGW. If these “errors” were truly random – wouldn’t one expect to see some errors understating the case for AGW. Only explanation I can see is that it reflects bias or a deliberate act.
Quote: Dave F (23:37:24) :
“OK, but do you go to the email they send you confirming registration, open it, click on the hyperlink, and then enter the information to login? Seems like the problem is in this process somewhere.”
Yes, I have followed Nature’s instructions many times without gaining access. That does not seem to be the problem. [There were many, many more correspondences besides the ones I forwarded to WUWT.]
At one point, Nature’s representative (Sunil Kumar) said that he was also denied access using the correct information (e-mail account, password, etc.). He requested another e-mail. I gave him omatumr2@gmail.com
After trying two different two e-mail accounts Sunil Kumar wrote: “So, in this case, I again request you to provide me the new email address apart from these two (omatumr2@gmail.com & omatumr@yahoo.com) as you will not be able to log in and access your account via these email addresses.”
The service I purchased from Nature was suddenly not available. Nature’s representative (Sunil Kumar) experienced the problem too.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (05:34:03) :
“The ‘blacklisting’ is just paranoia on Oliver’s part. I know of no documented case [his included] where a Journal has refused to sell you a subscription for any reason [perhaps excepting that you didn’t pay].”
Nature did not refuse to sell me a subscription. Nature took my money.
But suddenly neither of e-mail accounts could access part of the services that I had purchased.
See above message too.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
To Richard Lawson (9;55;44)
Have a heart calling it FloodGate. What have I done to deserve that?
Vincent (10:15:15) :
“…..When will enviromentalists wake up and see the monster that has been created in their name?”
The enviromentalists got taken over by the UN at Maurice Strong’s first Earth Summit in 1972. The UN sanctioned NGOs was an absolutely brilliant move. Young political activists are recruited and used to further the UN’s political agenda of “Global Governance” It is no coincidence that Maurice Strong is a member of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance.
“Strong discussing the role the Earth Summit would play in the emerging system of global governance…
“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.” http://www.nationalcenter.org/DossierStrong.html
Oliver K. Manuel (09:13:20) :
But suddenly neither of e-mail accounts could access part of the services that I had purchased.
And you have never heard of poor IT structure, bugs, bad database management, etc? Just yesterday, when I tried to access a service [Carbonite] that I have purchased, I was refused: “account unknown”, just a day after I had gotten an email confirmation from their customer service that my subscription was renewed for yet another year. Today, the access is working. Happens all the time. The IT-infra structure at many companies is dismal. Kumar asked you for yet another email address. This is no indication that they had blacklisted you, just that they have a problem in their data base, perhaps lost all the ‘oma’s. Have you tried again? as he suggested.