Heading for the exits

Climate agency going up in flames

Exit of Canada’s expert a sure sign IPCC in trouble

A catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they’ve been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.

If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress.

Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports.

For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some “dangerous crossing” of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.

Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangerous line between hype and science.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=90f8dd19-4a79-4f8f-ab42-b9655edc289b#ixzz0dpiB0tX3


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

More sign of serious trouble appear in Britain’s papers everday.
Too bad the American press think they can keep the AGW alive and part of their ‘progressive’ agenda.

Much, much more filth will be exposed as the Climategate iceberg melts away under the spotlight of public attention.
Keep up the good work,
Oliver K. Manuel


This illustrates why it’s important that we not let Pachauri be the fall guy… the IPCC and it’s process are wholly corrupt. The IPCC was designed to corrupt science and it enables this type of behaviour worldwide. Don’t let those complicit with fraud off the hook.


Well that didn’t come a moment too soon.
The environmentalist spin on this one is going to be something to savour since they’ve been using the “it’s not as bad as it looks…let’s all take a deep breath and ignore it” line for a little too long now.

hippie longstocking

Why do I have Mr. Rogers singing “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood” stuck in my head? The unfortunate part about all of this is that no one abandoned ship until the proof became so overwhelming they could not hide anymore. If this came about because of due diligence and a desire for unbiased research on the part of the IPCC and their cohorts I’d feel much better. Still, it’s a “victory” I will enjoy.

Atheist Ranter

The IPCC needs to be closed down. Whoever it is who runs it in the future, it will be a very long time before anyone will believe anything it barfs out. And just changing its name wont work either.
And while I’m on the subject, close down the UN too. Self serving politicians to a man…


I’m not that surprised about the “discovery” that the IPCC is dressing up science as bald-faced advocacy. However, we must continue the pile-on until world leaders see the bad politics at play here and abandon policies based on false claims of man-made climate change.



I used to be a AGW believer, up until I had the time and motivation to check out the science. One book I bought was Weavers book. It took about 4 to 6 months of reading of other books and blogs before I came to the view that Weaver was misleading me in his book(eg, his explaination of Manns bogus hockey stick, and McIntyres work). Further, he directed me to two blogs, RealClimate and DeSmogBlog for further information. That was a misdirect, for both blog sites spew out only one side of the discussion through the screening of comments, and the banning of posters who disagree.
How Weaver is allowed to teach at the University of Victoria is beyond me. He brings discredit to what is called a “higher education”.


And the UK’s chief scientific adviser, John Beddington, is today calling for reform of the IPCC in the Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece and even that sceptics can sometimes be right!
“He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues. ”
It’s less than 2 months since Gordon Brown called climate sceptics ‘flat-earthers’ !

Steve Goddard

The name of the IPCC is fundamentally flawed. By putting “Climate Change” in the organisational name, their reports require a pre-determined conclusion.
Similarly, USHCN temperature data is kept and manipulated by the “Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.” Shouldn’t it be the Temperature Analysis Center? Their reason to exist centers around CO2 warming.


Hmmm – maybe a lot of people have been quietly waiting for an exit to appear so they can use it.
It seems to me that the whole thing has been obvious for years (as stated before, I used to believe the AGW hypothesis until I actually started looking at it). If you’re a scientist who is supposed to be studying AGW then you probably figured it out some time ago. But nobody wants to be “first”, since they’ve all seen what happens to anyone who speaks out.
So yeah, hold open a clearly marked “EXIT” sign, and step out of the way, because you might get trampled in the mad rush.
Now they can just say “oh, those CRU/GISS/IPCC people were falsifying data, but we didn’t know before.”


Mr Weaver’s advocacy may have contributed to the intolerance of climate scepticism in the past However many of the posters on this blog have gone through some form of awakening in our attitudes to CAGW (mostly due to Steve McIntyre in my case) and I welcome Mr Weaver’s realignment with the scientific method. However I reserve the right to withdraw my welcome if his enlightenment does not prove to be genuine.

Henry chance

Running for the exit is NOT redemption. Weaver if you were wrong, you are bad news. It means we were in the wrong if we trusted you. Andy is added to the list of tarnished peer review clowns.
Toyota is recalling cars by the millions today. Is andrew weaver going to recall books?
No. There is no reason to. You can peddle anything you want.


I am trying hard not to criticize the flaws in an “intergalactic ‘ballistic’ missle.”
It is clear that the IPCC has failed in its mission:
1) We are not warming – their mission has been cancelled.
2) They cannot show warming legitimately – mission gone.
3) Fabricating science always is exposed eventually
– adulterated mission failed.
Perhaps it is time to dissolve the IPCC. It has certainly done more damage than good.
I have no sympathy for good or bad scientists who were funded through the IPCC. It is time to seek finding elsewhere.
It is a specious argument to keep the IPCC going with the wishy-washy approach that dissolving it does away with some jobs. It is not mission of the IPCC is not to create jobs. Put the money back into the taxpayers’ pockets and jobs will be created.
Good scientists will find jobs. The others, hey . . . find some one who cares.

John Diffenthal

Sound of rat leaving ship …

UK John

I enjoy being a flat earther at least I know which way is up!
Speculation is being passed off as Science. see below to Met office and I have had no reply!
On the 24th November the British Met office issued a joint press statement on Climate Science. I can only assume this is in the wake of the CRU e-mail hack and was an attempt to assure the public on the veracity and openness of Climate Science
Authors were those of the highest reputation:-
Prof. Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist, Met Office
Prof. Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive, Natural Environment Research Council
Lord Rees, President, the Royal Society
This statement included the following passage:-
“Year-on-year the evidence is growing that damaging climate and weather events — potentially intensified by global warming — are already happening and beginning to affect society and ecosystems. This includes:
In the UK, heavier daily rainfall leading to local flooding such as in the summer of 2007.”
Anybody reading this passage is left with the strong impression that Scientific Evidence existed that proved the floods of 2007 were caused by Climate Change or were part of likely climate change scenarios for the UK. I am further confused because the next line down says that the summer drought and heat wave of 2003 was also part of likely climate change scenarios. So according to the statement a cool wet summer in UK and a hot dry summer are both indicators of trends caused by CO2 induced climate change !!!!!!!
I was unlucky enough to be directly involved in the 2007 Avon/Severn flooding, I got my feet wet! so I did, out of interest, keep up to date with any science reporting of the likely cause of these floods.
An excellent scientific analysis was produced on the 2007 floods by CEH a part of Prof. Alan Thorpe’s Natural Environment Research Council.
And I quote from the press release for this report:
Lead author, Terry Marsh, comments: “The river floods of summer 2007 were a very singular episode, which does not form part of any clear historical trend or show consistency with currently favoured climate change scenarios.”
Mr Marsh adds: “The exceptional river flooding last summer fuelled speculation that flood risk is increasing due to global warming. Due to the inherent variability of the UK climate, any extreme hydrological event cannot readily be linked directly to climate change.”
Are these 3 eminent scientists reassuring me on the validity of climate science by choosing to illustrate their statement with events that their own peer reviewed science says are not part of likely Climate Change scenarios.Or perhaps you can point me to the scientific studies that this passage in the statement were based on.
So what do I make of all of that? It diminishes the credibility of the whole Climate Science statement. I find little wrong with the rest of the statement.

Phillip Bratby

Ruth: don’t forget the numerous government ministers who have said “the science is settled”.


A bit off topic but might be helpfull to UK bloggers.
Contact any or all MPs with this e-tool,
If you have a current cause or campaign this free and easy to use tool will simplify and ensure that every Member of Parliament is aware of it.
(it does not appear to allow attachments).


So I wonder how long it will be before “Doctor” Weaver ends up on the board of the WWF? ;->

Pearland Aggie

LOL…for you ‘deniers’ and ‘contrarians’, you will found this interesting…
Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming
Funny how station maintenance was not really discussed. He even goes as far as to site NCDC analyses and state and poorly sited stations actually measure cooler temperatures….yes, you read that right. Anyway, there is a glancing attempt to tie Anthony to the fossil-fuel and tobacco industries through the Heartland Institute. It would be interesting to see what the readers here think…

Henry chance

Waterloo, Ontario – Andrew Weaver, who was among a select group of scientists that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore for their work on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will speak at The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) October 28, as part of CIGI’s 2008-2009 Signature Lecture Series
Why am I not surprised? These are the core members that can proffer “peer review”.


Hey Mr. Weaver, too late now buddy!, no way, gotto go to the arena and face the lions!

Susan C.

Thank you for posting this excellent essay from the National Post. Weaver deserves to be exposed for what he is and Corcoran does a superb job. Ironic that UVic’s (and Canada’s) most vocal spokesman turns out to have the least amount of backbone of the bunch. Any takers that Weaver will simply turn back into an oceanographer as if nothing had happened?

Hank Hancock

From the IPCC web site: “Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers.”
Translated: We are political wolves tending the scientific sheep.
Conclusion: Scientists answering to politicians was destined to turn into politicians wearing lab coats.

The OtherDan
Fred from Canuckistan . . .

I think we should just cut to the chase here and call it Climastrology.
“When the moon is in the 7th house and CRU aligns with NASA GISS . . . ”
Mayb we could make it into a broadway musical.


Atheist Ranter (09:20:04) :
The IPCC needs to be closed down.

Don’t you think it would be better to close down the United Nations, the source of all evil, the progressives’ hiding place?
Sometimes I wonder if Al-Qaida hit the wrong building in NY.


That’s a pretty stunning admission from Dr. Weaver who’s been an insider for so long. He’s frequently quoted up here in the great white north as a climate change expert and Nobel prize winner. I must say however, he frequently crosses the line between activist and scientist.

James Sexton

Still waiting for Hansen and Mann to go away(hopefully prison), but this is still moving in the proper direction. Kinda fun to watch the rats abandon ship!! Let the weasel dances begin!!!

Philip Thomas

I think this just means means Mr Weaver is the biggest coward amongst the rats, or is it the biggest rat amongst the..

Another error exists in the IPCC’s AR4 Technical Summary, where it claims water vapor is increasing in step with temperatures.
You can read my blog post about their error here:


“he frequently crosses the line between activist and scientist”
To call him a scientist is an insult to honest scientists. Why did he accept Manns hockey stick? Why did he not do a check of it, considering the huge change in the temperature reconstruction from previous IPCC reports?
B.C. seems to have gone to pot imo. D Suzuki has this stellar reputation as a scientist, yet he does not do any work to check Manns hockey stick. Instead, he talks about “jailing” deniers!
Eco nut jobs seem to have a cozy home in B.C. It is truly strange.


Well, when the ship is sinking, what happens?
All the rats start to leave. Weaver is only the first. Soon we will be hearing from many other climate scientists who will all shake their heads in disbelief at how politicized the IPCC has become. They will swear up and down that they had misgivings for a long time, but just couldn’t say anything because… well, you know the IPCC was just so big and daunting, you know?
But really, I’m a good scientist! I am! I was just… a victim of circumstance. Yeah, that’s it! A victim of circumstance.
Can I go home now?


And if Weaver departing isn’t enough, Gore is headed for the pews. He intends to spearhead a drive to infiltrate established religion with his own brand of environmentalism.
The AGW science is settled, alright, it’s settled into its catacombs.


OT again, this indicates the power of the web.
Net-based pressure forces UK government to cancel plans to make MPs’ expenses secret
Posted by Cory Doctorow, January 21, 2009 6:57 AM | permalink
Glyn sez,
The vote on concealing British MPs’ expenses has been cancelled by the government! [This was a proposed law that would have made MPs’ expenses a secret, not available through Freedom of Information requests] Over 7000 people joined a Facebook group, they sent thousands of emails to over 90% of all MPs. Hundreds of thousands of people found out about the story by emails, blogs, by visiting TheyWorkForYou to find something they wanted to know, reading an email alert, or simply discovered what was going on whilst checking their Facebook or Twitter pages. Almost all of this happened, from nowhere, within 48 hours, putting enough pressure on Parliament to force change. mySociety also ask if you want even more transparency in parliament that you join the Free Our Bills campaign.”


Rajendra Pachauri , the Incompetent – Top Editorial at India Report


I think that, after WUWT published CRU hacked emails and it became the now widely known “Climate Gate”, their bosses, as in a gangster’s movie, considered all them as “burned” useless guys, so now, for sure they won’t receive any “funding” anymore….they should be feeling extremely desperate by now.
No surprising if it happends a kind of “King Tut’s malediction” and some of them start suffering mysterious heart attacks..

Tom G(ologist)

Throwing each other under every bus in sight.
As I’ve said before “… the cat will mew, and dog will have his day.”


Pearland Aggie (09:36:13) :
It would be interesting to see what the readers here think…

I think you’re trying to hijack the current discussion.

Paul Vaughan

“That Mr. Weaver now thinks it necessary to set himself up as the voice of scientific reason, and as a moderate guardian of appropriate and measured commentary on the state of the world’s climate, is firm evidence that the IPCC is in deep trouble.” – National Post – January 27, 2010
I took a look at some of Dr. Weaver’s research several months ago. I became convinced that he is quite serious about learning to understand the complexities of climate.

“[…] fossil-fuel industry might be responsible for both Climategate and his office break-in.” – National Post – January 27, 2010
Were I a fossil-fuel exec, I might be inclined to fund ALL sides of the issue, as the whole appearance of an issue seems to have the effect of inflating prices.

Phil (09:17:06) “The environmentalist spin on this one is going to be something to savour since they’ve been using the “it’s not as bad as it looks…let’s all take a deep breath and ignore it” line for a little too long now.”
Don’t confuse environmentalism with climate alarmism.

Paul Vaughan

EdB (10:04:11) “B.C. seems to have gone to pot […] Eco nut jobs seem to have a cozy home in B.C. It is truly strange.”
It’s Hollywood North. You’re falling for the optics.


Pearland Aggie: I had a look at that web site, but I have not delved into the references therein. However one thing immediately struck me about the “high quality” temperature data plot at the end.
There is a plot of temperature anomaly comparing the high quality data and the previous hit-and-miss data. The two curves are almost indistinguishable for 2004-2008.
Question: how was the BASELINE for the high quality data anomalies arrived at? After all it only started in 2004.


CodeTech (09:24:39) :
(Now they can just say “oh, those CRU/GISS/IPCC people were falsifying data, but we didn’t know before.”)
Since the base data was corrupt before many, if not most, of the scientists even got the data it is highly likely that the majority of scientists could say exactly what you have indicated and be telling the absolute truth.
The error was seeded into the data before they even started their analysis. Of course there are some that knew, but I think that the bulk of the papers done by those outside of the ‘inner circle’ before 2003 are likely to be depressed that their life’s work has been based on lies.
Their work and models would match the historical data from the past and recent past but none of their predictions would ever be realized.
It is really sad how these criminals have affected the lives of so many with their malicious and contemptuous acts of greed.
I don’t know how withdrawn papers are recoded, but is should include a specific cause for the withdrawal and I think even a specific reference to the paper or data or person that was so corrupt as to invalidate the withdrawn paper.
If my work had been destroyed in this way, I would be livid.

I’ve figured out why Hansen’s GISS surface record is diverging from HadCrut3, UAH and RSS. This makes it clear why Hansen mistakenly has 2005 as the hottest year on record. For anyone interested:


Wow – look at the hit rate on Google right now!
This is taking off! (and pretty impressive response time too!)
“Results 1 – 50 of about 98,100,000 for climategate. (0.65 seconds)”

Layne Blanchard

We won’t arrive at parity until Gore et al are facing worldwide litigation for their part in this deception. Possibly never.


From the linked story and its accounts of Mr Weaver’s own exploits, this isn’t an honest objective scientist who realises with a start that his colleagues are not all that can be desired, he is one of the leading examples of how a scientist can so depart from the impartial, objective un-emotive scientific reporting that he has lost any respect any decent scientist could possibly have for him. He lacks integrity and has abused the position of respect that a scientist should enjoy.
When politicians cannot rely on scientists to be objective, to be accurate and honest, to be neutral in their language, they cannot make rational policy decisions.
He may be trying to leave the sinking ship but he is eminently recognisable for who and what he is, one of the rats.
Politicians will be lad of his sort as he and ghis ilk will provide the excuse for the politicians acting as they did.
It won’t be greed they’ll admit to but to having been duped because they “trusted the science”.
Scientists like him have no excuse.
He may desert the ship, but he might not make it to shore.


Google hit rate sure is reliable! After 5 minutes, I see this:
Results 1 – 50 of about 11,600,000 for climategate. (0.16 seconds)
Oh well…


From Weaver’s local newspaper, the Victoria Times Colonist.
UVic scientist calls for overhaul of United Nations panel on global warming