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.
This Trojan Horse named Mann-Made-Global-Whatever-It-Is-This-Week is, so many thinkers believe, just that – a Trojan Horse. This animal carries within it the global currency of the non too distant future: Carbon. Or, more exactly, personal carbon-credits, issued to all on a monthly basis. Given that trading in carbon credits is already ongoing, there may be an iota of truth in this.
So, if our quest to disprove Mann-Made-etc… comes to full fruition, what will be next ? Water Vapour ? Because as sure as eggs are eggs, something will take its place.
Toolan
Weaver: Hear Ye Hear Ye: If you want forgiveness for your role in promoting the AGW fraud, repentance and redemption begins with a long letter advising Premier Campbell that carbon taxes are not justified in the face of the lack of scientific support for CO2 driving catastrophic climate change. I look deep into my crystal ball and see that BC’s politicians will give up the carbon tax plum the same day David Suzuki renounces AGW on CBC television then praises Dr. Tim Ball for his courageous skepticism.
Or Organized Clime.
@Lucy Skywalker (12:48:02) :
“Allan, there are many here who would call themselves environmentalists. Two key authors included, Larry Solomon and Peter Taylor.”
Here’s the problem, if you allow your movement to poison itself with what is bad, you should expect rational people to eventually fall away from your movement. A fantastic case-n-point is the feminist movement. They started with a perfectly rational and admiral goal, equal rights. Now that near parity has been achieved it has become twisted into a club for misandrists who seek out male behavior patterns that feel threatening and take stands against them, or influence courts against worthwhile fathers. It has gone so far that I know women who refuse to associate themselves with the feminist movement even though they (quite rationally) wholeheartedly agree with their original core goals. The same thing is happening with the Environmental movement. The amount of garbage that was accepted in to keep the movement going in order to “save the planet” from a perceived catastrophe has completely poisoned the well. I would be more surprised to see the sun rise tomorrow than see proclaimed environmentalists fall away from the movement in the next decade as the endgame for convincing the world to protect the planet has been reached and the lies used to perpetrate a global fraud of guilt and wealth redistribution are unraveled.
Put simply. At this point, declaring yourself anti-environmentalist is about as impossible as declaring yourself pro-murder… since the title has no antithesis, it has no meaning and everyone is essentially an environmentalist wishing to take care of the planet whenever possible. Given that this is the case (you are free to disagree with me, but I believe it to be so), declaring yourself an environmentalist is essentially associating yourself with the whackos who are trying to convince people to live in 17th century conditions by saddling them with tremendous amounts of undeserved guilt over their lifestyle.
I think you see my point here, so I’ll stop.
Paul Vaughan (13:17:40) :
Re: Allan M (12:34:21)
I am an environmentalist but I MOST CERTAINLY AM NOT a climate alarmist. You are welcome to train your guns squarely on me – water off a duck’s back.
Something of a mixed metaphor, unless I’m using a water pistol.
Being an environmentalist these days is a bit like being in favour of good and against evil.
What I am ranting about is the constant diet of ALARMIST scare stories put out by the organizations for decades now. By the time the work has been done, and the science is in, and the scare has been shown to be fatuous, and the media have forgotten, the myths remain to fuel the misanthropic machine. Try looking up the book I suggested.
What also irks me is the hideous sight of the wealthy elites of Hollywood and London et al. ‘playing’ at poverty, when there is so much of the real stuff around causing untold suffering the world over.
When I was younger, and more to the political left (the British Labour movement grew out of the nonconformist churches, along with anti-slavery, and not from any Marxist theory), the impetus was for a fairer deal for working people. There isn’t much of that left now. The watermelon has been fertilised with envy, and watered with ideology.
I think, in the end, all …isms are bound to be wrong. For the same reason that Edward Lorenz eschewed prediction (Henri Poincaré found it 80 years earlier, working on the three body problem), we cannot know, or know of, an initial state from which we can reason these things out; and also, the idea of humans examining themselves or their affairs ‘objectively’ is just strange. Capitalism just seems to be a theorist’s word for what people have always done; and it can feed us. We need to work for a better world, not start a revolution; the poor always lose from that.
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled ‘Nature.’” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature” — but beavers and their dams are.
But the contradictions go deeper than this prima facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the “Naturist” reveals his hatred for his own race — i. e., his own self-hatred.
— Robert A. Heinlein
(I read it here, but can’t remember whom to credit)
Reference Pearland Aggie (09:36:13) :
The URL reference you gave is a typical smart a**e ad hom attack so beloved of the alarmists.
On reading the original paper by Menne one gets a very different view of the work done by Anthony Watts et al.
In short it is acknowledged that there was indeed a need to investigate the validity of the data in view of the poor siting of some stations.
It turns out from Menne’s work that serendipitously the poor siting was almost exactly offset by a deficient thermometer (MMTS) and so the original records stand.
I wonder if Anthony is prepared to accept this very convenient coincidence?
Jean Parisot (14:03:56) :
O/T
The Grand Master of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta at the time of the siege of 1565 was Jean Parisot de la Valette. Any connection? He was quite a guy.
Yes the rot has set in too far and too long in the IPCC as a whole. It must be shut down. Just a like house full of termites that have eaten out most of the house, the IPCC is beyond repair. Besides, all the past reports are full of fiction so how can a “reformed” IPCC carry on with the same name? It simply can’t. As for the chairman of the IPCC, well time will tell but there should be a complete investigation to reveal the truth about the alleged corruption and financial frauds he has supposed to have committed.
KruddWatch (15:10:46) :
Thanks for the input. The guy is really good on tropical weather…I just wish he would stay with that topic. Regardless, his position is getting harder and harder to defend. It’s funny how the pro-AGW folks default to NASA/NOAA/NCDC for their ‘data.’ It would be interesting to see a NOAAgate occur here in the states…
kwik (11:21:04) :
It will be painfull to de-program Norwegian teachers, school-children, journalists and politicians.
Norway, forever known as the nation who gave the Nobel Prize to Mr. Gore and the IPCC. By Mr. Jagland.
Did you know that all coastal towns are forced to come up with a disaster plan for rising sea-level ? As if it will rise over night…… if ever.
Add the point that much of Norway is currently rising from the sea after the last ice age, and that picture is even more complete.
Murari Lal jumping off the bandwagon now too?
See the last couple of paragraphs in link below. Most of the article though is claiming that he never said they knew the Himalayan glaciers were going to melt by 2035 but included it anyway in AR4 (any coincidence that if you don’t take your finger off the shift key fast enough you end up with AR$ instead of AR4? 😉 ) .
Also I love how he pulls out the prediction vs projection argument.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55682/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Indian_climatologist_disputes_charges_over_Himalayan_projection
So Andrew, about those break-ins around U Vic last year….you know, the ones you implied that targeted only your office when climategate broke and somehow BIG OIL had a hand in it when it was campus-wide and months earlier…
Want to issue a clarification about those break-ins too?
I have a great idea, stop giving the UN any more money, ever, they can go home or work for free. This will stimulate the economy, at least bubbly sales to the group formerly known as skeptics!
On a separate note I emailed one Andy Pitman in Aus, I wrote:-
Dear sir,
I must object strongly to you calling skeptics “liars” this rude outburst is desperately un-scientific, if you have facts then by all means call Lord Monkton out and have a public debate, otherwise it makes you out to be the dishonest one and just shouting down opposition for no other reason than to cover your own back.
Also to accuse these people, who are fighting for all our freedom , of taking corporate money when your funding is mostly from the man made warming area, perhaps that is what you are defending and not the science?
Chris Edwards
Chris,
Monckton and Plimer have been publically called liars and have failed to answer the
statements or questions that these accusations are based on. Until they do it is appropriate
that the label sticks.
the next reply:-
Your statement “Like most people I do not have a clue (scientifically) about CO2’s role on the climate” is, of
course, true of most people. I have no clue on how to build a bridge, so I trust and engineer. I have no
idea about cancer, but I would trust an oncologist.
I have spent 20 years trying to find flaws in climate science. Monkton and Plimer have not – they
have not published a credible paper in climate science, they are not conversant with the science
and more than I am on engineering or cancer.
I asked him a few questions, 3 in fact:-
You are welcome to believe them but you are being grossly misled.
1 The gross dishonesty by the CRU and the others indicates that CO2 is not a problem
I am not sure what you are referring to here – there are no proven accusations. There are some
e-mails but I would suggest we wait until the outcome of the investigation.
2 Even if it is, the political”cures” is total fraud, closing well regilated industry in the wast and giving it to China and India, with vast sums of taxpayer monies to produce substantially more pollution making the same goods is the dumbest way to commit economic suicide
No idea what you are talking about
and ruin the planet, this alone makes and sound science seem dishonest.
3 If CO2 is that bigger problem, why do we all have a catalytic converter on our vehicles?
No idea what you are talking about.
Andy Pitman
My reply:-
Andy, what I am talking about is what the politicians (so far except in Australia and Canada, and of course chins and india) are doing with your theory, it is shocking and immoral and ruinous for us in the west, A Gore is making a substantial extra fortune out of his carbon trading scheme, the director of the IPCC is so corrupt I hope they hang him, your science is being used to destroy the middle classes in the USA and europe.
The catalytic convertor, fitted to all private vehicles since about 1985, converts CO and other pollutants with unburnt fuel (no doubt deliberately introduced) into larger amounts of CO2, assume for now I accept your expertise on climate, this is downright suicidal butstill happens, I could reduce my carbon footprint by considerable amounts and my fuel useage by unbolting my cat! deleting this from new cars would reduce the carbon footprint of manufacture as they consist of a ceramic matrix with platinum and other rare metals. Does this not seem wrong to you?
Chris
His last comment:-
chris
I really only want to comment on the reliability of the core science. Its the only area I have
expertise. I am not an engineer. I have no idea how Gore or the Chair of the IPCC is doing
and while you may be 100% right, I simply do not know.
I do hope it makes him think!
They can all go to buggery as far as I’m concerned. I will not accept excuses from alarmist scientists such as “I didn’t know temp data was fudged, I didn’t know Glaciers melting was pseudoscience” etc etc.
THEY ALL SHOULD HAVE KNOWN because good people like Watts, McIntyre Nova O K Manuel Monckton and many others have been yelling from the rooftops for years. And what response did they get?
“Deniers, contrarians, not peer reviewed, science is settled, trouble makers on the big oil payroll” and on and on.
If ANY alarmist tries to wriggle out by citing “I didn’t know” must also admit that they are IGNORANT, INTOLERANT and not a true scientist.
No more grants, no more cushy IPCC jobs meeting in exotic places, and if they are teaching future scientists, their positions MUST BE REVIEWED immediately upon the ignorant claim of I DIDN”T KNOW.
In view of the gravity of this whole AGW scam, nothing less will do.
Herman L (11:04:01) : (you wanted to know how I went from a believer to a skeptic, and which books I read)
Weavers was the first book I read(I believed in AGW, and his affirmed my belief)
Then:
The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud by Lawrence Solomon This book puzzled me, as Soloman was skeptical of the skeptics, but he did expose me to scientists who held other opinions.
So I bought books by the deniers and of course searched out McIntyre’s blog. Who was this guy?!!
Fred Singers “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years” This exposed me to the idea of natural variability. It is in the ice core record.
Then Spencer: Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor
However, it was the reading about the hockey stick that turned the corner for me. I could not understand why Weaver and others(Gavin S, M Mann) were trying to ignore McIntyres excellent statistical work. It was not long that I had to admit to myself that GS, MM, AW, etc were spinning false tales.
Once they lost credibility, then the rest of McIntyre’s world opened up. A Watts, JeffID, Steve M.. etc etc
Their science was open. The AGW world was closed. The final nail was the second hockey stick, Briffa’s reconstruction. At that point I accepted that the IPCC was built upon a deliberately constucted fraud.
Climategate exposed how it was done.
There is a huge job still to be done. The EPA and Obama are delusional, misinformed. Millions of people have to be made aware of the big con.. I especially feel sorry for teachers who believe guys like Mann, Weaver, Suzuki, Gore, Shmidt, etc etc.. these teachers now have to learn that they have been teaching bogus science, and that they have been warping the minds of millions of kids. How can these kids separate junk science from the real thing? How can a country run when its decisions are based on junk science? The Chinese will eat our lunch.
Weaver and Suzuki have lot of apologizing to do.
I find it hard to understand why the Heartland Institute’s funding sources are relevant. Either Anthony Watts is doing good, solid work or he’s not. Those who try to disparage him by tying him to something irrelevant are just afraid to deal with the strength of his work on its merits.
Good news.
Herman L (11:04:01) :
Which “other books and blogs” did you read that convinced you to no longer believe in AGW?
Let me help you. I was sceptic since 2006, but not so much by scientific facts, more by the way the warmists act.
Then I found this one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/real-climate-gives-reason-to-cheer/,
and since then it’s my daily pleasure to follow and understand more and more. Not just the science, but the political consequences, we have to live with .. or not.
Crystalclear facts, lots of links to valuable information, lots of LOLs .. and a deep insight into a movement, I thought would never happen after the Berlin wall fell 20 years ago, and never in the so-called free world.
Mass manipulation, intolerance, misuse of science, silencing of MSM … breathtaking for me, grown up in East Germany.
The more I enjoy watching every day how a lot great people are contributing to bring this finally down.
Thanks guys.
This Later excerpt is pure gold for QOTW
In the language typical of an IPCC report, one might say that the radiative forcing created by Climategate and Glaciergate strongly suggest this is very likely to bring about cataclysmic melting of the organization within the next portion of the current decadal period. The words “very likely” in IPCC risk assessment terms mean a 90% or greater probability that something will happen. As it looks now, the IPCC is burnt toast and unless it is overhauled fast there’s a 90% probability the climate-change political machine is going to come crashing down.
re: jaypan (16:37:38)
Likewise, with the twist that, living in the part of Alaska I do, I had hoped that AGW was real. You see, we have all these glaciers around here…
This page has a very interesting graph on the bottom:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
(I don’t see why they have that light gray line in the most recent part of the graph.)
Whoever is tending that site is an AGW believer.
RE where it started to come unstuck. I never believed in Global Warming because I was aware that in the early 1970s there were scares going around about Global cooling, and I knew the 1930s and 1940s had been just as hot if not hotter. The scare headlines always seemed too silly and then Professor Bob Carter, James Cook Uni, a geologist talked about the world cycles – heating preceding CO2 and the fact that CO2 levels had been much higher in other periods.
Also, we had learned about the carbon cycle and how CO2 was essential for all life on this planet and, again, the frantic scaremongering seemed illogical.
I get So Funny With The Money That You Flaunt
I said Where’d You Get Your Information From Huh?
You Think That You Can Front When Revelation Comes
Perhaps they can move along and form the Intergovernmental Panel on Cold Fusion and save the world by creating energy from nothing.
[snip – not appropriate here]
Fred from Canuckstan (09:53:16)
Enjoyed your opener for the Broadway Musical.
The Musical, ‘Scare”, could be a combination of the two Broadway successes,
‘Hair’ and ‘The Producers.’ The actor who sang ‘Springtime for Hitler and Germany’ would make a great Al Gore!
Today’s show is brought to you by the letters “C”, “Y”, and “A”.