A look at IPCC's referenced student dissertation shows more economic than climate concern

Glaciers do not stay the same size. The don’t continually grow. They don’t stay in at static size. They don’t continually shrink. It’s normal for them to change size. As the earth has emerged from the Little Ice Age it is perfectly normal for glaciers to recede. And now as the earth has begun cooling it’s normal for them to begin to grow.
=================================================
The Blackfeet Indians of the United States are predicting ‘many glaciers’ are returning to Glacier National Park
“Blackfeet Indians predict return of ‘many glaciers’ to Glacier Park”
http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2009/05/23/columns/columns06.prt

I think

At James Delingpole’s site ( http://jamesdelingpole.com ) there is an interesting quote attributed to Professor Philip Stott on the life and death of the AGW scam. Stott was quoted by Delingpole as saying, ” … as an independent academic, it has been fascinating to witness the classical collapse of a Grand Narrative, in which social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. ”
Indeed, it would be a very insightful discussion that would compare the fundamental philosophies of the IPCC team that produced faulted AR4 versus the philosophies of the independent thinkers that are auditing it.
Indeed.
John

o/t
The Obama administration has committed more than $US1 billion to revive the project.
…..capture and store the CO2 emissions from coal-fired generation.
more here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/exelon-backs-obamas-carbon-capture-initiative/story-e6frg8zx-1225825221816
back from the dead 🙁

Contrary to my preconception, this guy is not so young, as seen in his CV:
Geburtsdatum: 16. Oktober 1968

I missed getting this comment into the correct earlier thread, but the pronouncement of “Previously unknown glaciers in an inacessible European mountain range” leaves me a little confused. Does no one look at satellite photos anymore? Unlike tree rings, you don’t have to leave your precious computer to do that.

It’s appalling that this thesis was cited by the IPCC.
FWIW, this Schwörer guy mistranslated “dissertation” in his abstract. The correct translation of Diplomarbeit should be “thesis”. The German equivalent of dissertation is Doktorarbeit. He holds a “Master’s of Ski- and Mountainguiding” (dipl. Ski- und Bergeführer) (Hmm, does that also qualify him as a member of the MSM?) He is not an academic, but some kind of climate pilgrim-activist-adventurer.
But hey, he is raising two Klimatically Korrect Kinder. From the ToptoTop website:
Both are bound with her [sic] parents Sabine and Dario to reach all the climate zones of the world by either muscle or wind power in order to motivate people to have a respectful interaction with nature and our climate. They aim to move as many people as possible towards solidarity for the people effected [sic] by climate change.
Oy. I’m not sure what creeps me out more, the spector of Swiss children forcing me to buy a Prius, or the smutty Indian dude.

I didn’t even know that geography was a major. It seems about as useful as majoring in art history, communications, or dance. As for the relationship between climate and geography, how does knowing the names and locations of different capital cities qualify someone as an expert in Alpine glacial retreat? Maybe I’m confused.

Obama and Orzag with the ‘TEAM’ as useful co-conspirators are doing this strictly for the money-
We all know about the false ‘science’ – so exactly how greedy are all of these carbon traders anyway?
I so hope more people realize this scam and imprison- for life- all the conspirators, before its too late.

As the old song goes: “Running around in circles getting nowhere”.
BYW Henry chance (17:45:15); that URGENT clip is about the funniest I’ve seen on this blog.

u.k.(us) (18:55:16) :
One billion US$ for carbon capture.
u.k.(us) (19:24:19) :
Fiffty-four billion US$ for nuke plant loans.
One symbolic gesture to keep the votes of the remaining CAGW true believers, one substantial offer to recognize the reality of energy consumption.
Now we have to see if the loan offer has substantial strings on it. As noticed during the campaign, he mouthed support for nukes but only for “clean safe” nuclear power, with stipulations that summed up as a wink and a nod to the rabidly anti-nuke crowd signaling it would never happen, he was just saying it for the cameras. By the offered standard, cars would never have been built. Heck, microwave ovens wouldn’t have made the cut either.

One day after headlines from a British government minister insisting the man-made global warming science is “proven fact”, supported by the “vast majority of climate scientists”, another great lump has fallen off their propaganda machine…
Stern report was changed after being published
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111618/Stern-report-was-changed-after-being-published.html
Information was quietly removed from an influential government report on the cost of climate change after its initial publication because supporting scientific evidence could not be found.
Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
30 Jan 2010
The Stern Review on the economics of climate change, which was commissioned by the Treasury, was greeted with headlines worldwide when it was published in October 2006. It contained dire predictions about the impact of climate change in different parts of the world. But it can be revealed that when the report was printed by Cambridge University Press in January 2007, some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.
Among the claims that were removed in the later version of the report, which is now also available in its altered form online, were claims that North West Australia has been hit by stronger tropical typhoons in the past 30 years. Another claim that southern regions in Australia have lost rainfall due to rising ocean temperatures and air currents pushing rain further south was also removed. Claims that eucalyptus and savannah habitats in Australia would also become more common were also deleted.
The claims were highlighted in several Australian newspapers when the report was initially published, but the changes were never publicly announced.
A figure on the cost of US Hurricanes was also changed after a typographical error was spotted in the original report. The original stated in a table the cost of hurricanes in the US would rise from 0.6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 1.3%. The later report corrected the error so the increase was from 0.06% to 0.13%. A statement about the correction appeared in a postscript of the report and on the Treasury website.
The Stern Review has been instrumental in helping the UK government draw up its climate change policies while it has also been cited by leading organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its assessment reports on climate change.
Details of the changes, which have not been publicly detailed before, have emerged as the IPCC is under fire for errors on the melting of Himalayan glaciers that appeared in their most recent assessment report because of a failure to check the sources of the information.
A spokesman for Lord Stern, who headed the review and is now chair of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said that the changes to the statements about Australia were made following a quality control check before the report was printed by Cambridge University Press.
He said: “Statements were identified in the section on Australia for which the relevant scientific references could not be located. They were therefore, as a precaution, omitted from the version published by Cambridge University Press and they were deleted from the electronic version on the HM Treasure website. These changes to the text had no implications for any other parts of the report. It is perhaps not surprising that in a report of more than 700 pages a few typographic errors and minor but necessary clarifications to the text were identified in November and December 2006 after its launch. However, none of these corrections and changes affected the analysis or conclusions in the Stern Review, which is rightly regarded as an important contribution on the economics of climate change.”
Professor Roger Pielke, from the center of Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado who has been a long term critic of the Stern Review, described the changes to the report as “remarkable”.
He said: “In any academic publication changes to published text to correct errors or to clarify require the subsequent publication of a formal erratum or corrigendum. This is to ensure the integrity of the literature and a paper trail, otherwise confusion would result if past work could be quietly rewritten. Such a practice is very much a whitewash of the historical record. One would assume – and expect – that studies designed to inform government (and international) policy would be held to at least these same standards if not higher standards.”
***************************************************************************
Note: Another fact being kept quiet is that Lord Stern is not an economist, as he is frequently described, not a climate scientist or even an environmentalist. He is actually an investment banker, which should inform everyone about the truth of his “report”. Very popular at the moment, investment bankers.