“Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing” – Title of Pachauri’s next novel maybe?
WUWT commenter “Galileonardo” writes:
I found this reference to the New York Times in WGII 14.4.6. Just thought it should be part of the growing record:
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:
I’m not sure who peer reviewed it.
Climategate
Pachaurigate
TERIgate
Hurricanegate
Disastergate
Glaciergate
Amazongate
NGOgate – including
…WWFgate
…NWFgate
…Greenpeacegate
…Magazinegate
…Thesisgate
…Newspapergate
Bootgate
Chinagate
And that’s just the short version. With so many sorry tales that keep emerging, we’ll need a scorecard just to keep track of all the insanity that keeps on being uncovered.
King of Cool (01:20:39)
Re: Moncktons Oz tour, some of our friends are now editing a dvd of the tour. Should be available soon. Keep you posted.
How difficult is it to go through the whole of AR4 making a list and ticking off the dodgy references one by one? someone has started the process on EUreferendum thread http://umbrellog.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1008159
It really needs a team taking one chapter at a time and all the references going onto a common spread sheet.
Maybe someone is already doing this? Or people on this thread who would have the time and know how to push this forward? Or even employing someone to do it for a fee, presuming it is a drudge and can be done simply
You know what’s been happening here, don’t you? AR4 is the product of green advocacy. Advocacy groups are being cited in AR4, and advocacy groups have been cutting out newspaper reports, and trawling publications such as leisure magazines etc for articles written by sympathizers and ignorant writers that support their case, and then getting these written into AR4. I can well imagine heaps of cuttings by warmistas being handed over.
This makes AR4 look very shoddy. It shows both a laziness to do proper research into publications and a desire to ram in green advocacy. As I pointed out in my recent post http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down/ , there is no doubt that the WWF ‘2035’ Glaciergate figure was known to be a lie as it had been exposed as a lie years beforehand, including in the peer-reviewed literature. AR4 is beginning to look like a document that was ghost written by warmistas. But since millions of dollars (in the EU at least) have been poured into advocacy groups like WWF it looks even more like that thesis you can pay someone else to write for you in the hope of conning the examiners.
As I’ve pointed out before, some people have got their sticky fingerprints all over the place – like the former Chief Executive of WWF in UK, now head of the UK Met Office, which produces the warmista reports that go out over the BBC, is involved in green taxation, and steering trillions into green ventures, and in monitoring compliance! Taken from an advocacy group, he is being used by the government to spread eco-imperialism from the inside.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/
“[…] environmental justice.” !??!?!!
Ohhh…. so taxing the snot out of CO2 will bring ‘environmental justice’ to one and all?
I don’t think so.
Looking more and more like AR4 is just based on wikipedia!
Let’s not go overboard. Let’s remember that AR4 allowed citations from the gray literature that were uncontroversial, or that weren’t the major or only citations for a major point. Citing from the NYT to support this uncontroversial point shouldn’t be objectionable:
Lord Stern rises, vampire-like from the dead, according to the London Evening Standard…
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23801316-tories-poach-gordon-browns-climate-adviser.do
Tories poach Gordon Brown’s climate adviser
02.02.10
One of Gordon Brown’s most influential environmental advisers is to assist a Conservative working group, Shadow chancellor George Osborne will announce today.
Lord Stern’s 2006 report for the Treasury on the economics of climate change was a key factor in the development of the Government’s approach to global warming and he is frequently cited by the Prime Minister as an authority on the need for action.
But the economist – ennobled by Mr Brown as a non-party peer in 2007 – will now advise the Tory working group on the creation of a Green Investment Bank to drive the development of climate-friendly technology.
His recruitment will be regarded as a coup by Conservative strategists, keen to burnish David Cameron’s green credentials.
In a speech understood to focus on the question of where Britain’s future economic growth will come from, Mr Osborne will today accuse the Labour government of failing to support green technology and leaving Britain “lagging behind” rivals in the field.
He will argue that a Green Investment Bank would consolidate government backing for low-carbon technology, currently dispersed between a number of different funds, and help lever in private capital. New green technologies represent an important new source of jobs, investment and enterprise for the UK as it emerges from recession, Mr Osborne will say.
With the UK taking a share of less than 5% of the three trillion-dollar (£1.9trn) global market for green goods and services – less than France, Germany, the US or Japan – there are many opportunities for new technology to provide work and prosperity for Britain, he will say.
Speaking at the British Museum in London, Mr Osborne will announce that leading business figures including Bob Wigley, chairman of Yell Group, have agreed to join the working group.
***************************************************************************
Notice there is no talk here of climate science in any form. It’s all about money, and that’s all it is.
PeerReviewGate
Today’s UK Guardian is suddenly printing some anti-IPCC truths, but laced with silly stuff from Fred Pearse, the journalist (often cited in Green stuff as a scientist) original writer of the article that ‘Glaciergate’ stemmed from and who quotes the authority of the very strident leader of the Canadian Green Party, who has accused all Canadians for their stupidity – not a great way to secure votes! An article from one of the Milliband brothers (no, not a new radio), Climate/Global Warming Minister who beseeches all his readers to ‘beware the siren call of climate sceptics’. How in a sensible world can one be sceptical about the concept of climate? The man is beyond stupid in this respect – must be terribly confusing from his perspective to be watching truth keep rolling right out into the open.
Well
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10…436 errors should not invalidate the entire report!Does the IPCC report in question state anything that’s true? I doubt it. It’s really up to someone or some group to take the battle to the courts and get some of the AGW alarmists at the IPCC behind bars. Until that happens, nothing will really change. In fact the AGW alarmists still have a good chance of winning thanks to the media.
Not sure how best to submit this to WUWT. Here is a from-scratch analysis of the NOAA temperature data, in an attempt to see what trend really exists. Seems to be nicely done, and full source-code is available (in a rather unusual language).
Interesting news article on the normaly very pro-AGW New Scientist website:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18457-water-vapour-worse-climate-change-villain-than-thought.html
Not only the quote of this article is ridiculing the report, the fact alone that unreliable power supply and health and environmental “justice” is entered into climate change arguing is sleeky. It doesn’t take too much imagination to figure that cold is a much bigger threat to health and well-being than a slight increase in average temperature, in particular as no evidence has been given that an increase of extreme events is the consequence of AGW. Securing power supply to the population is as critical with as it is without AGW.
This IPCC section contains another sentence that tells a lot on invalid reasoning: “Since most large North American cities are on tidewater, rivers or both, effects of climate change will likely include sea-level rise (SLR) and/or riverine flooding. ”
This is against all logic: the location of North American cities does not have any influence on Sea Level Rise nor on Riverine Flooding; this is straightforward absurd reasoning.
A valid but equally trivial argument would be that sea level rise and riverine flooding would affect many North American cities located on tidewater and rivers.
Looks impressive though, every other sentence referenced to a set of authors with a year to them.
Since we are seeing more and more notes regarding corrupted peer review, I am re-posting this item I mentioned in tips and hints a few days ago. It seems a pattern is developing and that corrupted peer review and poor ethics in science extends beyond the realm of climate science, and is slowly metastasizing cancer in our research establishment.
—————-
Not climate related but perhaps a sign of the times and a pervading problem with science practice in the developed world.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/28/antivaxxer-movement-leader-found-to-have-acted-unethically/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29
Larry
DonK31 (00:51:58) :
Re: Ed Begley
At least he acts the way he talks. I have to admire someone like that, even when he is incorrect.
I agree.
Begley is a loon, but he does walk the walk………………………
Somebody please put AR4 WG2 out of its misery. Not even Realclimate supports it much any longer.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/
in general, the science of climate impacts is less clear than the physical basis for climate change, and the literature is thinner, so there is necessarily more ambiguity in WG 2 statements
I say, ditch that part of the report altogether…
This was a great spot (Jason (00:45:55) 🙂
More corruption of peer review uncovered similar tacticts to those used by CRU?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8490291.stm
When has the BBC ever come close to an article such as this about climate science? Shame it wasn’t around before my recent appeal to the BBC Trust.
Leon Brozyna
You missed WTFgate. ☺
Clive
“It was a dark and stormy night”
Edward Bulwer-Lytton 1830
It’s bound to be in there somewhere.
Re: inversesquare (Feb 2 01:55),
Dunscombe could find himself in a very sticky situation, as trust law is onerous in the UK, and when the flaky “alternative” investments turn to dust, as they surely must, he will have lost a lot of public money pursuing his hobby. Personal surcharge, perhaps?
Leon Brozyna (02:21:10) :
Climategate
Pachaurigate
TERIgate
Hurricanegate
Disastergate
Glaciergate
Amazongate
NGOgate – including
…WWFgate
…NWFgate
…Greenpeacegate
…Magazinegate
…Thesisgate
…Newspapergate
Bootgate
Chinagate
And that’s just the short version. With so many sorry tales that keep emerging, we’ll need a scorecard just to keep track of all the insanity that keeps on being uncovered.
———————————————-
Actually, that’s a really useful list.
You know, if the science weren’t already settled, this list might have some people feeling a little uncomfortable….
@ur momisugly H.R. (02:41:52) :
“[…] environmental justice.” !??!?!!
I know. I know. Those words this early in the morning . . . . had to reach for my meds.
” I recall five days melting in the dark after Hurricane Rita. No computer, and I knew only one tune on the piano.”
I can only hope that the ‘one tune’ was Beethoven’s __Fuer Elise__.