“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.
“Punxsutawney Phil, America’s most famous rodent prognosticator, saw his shadow Tuesday, signaling six more weeks of winter.”
Looks like the old rodent has been checking out the precipitous descent of the Southern Oscillation Index in the last ten days. Such negative spikes in the SOI often, in winter, herald cold and stormy days ahead for the eastern U.S.
Also, the AO and NAO are projected to be deep into negative territory for most of February
FULL CIRCLE
NYSlimes reporter to AGW propagandist: “OK, let me see if I have this straight. I quote Frank, who cite’s Steve, who quotes from Jim’s report, who says Mark’s review is most up to date, in which he quotes Sam’s interview, in which he quotes our story?”
AGW propagandist: “Yes, that’s right. And the larger we make the circleS, and the more of them we make, the harder it will be for anyone to figure out what we’re doing until it’s too late.”
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.
Unlike, say ALGORE, John Travolta
Don’t get me started about Travolta and his toy jets….
Had the pleasure of cutting him off in the traffic pattern once…
How many times can someone say that there is a problem with this or that article or data, but it doesn’t affect the underlying premise, before it is obvious that it does affect the underlying premise?
“astateofdenmark (00:35:29) :
It’s amazing none of these dodgy references were spotted before. ”
The Globe was in a warming trend. Almost no one questions ‘confirmatory’ data.
Then comes along a particularly harsh winter in the Northern Hemisphere and people start trying to reconcile what their eyes and frozen backsides are telling them with what ‘Officialdom’ has been telling them.
We need a collective noun for all the gates. “A labyrinth of gates”? “An exposure of gates”? “A paddock of gates”? “A denouement of gates”?
Purchasing windmills sends a statement, a message of “social justice” even when they do not work.
Minnesota, eh?
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1390565.shtml
The windmills just for show. It is too cold for them to work.
So apparently the IPCC perfoms no greater role than simply as “Asscociated Press” to the greater climate community (advocates, activists, scientists and journalists)?
I guess I always knew that, deep down.
“Mike McMillan (01:03:06) : 19 hours without electricity. Oh the humanity! I had to smile at this, it happens in rural America a few times every year. In the past ten years, time without electricity is usually less than a day in western Colorado 2-3 times annually. Prior to 2000 it was 1-4 days, whenever we had a heavy snow, but the network has been made more resilient these days.
>>ScientistForTruth (02:30:15) :
>>You know what’s been happening here, don’t you?
Yes, I do. AGW is about money and power. It’s always been about money and power.
There’s more science involved in the study of Big Foot than there is in this scam.
Vinceo (07:29:48) : We need a collective noun for all the gates. I submit:
“A Fence of Gates”. A couple of double entendres come to mind…
We will probably still hear the comment that the majority of the IPCC report is solid. It is interesting though that all the ‘mistakes’ seem to point one way. What’s the probability that 436 ‘random’ errors would all point in the direction of increasing alarm?
A-a-a-a-n-n-d, those hits just keep on rollin’!!
I wonder… did Buffy ever manage to slay that vampire?
Somebody associated with the IPCC has got to be embarrassed by it all.
And politicians have got to be getting tired of defending the indefensible.
This IPCC report fiasco has gotten way out of hand.
On the bright side: Now a brief and concise argument can be made to the neighbor across the backyard fence about why the supposed scientific basis of AGW is such a load of bull.
Thanks, IPCC, for making it so easy.
These absurd references are one thing. The harder part would be to go through all the prima facie appropriate references, to actual scientific papers, and find out to what extent they support the claims based on them. I suspect there’s a whole lot more funny business to be uncovered.
Better save a record of it before they delete it from the site!
Thread start was specifically on IPCC AR4 references, but since prefix was Gate Du Jour perhaps this will qualify as on-topic:
In the big scheme of things it may not be the lead headline, but:
To the long list of ClimateGate progeny that has been noted and expanded on by a number of recent WUWT comments I propose to add the following:
JunketGate; i.e.:
Came across several interesting online reports:
CBS News (how about that) reported that we the taxpayers spent $1.1 million sending 106 people including 21 Members of Congress to COP15. Per person cost for food & lodging EXCLUDING airfare for 15 (D) + 6 (R) Congressmen was $4,406 each. Congressional participants in this junket spent >$400K on hotel rooms, meeting rooms and $1,000-a-night hospitality suites.
Nothing like being able to go Cadillac and live it up on the taxpayer’s dime. . . . GRRR……
Just a couple of many online reports with more detail:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/25/cbsnews_investigates/main6140406.shtml
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/hotelcheckin/post/2010/01/congress-copenhagen-climate-summit/1
Andy Scrase:
I take it that Jessop 2002 is cited in the IPCC assessment, but I can’t find it on the link you show:
Is there a possible mistake here?
Meant to include the link:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html
@bradley13 (03:54:57)
“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).”
That’s hilarious! Not sure which is funnier, the data analysis or the comments by the pro-AGW crowd. I would like to think their comments are tongue-in-cheek, but they are so humorless and dull that they don’t make good parodies. Could anyone really be that clueless?
Garry
“The IPCC report says nothing about the blackout in the NY Times article being caused by climate change.”
Right, but the fact this reference was in the IPCC report at all shows that they are meaning us to infer a link, surely? If so that is pretty underhand.
Hans Moleman (06:43:19) “The IPCC report says nothing about the blackout in the NY Times article being caused by climate change.”
AR4 unquestionably states that “unreliable power” is a secondary effect of climate change, and that is what caused the outage.
When in fact the NY Times articles I quoted – as well as the three official commission reports about the specific outage we are discussing – all make it perfectly and inarguably clear that the outage was caused solely by aging equipment, inadequate load planning, and deferred maintenance.
Andy Scrase:
I found it here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-references.html
Science? IPCC AR4 wouldn’t know science if it was run over by it.
The IPCC wroking group is a bunch of comic book assemblers. It cannot be this bad by accident. The IPCC working group cannot be fixed. It must be disbanded. I see no reason to try again. It’s all a huge waste of money that could be used for drilling wells for people that have no clean water.