By Richard Black.
This is a fine opportunity for WUWT readers to make comments to the committee reviewing the IPCC. My suggestion: be polite; be constructive.
“Now that we’re in the kitchen, we have to take the heat,” said Rajendra Pachauri.
“And we have to recognize that the stakes are very high. So we have to prepare ourselves for criticism, and this is not something we have done in the past.”
Indeed not. The worlds of climate science and politics were very different in 1988 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization that Dr Pachauri now chairs, came into being.
Concern there was about the potential of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions to produce a net warming of the planet’s biosphere, which was why the organization came into existence.
But computers on which scientists ran models were mere calculators beside today’s petaflop behemoths;
and many of the observation systems that now provide valued data, such as the global flotilla ofArgo floats, were barely at the stage of conception, never mind in their infancy.
As a result, the risk of warming might have been perceived as real, but it also went unquantified.
And as a result of that, there was barely a prospect of painful greenhouse gas emission cuts, never mind the wholesale decarbonisation of economies within a few decades that many now advocate.
Fossil fuel lobbyists had barely begun to organize, and a webless world did not facilitate the instant fractious exchanges of angry words and equations – the game, sometimes played on astroturf, that now makes the climate blogosphere as relentless as Shinjuku station in rush hour.
Read the rest of the story here
Comments to the IPCC review here
It is time to bring out real auditors. See what data has been assisted. Then to see why they would need to change the data.
There is a common thread to all of this.
We will have a review and what happens? Well the review will find that the organisation is completely exonerated and is working to best practice and giving value for money. However there is a problem with communication and the organisation needs to get its message across.
See: InterAcademy Council Review of IPCC
Note particularly:
See: Questionnaire on IPCC Processes and Procedures:
They asked for it. Let them have it – BY JULY 1.
All your comments will be published – without names.
The IPCC was created to address the perceived problem of detrimental climate change. This isn’t the same thing as a comprehensive baseline descriptive analysis of the variability of climate. The first is motivated by a political agenda; the second by scientific curiosity. The two were conflated by the participants and they should be separated if we are to have an honest representation of any risks that need to be addressed. The very first thing any review must do is set out the agenda, the mission, the guiding philosophy, and the criteria for analysis and decision making that both advocates and critics of AWG can agree on. As we have seen with the IPCC reports, a shaky foundation inevitably leads to an unstable house.
See the context: Review Committee Statement of Task
Comment for Richard Black: Rose colored glasses much?
Stacey says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:22 am
There is a common thread to all of this.
We will have a review and what happens? Well the review will find that the organisation is completely exonerated and is working to best practice and giving value for money. However there is a problem with communication and the organisation needs to get its message across.
When was the last time a ‘self-policed’ agency of government actually arrested itself?
Dear professor Pachauri:
Why does the United Nations has two divergent opinions on future temperatures?
Paper by FAO:
Klyashtorin, L.B.
Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: the possibility of
forecasting.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 410. Rome, FAO. 2001. 86p.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf
Specially see graphs on page 50th, where it says we currently are in a DOWWARD temperatures curve, which will reach its lowest level in the year 2020:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
And, how do you explain that CO2 goes AFTER not before increase in temperatures?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
That you can personally check by holding a CO2 containing beverage in your hand, the hotter it gets the more CO2 will go out when you open it.
How do you explain, to the people of the world, that the following it is not true?:
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
So, if no CO2 NO YOU!
Last but not the Least:
If YOU and YOUR BOSSES succeed, and YOU FORCEFULLY WILL, YOU will reach your goal: A few companies, a few people, will own all the means of production of the world. But let us think: What then?, What for?, Will they become inmortal?, for to look for such a power, for to wish for such an inexhaustible wealth and endless resources one should have to be inmortal.
Then, inmortality should be the supreme goal for any living being, to overcome entropy by reaching every time a higher energy level, a higher frequency and a corresponding lower density as to “vibrate” for ever, almost like light itself. Then alchemical transmutation of inner energies should be our supreme goal and not that mounstrous want for acquiring power and money; that´s crazy and it leads only to degeneration of the succesive generations. It is frankly incomprehensible, so, instead of fighting against them, let us encourage them to attain their walhalah, their golden garden of eden, full of cancer, drugaddiction, of bleeding and wormful ulcers. That is what they are after:The ultra-maximum entropy. Hurray for YOU professor!
The IPCC will take unsupported assertions from Mann, his gcooked data and the WWF. Here is the University of Virginia famous student run honor code.
Mann laughs at it. He is above investigation.
“Students at the University have pledged themselves not to lie, cheat, or steal. This personal commitment to ethical, responsible behavior is the foundation for our student-run Honor System.”
http://www.virginia.edu/honor/
Where is Pachauri’s honor code? Will take kickbacks for influence?
I suspect he is running for a cover up.
IPCC capacity for logical consideration and understanding the climate change issues is well demonstrated in FAQ 1.2 (WG1-2007, p. 96: ‘What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?’ expressed by the sentence:
____“A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now.”
Although the FAQ 1.2 starts with the sentence that
___”Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate change and weather are intertwined”, whereon the explanation continues by saying::
____“As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialized countries is about 75. “
In contrast to the life expectation of the human beings, the life-span of “climate” is, according IPCC, WMO, and others:
___”Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years”.
Is it reasonable to ask IPCC whether climate can die, or is the analogy silly? About the unscientific term “climate” see : http://www.whatisclimate.com/
The Glossary of the American Meteorological Society shows what goes wrong when claiming that weather and climate are different issues when saying about “weather”:
· The “present weather” table consists of 100 possible conditions,
· with 10 possibilities for “past weather”, while
· popularly, weather is thought of in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind.
Interesting, that there seems – scientifically speaking – big, or small weather around. Take 99 items from the present weather, and you may regard that any future weather which consistent of one weather item as: CLIMATE;
hoping that this consideration falls in the category: polite and constructive.
Enneagram says: ” If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.”
You can’t be serious. The absorption of radiation depends on the absorptivity coefficient of each particular type of molecule. Trace gases like CO2 or CH4 or N2O can and do absorb significant amounts of outgoing thermal radiation.
Please read up on basic chemistry, starting with the Beer-Lambert Law
Concern there was about the potential of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions to produce a net warming of the planet’s biosphere
Like Yoda he writes.
I have posted my reassessment of CET data 1700-1990
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GWDa.htm
(the world’s longest temperature record available, which shows a negligible temperature trend increase).
Fossil fuel lobbyists had barely begun to organize,
What? I would bet they are outnumbered 100:1 in both funding and personnel by the climate change lobby.
O/T
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/06/09/nasa-arctic-mission.html
“NASA is launching a mission from Alaska next month, but it won’t be into space.
The agency will take to the sea June 15 from Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians on its first dedicated oceanographic field campaign.
The voyage is billed as an up close look at how conditions in the Arctic are affecting ocean chemistry and ecosystems that play a critical role in global climate change.
More than 40 scientists will spend five weeks on board the Coast Guard Cutter Healy, the most technologically advanced polar icebreaker in the U.S. The Seattle-based Healy provides more than 390 square metres of scientific laboratory space.”
I expect that they will chop up the ice as needed to allow the wind and the currents to carry it out to warmer water.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/06/09/nasa-arctic-mission.html#ixzz0qSTLBqlx
Here is what I sent them on their website asking for input last week.
“People have lost all trust in the IPCC process.
The temperature records have been manipulated (GISS for example) adding adjustments to old data to make the past look cooler, and to recent data to make new data look warmer. This falsely creates a trend.
Climate gate e-mails showed how a small group of IPCC contributors kept articles out of journals and tried to manipulate the peer review process.
The errors in the IPCC 4 report were relatively minor, but what are the chances that they all are to the warming side. If these errors were random one would expect some toward warming, some towards cooling. But all were to the warming side. This indicates a bias.
The only way to restore credibility is to have the review include the notable skeptics such as Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Timothy Ball, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Pielke Sr., Dr. Bob Carter, Dr. Christopher Landsea, Dr. Axel Morner from Sweden, Anthony Watts, and Steve McIntyre. There are others, I am sure you know their names, the ones excluded in the past, or that have quit the IPCC in disgust with the process.
Without a thorough examination by critics, the “review” will be a joke like the whitewash Oxburgh Inquiry in the UK.
Include the skeptics (NO, the science is not settled, there is NO consensus) and the critics or the review will be without merit.”
reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net
The IAC Committee have announced a public hearing in Montreal on 15 June and are flying in Bob Watson and Hans von Storch, but have not invited Steve McIntyre or Ross McKitrick. I have suggested they should.
I sent a submission to the IAC after listening to the last public hearing and have just sent a copy of the submission which I had sent to the Russell Review (ICCER) at the UEA. Russell has declined to publish it on the Review website on legal advice and has also decided not consider IPCC procedures – even thought that is largely what Climategate is about. If anyone wishes to have a confidential copy of either or both submissions and will agree not to publish either, you can email me at crusub@(the biggest uk supermarket).net. For those that can’t figure it – tesco.
It may not do much good but the more, that press the ICA to listen to a few critics, the better.
When will people realise that the only purpose of “Quality Management” and “Quality Reviewing” is to ensure that if cr*p is the end product, then it is consistent cr*p and nothing more. I have yet to see a QA system that actually improves the end product in any system – and I have been on Quality Audits and even been a Quality Auditor. The systems simply are not designed to improve anything, only to keep it always the same.
Why not just ask a simple question … Does Al Gore’s warm CO2 blanket exist? If yes, can you prove it?
It would probably be too much to ask why they think Stefan-Boltzmann theory doesn’t apply?
Owen says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:42 am
The air (the atmosphere with all its compounds taken together) has a volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules. How in the world, the earth not being a “closed system” and then not a closed pot, will ever “save” all that heat you are dreaming of.?
It should be made clear that many people believe the policy is well in advance of the science, and as a result there is a sincere desire to ensure that policy is both effective and cost-effective.
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:46 am
In your graphs are clearly shown the two peaks which correspond to the 1925 and 1999 big El Ninos. (Both were devastating for the northern west peruvian provinces-where precisely this phenomenon was named as such by local fishermen-).
Typo: it should read 1998 instead of 1999.
Reading the comments on Richard Black’s BBC blog I am surprised by the number of critical comments of the IPCC. They seem to be in the majority. Maybe I need to scroll down more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/ipcc_review_friend_or_foe.html
What fossil fuel lobbyists? Who are they and where are they? Why and how does this myth persist? If they do exist, in what way have they contributed or altered the CAGW discussion?
Here is a must-read from Pielke Sr’s blog, the comment by Marcel Crok for the IAC Review.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/interacademy-council-iac-review-of-the-ipcc-input-by-marcel-crok/
O/T But the UK Government wants people’s opinions on “climate change”
Please be kind, do not be abusive, but respectfully hit them with every link to every science paper which debunks the appalling theory of CAGW.
http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/energy-and-climate-change/
Enjoy!!!
I see that the IAC have not invited Steve McIntyre nor Ross McKitrick to their Montreal meeting on the 15th June.
I wonder why that would be???????????????????????????
To the IPCC
Policy should be about the well being of the people not about pet policy and idealism of those in power. The IPCCs behavior of diminishing the role of natural cycles in favour of unproven computer model projections is unproven and puts the population at risk. The IPCCs behaviour of treating those who disagree with them with contempt is simply elitism. All we all want is honesty, transparency, debate and real science.
I would suggest that Enneagram track down Dr. Elsasser’s 1942 Paper on the “Radiation Balance of the Earth’s Atmosphere”.
There he treats CO2 as an equal “upflux” and “downflux” agent in the troposphere.
Later, Plass, in the ’50’s calculated the net UPFLUX (and cooling) effects of CO2 in the Stratosphere.
Following these lines of theory…which have elements which are testable and have been tested, would be of great benefit in counting the IPPC.
The ability to do incorrect calculations at a much higher speed, is not necessarily a good thing.
Owen says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:42 am
Enneagram says: ”……”
“You can’t be serious……..”
Yeh, they gotta be some serious super efficient sponges. CO2 absorbs and releases in all directions. But, when I say absorb, it isn’t as if the CO2 is reaching out for energy to suck up. It only absorbs the energy that the CO2 is in the path of. Same for all the other trace gases. lol, really, seriously.
June 10, 11:30 EDT 6 hours of debate begins on the Disapproval Resolution
On Cspan 2
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:46 am
I have posted my reassessment of CET data 1700-1990
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GWDa.htm
(the world’s longest temperature record available, which shows a negligible temperature trend increase).
Vuk – great improvement in labelling!!! Thanks. these charts are totally understandable. However, please note, global warming seems to occur mainly at the low temperature end, ie night, winter and high latitudes, In the arctic there is almost no discernable summer warming, it is all in the winter. Maybe your correction of CET winter is inappropriate. Even if you check the data yesterday on Beesomething Texas, there was clear warming of the minima from 1977 to 2006, with no warming for the maxima. Murray
Is Rajendra Pachauri a Sikh, or just unkempt?
Completely off topic:
The Gray Monk says:
June 10, 2010 at 7:05 am
When will people realise that the only purpose of “Quality Management” and “Quality Reviewing” is to ensure that if cr*p is the end product, then it is consistent cr*p and nothing more. I have yet to see a QA system that actually improves the end product in any system – and I have been on Quality Audits and even been a Quality Auditor. The systems simply are not designed to improve anything, only to keep it always the same.
Gray Monk – do you know another venu where we could discuss your assertion? My TQM experience is totally contrary to your assertion. Murray
Jimbo, reading through the comments as you suggested is depressing.
There are over 550, and the sense I get from them is that the majority are pompous, overeducated idiots. Unfortunately, they allowed at least one idiotic “chemtrail” comment to stand, which is an embarrassment to everyone. Then there are the usual trailoffs into how ideal socialism is, the spill in the Gulf, how stupid the previous President was, and how the US financed the Taliban.
It proves what I said over a decade ago: give the average person a chance to be heard, and you will discover they don’t have much to say. And presumably most of those commenters vote. Although that’s not a given… most of my acquaintances who are firmly in bed with the warming hypothesis have decided in recent years that they can’t change anything by voting so they won’t try. Hooray for ignorance!
Just as an aside, I was at my parents place last week and to occupy some time I was flipping through the last few years of National Geographic… where I learned the world will soon be thawed, cooked, drowned, folded spindled and generally mutilated… and all because I have A/C in my car (or something). And I’m killing the poor baby animals! Those poor innocent polar bears and somehow also the elephants. Oh, and a few thousand different insects. And bats. They’re ALL in danger, because apparently if a climate region moves a few miles these animals are all too stupid to follow.
And it’s ALL happening even faster than anyone thought! Anyone! Not a SINGLE alarm-raising doom-laden prognosticator who was screaming and hollering about how this was all happening actually believed!
Sorry, but watching him I can’t help seeing a Doberman.
How about “Don’t use any published papers that do not release data and code.”
Transparency.
The IPCC needs to be made subject to a Freedom of Information act, or at least commit to strict rules of transparency.
An international organization, funded by democracies, can not close up in a DDR/Stasi like way to requests for information.
If they have nothing to hide, they should be happy to provide any information requested.
Or else, stop the funding.
I find Richard Black’s comments consistently biased towards warmism and ignore him.
Owen says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:42 am
“…The absorption of radiation depends on the absorptivity coefficient of each particular type of molecule. Trace gases like CO2 or CH4 or N2O can and do absorb significant amounts of outgoing thermal radiation.
Please read up on basic chemistry, starting with the Beer-Lambert Law”
_______________________________________________________________________
And the effects of trace gases are completely swamped by the effects of H2O in all its forms.
Atmospheric Transmission
I live in North Carolina it is between the Atlantic Ocean and the mountains. About a third of the state is mountainous but there is nothing closer to the mountains than Chapel Hill just west of Raleigh. Seems the mountain areas are no longer part of the “official” record, despite the existence of Asheville NC a big city in the mountains, home of the Biltmore Estate (1895)
Here is the raw 1856 to current Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
North to south thru the middle of the state
North – Raleigh NC
Middle – Fayetteville NC
South – Lumberton NC
Coastal Cities:
North – Elisabeth City
South – Wilmington NC
Rural
North – Louisburg
North – Louisburg
South – Southport
South – Southport
Amazing how the temperatures follow the Atlantic ocean oscillation as long as the weather station is not sitting at an airport isn’t it?
Take a look at this city vs the airport. Norfolk City and Norfolk International Airport
Just to give you all some ideas. In my review of the climategate mails and the processess I would identify these issues.
1. Page count. The page limitation is used on occassion to limit the treatment of uncertainty. That is, where there is uncertainty the document should have more explanation but the tendency was to use the page limitation to quash discussion.
There is no reason to have a page limit for the technical sections. Summaries for policy makers, of course, should be of some digestable length
2. Publication deadlines. In order to be considered papers had to be “in press” by certain dates to be considered. This led to people bending the rules and process to get certain key papers in. I would suggest a proceedure that would require that
papers be actually PUBLISHED and ACTUALLY available to the public, with
open access to code and data.
3. Reviewer comments. Reviewers comments were routinely ignored. This is especially troublesome when the author and the reviewer are ‘intellectual combatants.” A mechanism for handling these issues needs to be implemented. The Lead Author should not have cart blanche and be allowed to ignore reviewers.
4. Open the whole process. Sunlight is a great disinfectant. We want to see the drafts
as they are created. we want to see the reviewer comments and how they are handled.
5. Allow for public comment.
6. A Minority report. probably written by reviewers who feel their objections
have not been fairly adjudicated.
Those of you who have had to deal with the process of creating documents in feilds of inquiry where there is disagreement should use your experience to make constructive suggestions.
TallDave says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:53 am
Fossil fuel lobbyists had barely begun to organize,
What? I would bet they are outnumbered 100:1 in both funding and personnel by the climate change lobby.
_______________________________________________________________________
No they are not because Big oil started the whole ball rolling in the first place. Google Maurice Strong, first earth Summit 1972 and also David Rockefeller and the Club of Rome (they are both affiliated)
Murray Duffin says: June 10, 2010 at 8:42 am
Maybe your correction of CET winter is inappropriate
(re: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GWDa.htm )
Perhaps, but even if correction is not applied and the time sections are considered individually, each spanning nearly 150 years (1700 -1850 & 1850 – 1990), two trends would more than cancel each other ( -0.26 and +0.15 0C /century), suggesting that most of the winters’ rise from 1700-1990 (0.5 out of 0.75 0C) would be condensed in just 5 years i.e. 1845-1850, at the point of the data records transition. See:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET13.gif
(I have added the above remark to the article)
The reason for the correction for pre-1850 period is the ‘un-natural’ discontinuity for two periods, having in mind that official records are considered to be accurate post 1850.
(btw. are you Murray Duffin from FSEC)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GWDa.htm
The Gray Monk says:
June 10, 2010 at 7:05 am
…. I have yet to see a QA system that actually improves the end product in any system – and I have been on Quality Audits and even been a Quality Auditor. The systems simply are not designed to improve anything, only to keep it always the same.
__________________________________________________________________________
As a certified Quality Engineer, I agree wholeheartedly. As Dr Demming said, Quality starts at the top. If top management are a bunch of crooks then all quality control does is sort the material and make sure the off spec goes to the customers without incoming inspection. (And yes that is based on personnel experience – dishonesty or unemployment were often my choices)
Most “Quality Audits” by customers were a laugh since all they did was audit the already fudged paper work. I have never seen an auditor take part of the retain sample and double check the results of the analysis.
The IPCC was set up to provide evidence for human co2 caused global warming it has no other function. I do not want my taxes wasted on funding this organisation or any climate change related spending by the British government. I no longer have a television and do not need a TV license I don’t miss it anymore,we are told that paying a license means we have an unbiased media ,but that is not apparent from the bbc’s handling of climate change or of the last election,more people should tear up their TV license.The British government could cut the budget deficit by spending less on manmade global warming research.
Gary says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:42 am
The IPCC was created to address the perceived problem of detrimental climate change. This isn’t the same thing as a comprehensive baseline descriptive analysis of the variability of climate. The first is motivated by a political agenda; the second by scientific curiosity. The two were conflated by the participants and they should be separated if we are to have an honest representation of any risks that need to be addressed. The very first thing any review must do is set out the agenda, the mission, the guiding philosophy, and the criteria for analysis and decision making that both advocates and critics of AWG can agree on. As we have seen with the IPCC reports, a shaky foundation inevitably leads to an unstable house.
I disagree wholeheartedly with that assessment for the following reason: It presumes that a group of people may —upon whatever determination— presume to tell, nay: DEMAND that the rest of us must proceed to live in a certain way in order to please a cadre of priests in the temple of whatever science.
If the IPCC were to have had ANY credibility, it would HAVE had to have been started when the last ‘ice age scare’ happened back in the late 60’s to early 70’s.
Instead they waited for the warming to take place and then ran with the idea knowing full well that a cooling trend would take place shortly thereafter.
And run they have: Now with the Earth’s temperature dropping, they clamor noisily for a WORLD TAX, not wanting to wait a moment longer, lest the cooling get even worse than now, and thereby shut down their whole reason for existence.
They are nought but modern shamans screeching at the tops of their collectivist lungs that if we don’t kowtow to their demands, why they will cause the moon to eat the sun as they did ages ago with other ill-informed populations with solar eclipses.
Andrew30 says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:56 am
O/T
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/06/09/nasa-arctic-mission.html
“NASA is launching a mission from Alaska next month, but it won’t be into space.
[–snip–]
I expect that they will chop up the ice as needed to allow the wind and the currents to carry it out to warmer water.
Andrew, you’ve got it all wrong! They are making that trip to get some ‘virgin ice’ for their daiquiris!
The Gray Monk says:
June 10, 2010 at 7:05 am
When will people realise that the only purpose of “Quality Management” and “Quality Reviewing” is to ensure that if cr*p is the end product, then it is consistent cr*p and nothing more. I have yet to see a QA system that actually improves the end product in any system – and I have been on Quality Audits and even been a Quality Auditor. The systems simply are not designed to improve anything, only to keep it always the same.
That’s a rather cynical view of matters, but allow me this: A properly designed quality assurance system is meant to do just one thing: Report on conditions/findings.
It is something of a ludicrous thought to think that a QA system should ‘improve’ on anything, inasmuch as that isn’t what QA is designed for.
899 says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:57 am
Who knows….perhaps they will be stalking someone up there…who likes endangered species with mashed potatoes.☺
Gail Combs says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:23 am
[–snip–]As a certified Quality Engineer, I agree wholeheartedly. As Dr Demming said, Quality starts at the top. If top management are a bunch of crooks then all quality control does is sort the material and make sure the off spec goes to the customers without incoming inspection. (And yes that is based on personnel experience – dishonesty or unemployment were often my choices)
Most “Quality Audits” by customers were a laugh since all they did was audit the already fudged paper work. I have never seen an auditor take part of the retain sample and double check the results of the analysis.
Demming’s first rule was: Design test/inspect report, and repeat the process until the product met spec., and then periodically inspect for quality purposes.
He also said: You simply cannot inspect quality into a product.
Quality —by its very nature— is designed into the product, not inspected into it.
Quality, therefore, is entirely an engineering aspect.
Quality assurance is just as its name implies.
Slightly off topic.
Is there any news about the hack/leak (other means) of the “Climategate eMails” ? Six months (at least) have passed us by without any solid information about the revelation of how the “stunning” leak of the information happened. We deniers/sceptics/doubters have had a field day without MainstreamMedia support for a long time now and the original story has gone lukewarm (unlike the Arctic). My main questions are: “Why did it happen just before CO2penhagen”? “Who was behind it”? – And where can I send donations to ensure something similar happens again “just before Cancun”.
@John Cooper says: June 10, 2010 at 8:49 am
“Is Rajendra Pachauri a Sikh, or just unkempt?”
I think he is a silly Fakir.
899 says:
June 10, 2010 at 11:05 am
That’s a rather cynical view of matters, but allow me this: A properly designed quality assurance system is meant to do just one thing: Report on conditions/findings.
It is something of a ludicrous thought to think that a QA system should ‘improve’ on anything, inasmuch as that isn’t what QA is designed for.
————————————————————————————–
“Continual Improvement” of a Quality Management System is something that should be a byproduct of an effective system through the analysis of data, corrective/preventive actions, audits, management reviews. It has to be verified by an external Quality auditor in relation to conformance of the standard and how it applies in the organization’s Quality documentation.
Taken straight from the current global benchmark for QMS:
“8.5.1 Continual improvement”
“(Organization Name) continually improves the effectiveness of the quality management system through the use of the quality policy, quality objectives, audit results, analysis of data, corrective and preventive actions and management reviews. Supporting Documentation QOP-85-01 Continual Improvement”.
That said, I don’t know any Quality auditor (and I know many) who would issue a major non-conformance (show-stopper) for failing to conform with clause 8.5.1.
The theoretical exception would be if each one of the supporting inputs (quality policy, quality objectives, audit results, analysis of data, corrective and preventive actions and management reviews) also failed to conform to both the standard and how the organization cites “they do it” in their own Quality documentation.
donald penman says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:37 am
” The IPCC was set up to provide evidence for human co2 caused global warming it has no other function.”
This is the same conclusion I came to after reading through the IPCC foundation charter documents, so I cannot but agree.
And herein lies the crux, IPCC and it´s staff have interpreted this as that they are obliged to provide evidence for the AGW conjecture , and exclude anything that could falsify the same. My opinion is that IPCC should be terminated and the charter dissolved. If the need is there ( and I suppose the general feeling is tht it is ) to investigate or assess the possible direction of how our future climate will behave, a new charter with a broader scope can be set up and include other possible causes of the temperature patterns and the like , and it´s main objective should be to determine if there is anything to be worried about or not, an if there is somthuing to worry about, to evaluate possible response and mitigation measures if they are deemed to be needed. And it should be a honest wide track public train assessment ride, not a one way closed and secretive monorail fun ride for some single view Cub of Rome type group.
Decarbonize the free world economies, they advocate.
Sounds like falling on their sword to me.
Another acronym comes to mind: Tired of living.
899 says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:53 am
“Comment for Richard Black: Rose colored glasses much?”
Always, constant, relentless, as per BBC AGW dogma. More like Big Green coloured glasses.
P.S. “coloured” is the British spelling
I wonder if the author of this definition had Dr. Pachauri in mind?
Vegetarian: Indian for inept hunter.
Come on guys, the IPCC has no intention of changing its views because of this review, they’ll simply use your collective brainpower against you by using the information from your comments to patch their argument and make it more convincing. Then they’ll go hard with a big new PR campaign trying to resell the whole thing to the public, using your ideas.
rbateman says:
June 10, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Decarbonize the free world economies, they advocate.
Sounds like falling on their sword to me.
Another acronym comes to mind: Tired of living.
More it is that they want to depopulate the world, and we —you and I— are summarily expected to commit hara-kiri as a favor to them.
Remember the British Monarch’s husband’s remarks in his autobiography: If he could come back (reincarnate), he like to be a deadly virus in order to eliminate humanity.
Take it from there.
I remembered that the good Dr Pachauri had come under unwanted scrutiny:
Climate Hustler
“… as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.
… has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations. …”
Pachauri ‘got grants through bogus claims’
“The chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.”