From Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF
A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. –Perry Chiaramonte, Fox News, 2 November 2011
A draft UN report three years in the making concludes that man-made climate change has boosted the frequency or intensity of heat waves, wildfires, floods and cyclones and that such disasters are likely to increase in the future. The document being discussed by the world’s Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists says the severity of the impacts vary, and some regions are more vulnerable than others. —AFP, 1 November 2011
What the results tell us is that, based on the very limited time-series data we have for most countries, there is no evidence so far for a statistically significant upward trend in normalized insured loss from extreme events outside the US and West Germany… [W]e warn against taking the findings for the US and Germany as conclusive evidence that climate change has already caused more frequent and/or more intensive natural disasters affecting this country. To start with, one needs to be careful in attributing such a trend to anthropogenic climate change, i.e. climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Our findings reported in this article could be down to natural climate variability that has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. –Fabian Barthel & Eric Neumayer, Climate Change, 2012
A new study conducted by federal scientists found no evidence that climate change has caused more severe flooding in the United States during the last century. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study — titled “Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels” — found no clear relationship between the increase in greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change and the severity of flooding in three of four regions of the United States. — Andrew Restuccia, The Hill, 25 October 2011
Donna Laframboise is a journalist, feminist and civil libertarian. Not exactly the ‘white male conservative’ who is assumed by the media to be the typical ‘climate change denier’. First online, and now in this book, she has subjected the IPCC to the critical scrutiny that is should always have received. And what she, and a small group of volunteers who gathered around her, discovered shows that the IPCC is a body that is fatally flawed and is probably beyond redemption. –Pan Pantziarka, London Book Review, 28 October 2011
In March last year, Laframboise recruited 43 private citizens in 12 countries online to audit the entire IPCC 2007 report and count the number of non-peer-reviewed references. The audit showed that 5587 of 18,531 — fully one-third — were non-peer-reviewed sources: including newspaper articles, activist reports, even press releases. The IPCC had a rule that such sources must be flagged as such. It had been ignored. When criticised for this last year by a panel of the world science academies, it simply changed the rule. –Matt Ridley, The Australian, 31 October 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just to lighten the mood a little:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2011/11/good-news-story.html
Occasionally these disingenuous b@stards do actually get what’s coming to them.
Hold your nerve lads, wait until you see the whites of their eyes 🙂
And on a similar note, but in a different field, isn’t it comforting to know that they work for you and are paid by you:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2011/11/no-miracle-in-oregon.html
Utterly disgusting behaviour again from advocates/lobbyists playing at science.
So its peer reviewed by the same folks that m[a]y be part of the problem?
This Thanksgiving Day you should be thankful the students writing the IPCC are not the ones designing and building your bridges.
there have been NO peer reviewed or truly independant studies allowed on GMO foods.
NO Human testing at all, ever.
WE are the test pigs…and as its Unlabelled, by forceful lobbying, how can anyone know whats making them ill?
the companies control the results before publishing or make product unavailable due to commercial secrecy etc.
most pharma drugs have no outside testing or review, what the company presents is what the FDA accepts.
when the FDA rarely does find the gumption to query a product they get a huge amount of pressure to shut up and let the expensive miracle drug pass.
and if a product IS killing people it takes YEARS to get it removed ie Vioxx and early Statins.
the recent Codex inspired slamming of vitamins etc is classic, they want them controlled BY pharmas.
decades of use of herbals and minerals is negated as hearsay when it has more data available than most approved toxic drugs.
legal pharma drugs taken as prescribed kill thousand every year, No reported deaths by vitamins.
what we see with the IPCC is just more of the same.
The ferocity with which the green bubble is being defended points to desperation, whether it’s about power or money, I’m not sure.
===============
“The IPCC had a rule that such sources must be flagged as such. It had been ignored. When criticised for this last year by a panel of the world science academies, it simply changed the rule.”
Yup, rules are for the little people. Rules exist only to advance the agenda. The agenda rules!
At what point does a grad student become qualified, at the level of Mann and Hansen perhaps. Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and many others had no university certification.
I am not saying that certification is not important but the value of the work should speak for itself without the venerable PHD on their name except of course in cases where a certified surgeon is operating, there I would insist on certification. Of course the grad student’s work is reviewed by the professor and the professor’s work reviewed by others but a PHD is no guarantee of honesty, good judgment or brilliance.
“Good point. And in my experience, greater than 50% of those papers are trash, containing experimental, observational, statistical, and egregious attribution.” – Tim Clark
One only needs to look at the NIH database to prove this. The thing is filled with studies that fail to link weight gain and loss with calorie surplus and deficit respectively. Usually because of poor models up to and including self reporting of calorie intake. One of the best ways to demystify The Science! is to show people, using topics they are already knowledgable in, how often researchers screw up in obvious and easily avoidable ways. Once they realize science is done by human beings, equally fallable and biased as any other, they start not buying into claims of authority. Every jackass on this planet has a study or at least an abstract that ‘proves’ his or her insane pet theory about this or that. I know this because I have a study that proves it.
Great news story there Anthony!
Man who has no education in climate science, founds a [trimmed] institution and then writes an opinion piece that is critical of the IPCC. Opinion piece gets broadcast on Faux news.
Fantastic!
What’s your next thread? “Pope says god exists!”
Ryan says (and a lot of people agreed with him):
“….Just to play devil’s advocate, aren’t unqualified grad students responsible for the vast majority of scientific research these days? I mean, in any field the paper will list the professor as the author, but his cadre of grad student slaves actually did the research, right?…”
Well, that certainly appears to be the case for Wegmann. Perhaps if he supervised his grad students better he wouldn’t have been found guilty of plagiarism.
But of course, everyone here would have condemned him for both crimes I’m sure. Or is it different if the shoddy ‘scientist’ is on your side?