IPCC has lost its scientific objectivity
London, 25 February: The GWPF has, for a long time, warned policymakers and the public that the leadership of the IPCC has been losing its scientific objectivity and has been adopting environmentalism as a missionary cause. The astonishing letter of resignation released yesterday by its outgoing chairman, RK Pachauri, drops all pretence to the contrary and proves that our concerns were valid. In it he states:
“For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”
The author of that statement has, for the past 13 years, been one of the world’s most influential government advisers in the area of energy and climate policy, and one of the most visible spokespersons for climate science.
During this time we have witnessed a near-complete shutting down of open scientific debate, militant hostility to any questioning of the claims or assertions of the IPCC, and the zealous promulgation of costly and irrational energy policies with inadequate regard for the balancing of human costs and benefits.
It is clear that a missionary environmentalist mindset has been embedded at the highest levels of the IPCC, and we reiterate our concerns that it has been spreading throughout the organisation, with the full support of the leadership.
We call upon policymakers to begin asking some overdue questions about this organisation upon which they rely so heavily. In particular, we are left to wonder how Dr Pachauri’s extreme biases have affected the work of the IPCC in recent years and the advice it gives to governments.
Full statement here
AGW supporters only listen to echo of their own voices
I put this on RC
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF1.gif
and it got promptly dispatched to the ‘bore hole’
If the Geomagnetic field steered charged particles to or from the polar / tropic regions; and if charged particles had any appreciable effect on nucleating water droplets / clouds, and if that moved clouds to or from the wetter tropic areas poleward, or not, then once might expect the geo-magnetic field to have an effect on Temperatures, at least somewhere.
So I’m not saying this is demonstrated by your graphs, but it is “curious” if you ask me; or if you don’t ask me, it is still curious.
This research funded in part by a grant of the Government of New Zealand.
G
Hi again Mr. Smith
Curiosity should have been my middle name, gets mi into trouble no end, fortunately I am not of the feline species, thus still alive and kicking.
I appreciate your thought, but I will respectfully disagree, my hypothesis (elaborated Here is more ‘advanced’, else Svensmark gets the credit. This research is financed by my weekly pocket money allowance.
It’s a pleasure talking to you sir.
Vukcevik.
But is your theory predictive? What are the forecasts for future Arctic-GMF?
R
Mr Ellis
It is barely a hypothesis, theory is far more advanced creature.
No, it has no predictive attributes, definitively NOT!
George & Ralfellis
2 Part answer – Geomagnetic field –
As illustrated in the adjacent figure, the charged particles are reflected at “mirror points” where the field lines come close together and the spirals tighten. One of the first fruits of early space exploration was the discovery in the late 1950s that the Earth is surrounded by two regions of particularly high concentration of charged particles called the Van Allen radiation belts.
The inner and outer Van Allen belts are illustrated in the top figure. The primary source of these charged particles is the stream of particles emanating from the Sun that we call the solar wind. As we shall see in a subsequent section, the charged particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field are responsible for the aurora (Northern and Southern Lights).
Aurora do impact the atmosphere.
Predictions – from http://solarchords.com/solar-chord-science/easy-sunspot-cycle-prediction-1/
http://solarchords.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2014/01/img084-400×752.jpg
Predictive attributes, definitely NOT! ??? Potentially, it has. If the relationship can be firmly established, then greater understanding of the Arctic GMF might lead to greater ability to predict the Arctic GMF and hence to predict temperature [I’m assuming we can’t predict Arctic GMF akready]. But in any case, there’s something interesting here, to be looked into.
This is unlikely to be a coincidence, and yet very, very odd.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-CO2.gif
The North Atlantic drift ice index from Bond et al
http://euanmearns.com/the-arctic-sea-ice-canary-refuses-to-die/
vukcevic,
In response to previous posts by you on this matter and also ren, I have mentioned my observation of unusual polar anomalies the last 2 years. It could have been going on longer than that but I was not watching for it prior to that.
During the months closest to the Summer solstice, at both poles a large negative anomaly in 850 mb temperature and to some extent 500 mb heights persists for much of several months, closely surrounding the longest day of the year.
During the months closest to the Winter solstice, at both poles, a large positive anomaly, the complete opposite of the situation 6 months prior exists much of the time.
We are close enough to the equinox right now so this is not present but I provided examples during the solstices. So what happens is that you will have the positive anomaly at one pole and negative at the other, then when the solar cycle flips, so do the anomalies flip.
As an operational meteorologist, I observe the global weather patterns. I am not a solar scientist or expert on magnetic fields. These patterns could have been a very strange coincidence but the coincidence, was remarkably similar, starting, for the NH/SH in the Summer/Winter of 2013, then 6 months later flipped, then 6 months later flipped again and this last Winter/Summer did so a 4th time(enough for me to notice on numerous occasions).
My guess(if its not just an extraordinary coincidence-but even then, something caused it) is that we are seeing a unique interaction between the sun and our magnetic field that is causing this effect. It’s maximized at one pole in one direction during the months when the sun provides the greatest radiation, while it somehow has the opposite effect at the other pole when there is no solar radiation at all. It has flipped poles at least 3 times now.
That doesn’t mean it will continue but if it did, this upcoming NH Summer would feature low 500 mb heights/cold anomalies in the Arctic and warm/high geopotential heights in the Antarctic.
This actually is very consistent weather-wise with the big south/equator ward excursions of the Polar Vortex into the Midwest during the past 2 Winters……..with the Arctic having higher 500 mb heights vs what they are when the Polar vortex is present, and also warm Winter temps…….as the Arctic air heads south with the vortex.
Whatever the cause has been these past 2 years, they have been very connected at times. The connection must be pretty powerful too.
Interesting observations Mike. I’d be interested in you keeping us abreast of further developments. I’d do that, but I am not a meteorologist.
CO2 is obviously affecting the global magnetic field (strength and orientation). CO2 is after all the magic gas, it can do anything.
/s
Perhaps Orwell’s definition of it as the “memory hole” might be more appropriate than “bore hole.”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/winston-smith-loves-big-brother-even-more-now-that-he-has-returned-to-the-fold-and-discovered-global-warming/
Since there is no forecasting ability, how about back-casting the Arctic temperature?
NOAA’s data file goes back to 1590, thus an approximation of the past Arctic temperature could have looked like this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMFb.gif
It is important to note that the Maunder Minimum is very accurately identified, but the temperature change appears to be excessive with a linear dependency (red line).
Applying logarithmic (base e) ‘forcing’ gives a more realistic value (magenta line).
Remarkable.! The ‘ 5th columnist ‘ on this site would of course not readily agree and indicate its poor science.
Keep it up Vukcevic I say.
Thanks. Water off a duck’s back.
Just reconstructed most of the Holocene (5000BC-2000AD).
Significant temps peaks at 4500BC – 3500BC, around 1750BC, 500BC-100AD (warm Roman period) and 800-1100AD (MWP), will post at a future suitable thread.
Nice graph!!!
If I hadn't been one to rise same position back in 2008, due to own knowledge, I guess that this would have put everything coming from UN:s IPCC, Al Gore and so called Climate experts where it belongs: IN THE NAUGHTY CORNER to be forgotten by every true scientist and most ordinary men/women:
IMPORTANT QUOTES FROM BLOGARTICLE:
https://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole/status/561118938445393920
If it wasn’t for the diligence of amateur investigators like retired accountant Paul Homewood, probably no one would care, not even Paraguayans, what has been going on with the Paraguayan temperature records. But Homewood has done his homework and here, revealed at his site Notalotofpeopleknowthat, is what he found.
He began by examining Paraguay’s only three genuinely rural weather stations. (ie the ones least likely to have had their readings affected over the years by urban development.)
All three – at least in the versions used by NASA GISS for their “hottest year on record” claim – show a “clear and steady” upward (warming) trend since the 1950s, with 2014 shown as the hottest year at one of the sites, Puerto Casado.
Judging by this chart all is clear: it’s getting hotter in Paraguay, just like it is everywhere else in the world.
……
Does anyone have any idea who it was who measured temperatured at the North and South poles before they are visited by humans becomming Famous Explorers? In the case of the North Pole it’s worse. True scientific data have not been able to measure before 1969 …..
So how is it now with http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-arctic-temperature-1880-2006 that been presented as arctic temperatures?
Before Peary and Henson reached the North Pole in 1909 so could possibly Cock been there the year before. But the first scientific survey on foot up to the North Pole, the world wait until 1969th for
– – – – –
Where have all the money gone? It’s one thing to believe in God, but an other to forget the Ten Gommandments….
You shall have no other gods before me
oops missed link Climategate scandal worse than most understood
Norah, if it was not measured, they just plug in an estimate. Up to a 50% rate now.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/100-of-reported-us-warming-since-1990-is-fake/
I would like to know what the status of the plug estimate numbers and getting them out of the record, becauseour patience has run out.
After all, A. Watts posted –
NCDC needs to step up and fix this along with other problems that have been identified.
And they are, I expect some sort of a statement, and possibly a correction next week. In the meantime, let’s let them do their work and go through their methodology. It will not be helpful to ANYONE if we start beating up the people at NCDC ahead of such a statement and/or correction.
I will be among the first, if not the first to know what they are doing to fix the issues, and as soon as I know, so will all of you. Patience and restraint is what we need at the moment. I believe they are making a good faith effort, but as you all know the government moves slowly, they have to get policy wonks to review documents and all that. So, we’ll likely hear something early next week.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/
Never did read about any corrections and from the above now 50% (up 10%) still fake they are only making more.
Thanks for your long comment.
As you and I, and I hope many others, know politic is one thing, science an other.
I would have thought by now that politicians of all colors had learnt their lesson after WWII – politic beliefs doesn’t hold water and politicians are by no means specialized in Theories of Science no matter that many of them up to today belief themselves to have learnt rules of argumentation from Philosophy…. 🙂
Instead of science being the basis for policy we now have policy being the basis for science?
Someone somewhere must have misunderstood almost everything 🙂
Or
Someone somewhere believe him-/herself to be above everyone else thus that knowledge had fallen from the sky only on that person…..
Hopefully someone in India has a good idea what the jerk’s use of “dharma” means.
the word is used differently in various religions of the area of India. “For Sikhs, the word dharm means the “path of righteousness”. which loosely fits the context of the jerk’s remark. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma)
I expect one would have to be familiar with languages and cultures, and his background over his lifetime – even then an individual’s use may be different from others.
Certainly sounds like a True Believer.
It’s not just Pahauri that sees AGW as a religious crusade. John Cook of SkS says religion is one of the driving forces behind his blog.
Patchy’s deference to “religion and his Dharma (WETHTI!!)”, should, in a normal scientific world have the stil-cedible IPCC-associated AR5 physicists and geologists scrambling for cover.
The Dr. Soon, MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry, Colorado’s Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and the University of Alabama’s John Christy and Roy Spencer persecution is evidence the War of Academic Freedom from the Green’s is heating up. The Greens have to now use the compliant Liberal media to make distractions from the science failures of Patchy and his pseudoscience IPCC.
If you can’t debate your opposition, shut them up!
What is interesting is that the NYT, WAPO, and other MSM outlets have not been shy about calling out totalitarian governments (communist, Muslim, fascist, and just thugs) for going after dissenters. Yet, they apparently have no qualms about supporting efforts to silence scientists who question the global warming dogma.
Yet, they apparently have no qualms about supporting efforts to silence scientists who question the global warming dogma.
It’s called hypocrisy, wherein their minds, the ends justify the means, including lying and deceit. Progressive’s wear it like a Scout Badge of Honor.
The Green Progressive credo almost certainly must be, “If you aren’t lying, you aren’t tryin’ “.
actually the MSM does not and will not call out Muslim governments for much of anything. Muslim is part of the protected topics/class at the moment.
Cheers!
Joe
reggae
IPCC has never had scientific objectivity. The IPCC is a political entity, not a scientific one. The IPCC was created solely to support the hypothesis of human-induced, CO2-enhanced global warming and climate change.
Spot on.
Where in anything written about its formation or operation gives it anyone associated with it the leeway to say, “OOPS! We were wrong.”?
Sure, they might phase out the Hockey Stick but not at the expense of the original premise.
Pachauri has indicted the IPCC with his written statement that his role in the IPCC was his religion.
Religion may look to science as a method to reveal the secrets of creation, however; science may not become a religion or adopt attributes of religion.
The abuse of science by SCIENTISTS who wish to be priests of climatology or physics or discipline du jour, is disgusting and undermines reason.
Somewhat off topic. I read in SA some years ago that trying to control a plasma is similar to compressing a water balloon with your hands. Would it be misleading to state that trying to control the earth’s climate is the same as adding another carbon ‘finger”? Reasoning that they’re both chaotic.
This is very familiar to those of us who were raised and educated by Boomers. I view it as simply “replacement ethics.” People who abandon any natural affection, loyalty, and care for for their own spouses, family, and country become highly vocal about how they love the whole planet instead. But the rest of us are still are left picking up the pieces of their reckless, self-indulgent decisions.
Likewise, another illustration of “replacement ethics” can be found in Hippy dietary fads. While taking all manner of psychotropic medications and schedule one substances, they then strain at a stray molecule on a conventionally grown tomato. They weep over the lost nutrition in frozen food, as if it was better not to have eaten the vegetable at all, than to be missing some miniscule vitamin C molecule that was lost in the process of preservation.. I actually don’t care about private dietary decisions, but please notice that the Baby Boomers take their personal dietary decisions to scientific and regulatory levels, in order to make these decisions for every one else. A likely reason for this is the following. The void created by aggressive and ubiquitous sex-and-drug-occult cultural campaigns was disturbing enough to the Cannabis Generation that “replacement ethics” had to be adopted – to allow people to still feel highly “ethical” and moral. The “replacement ethics” allows moral high ground through so trivial as eating an organic tomato on a vegan sandwich.
And in response to the accusation of bad science being “religion,” it is not. It is the human tendency to love theory above anything else. It is axiomatic that human beings love scientific, historical, and political theories. The evidence of this is that they do not regard the obvious failures of their beloved constructs, and they despise and try to suppress those who do not favor their theory.
But the positive side of the love of theory is that it can motivate the individual scientist or historian to do interesting, new, and useful work.
“The love of theory is the root of all evil.”
The “If it feels good, do it” generation.
Now we have the, “If it doesn’t make me feel good, don’t let anybody else do it” generation.
Well said. Fits right in with the observation of green thought where the greens profess a love of humanity but hate people.
A few interesting points, HOWEVER, mostly a sweeping generalization that is simply not true. The “Cannabis Generation” is simply not true, or if there is such a thing it is the current X/Y/Z or whatever they call themselves these days. As a boomer who lived through the era let me point out that we were not all at Woodstock, we were not all at Haight-Ashbury nor were we all in Chicago in ’68 any more than we were all at Khe Sanh. The Beatles were not baby boomers. Neither are Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Timothy Leary or even Annette Funicello. For that matter, neither is Bill Ayers. For every boomer that was at Woodstock there were 10 others who went to Vietnam or Korea or NATO or manned the strategic triad — or just simply went to work every day, ate (non-organic) hamburgers and brats and drank beer. We took care of our families, served our country and did our jobs. The “If it feels good, do it” generation is a myth that was started and hyped by the MSM of that day because those stories of Haight-Ashbury and etc. sold papers and ad spots. Sound familiar? If your parents were/are into the organic craze, oh well. There were other boomers out there (me, for one) spraying the tomato fields to feed everybody else so they could have that luxury, because we knew that a pesticide treated tomato was better than going hungry. There are radicals and ideologues (and pin-heads) in every generation. Unfortunately they tend to seek positions of power — by any means necessary — and all too often get them.
+1000
Good on you Bill for telling like it was. I was born in 1945, left school at 17, got a job and worked pretty much nonstop for the next 45 years; part-time for the last eight. Got married at 22, still married to my bride, and raised three kids. I reckon my story is more typical than any ten dope-smoking hippies’. It’s typical of just about every relative of my generation as well friends from back in the day and acquaintances of my age in current times.
Important aspects of my lifetime . . . full employment was good, housing was affordable, the music was good, the beer was good . . . the sexual revolution completely passed me by.
Everything you say is true, but history has it’s own agenda which is politically and culturally driven.
There were close to 60,000 young soldiers who were casualties of the Vietnam war, many others were maimed physically and psychologically, but that generation will be known as the sex, drugs and rock n roll generation, not the generation that rebelled against misguided establishment values, nor most sadly for the soldiers, the generation that made grave sacrifices in support of flawed government policy.
Excellent response, Bill. I am about sick to death of all the Baby Boomer bashing that goes on at various sites, Although a “generation” is a rather amorphous thing to define, I define the Baby Boomer generation as those born between Jan 1, 1946 and Dec 31, 1960. This is a 15 year range that pretty much covers the child bearing years of a typical family. My sister was born in 1947, my brother in 1950 and I was born in 1957. We all have different cohorts of friends, tastes in music, political beliefs, etc. But we all have (had) the same parents and grew up in the same house together.
I managed to attend public school from grades K-12 plus 2 years of community college (to save money) without the benefit of the Dept of Education (which did not exist). I earned my doctorate in 1982 and started practice that same year. When I was 19 virtually ALL of my friends had long hair and smoked pot (which would be described as “lawn clippings” by today’s standards). They turned out OK – physicians, nurses, pharmacists, scientists,(gladly only two) lawyers, engineers, business professionals and skilled tradesmen. Today none of them have long hair (or even just hair for that matter) and NOBODY smokes pot anymore – not because of some profound moral epiphany. They just grew up.
The Baby Boomers are often described as having been born 1946-1964.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png
There were many who were born during that period and did not identify at all with that cohort, and there are others who were born before that and are fully identified with it. And yet it is helpful and it is worthwhile to discuss the Boomer because they are now in control of more wealth than any previous generation, and have filled the ranks of media, academia, UN depts, and NGOs. The reason it is important and useful to use this generalization is because so many of that generation’s philosophies and pet theories are getting very close to being implemented on the rest of us. Their drug use, divorces, occultism, veganism, vegetarianism, environmentalism, eugenics/population control fanaticism, hatred of the middle class, hatred of English-speaking countries, and love of foreign interests (esp. int’l bodies – the UN and EU) are just a few examples. This is the philosophical and political framework of the changes facing us in the “Anthropocene Age” paradigm. That is, “the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems” that Patchouri speaks of. It is so eye-rollingly familiar to me as GenX, I am surprised at everyone’s surprise.
When I look at N Korea and Vietnam today, I know that despite the meddling and sabotage by politicians during the time of actual war, the Greatest Generation did try to contain communism, and were successful. And those who were in those conflicts are to be thanked. I do thank you. I had an amazing life and a beautiful family, thanks to God and to the protection of good, free people.
“Sixty years since the Korean War: Darkness and light”
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/KoreaAtNight20121205_NASA.png
Nevertheless, the evidence is overwhelming. The Cannabis Generation is about to reap what it has sown. I think it is everyone’s duty to point that out to them. All of the agricultural advancements made by the Greatest Generation – which allow five times as much food to be grown on the same land and with the same machinery input – are about to be reversed. Energy, personal transportation, marriage, sobriety, the innocence and protection of childhood have all been inverted by this generation through environmental and occult philosophies. What is coming next will not be pretty. But I genuinely believe that they have set about to reverse and destroy everything their parents accomplished and gave to them. They are destroying agriculture in the English speaking countries through the help of Maoists in China and the UN, giving oil fields to Russia, and German domination of Europe is near total. see ref.
ref: Compare the Drax station in England, which is now burning US forests instead of coal to meet EU emissions controls, with the coal production in Germany.
German coal excavation:
Here is the Drax conversion to wood burning.
I don’t know anything about Pachauri’s spouse(s), family, parents etc, but I do know for a fact that a religion becomes a consolation for many whose families prove during their childhood years that they are neither worthy of love nor capable of repenting.
More usually, people chasing riches have to make up some believable narrative to get their hands on that money, and that is done by capitalists every bit as much as socialists.
No-one ever got rich being a complete psychopath and proudly announcing that to the World’s Press……..
A plea of insanity might just work at a treason trial.
Political correctness is no different than the moral majority. Left or right it is the same business, self-proclaimed as righteous with nothing but contempt for those who are not “believers”.
Environmental “replacement ethics” I put as “Love the planet, hate everyone on it, except me of course.”
The John Lennon song Instant Karma is ironically suited for comic ridicule of the warmists’ anthem. Just substitute “Instant Warmin'” for “Instant Karma” in the lyrics. It’s a hoot!
Prior to stepping down Pachauri made skeptics a huge favor and removed all doubt: AGW is a religion.
Pach says :
It is my religion It is my belief manifested in my obedience, my reverence, and my worship.of the cause !
Sceptics are disobedient, irreverent and worship the life giving carbon.
“no king ever existed without the permission of the priesthood”
Bill Cooper
“Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed.” Huxley
The IPCC is now in a missionary position? They’re screwed.
There goes half my glass of fresh squeezed tangerine juice right out my nose! Thanks a lot Steve.
A physics-based equation with two natural measures explains the uptrends and down trends of average global temperatures since before 1900 with 95% correlation (R^2 greater than 0.9), credible hind-casting back to 1610 (Little Ice Age) and average global temperature trend prediction to 2037 is at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com.
CO2 change has no significant influence.
I concur prima facie with GWPF’s statement that religious thinking and behavior is embedded in publically outspoken positions on climate made by some of the IPCC’s intellectuals, but I concur only if the GWPF considers including some provisos, quid pro quos and caveats to its statement.
First, mimicking science is the conscious behavior of the IPCC where the mimicking consists of it pretending to promote scientific processes in making its assessment reports while actually promoting pre-science positions. Not all IPCC intellectuals who mimic science are religious; some are just irrational; some are opportunists seeking something ulterior.
Second, there are IPCC intellectuals who honestly honor a concept of science and consistently apply their concept of science, but it is a concept of science (a philosophy of science) that gives primacy to social goals and means over objectively confirmed observations of reality. That concept of science held by some IPCC intellectuals is a relatively recent deviation from the dominant philosophy of science that gives primacy of objectively confirmed observations of reality over all else.
Thirdly, there are scientists who gave the IPCC the benefit of the doubt about some of its member’s shortcomings; shortcomings like mimicking; religious nature; irrationalism; opportunism; subjective philosophy of science. Those who tried to give the IPCC the benefit of the doubt have told their experiences and concerns over the last 25+ years.
Fourthly, the intellectual dialog to save the IPCC or the disband it or to ignore it is moot unless one has a strategy to publicize the root cause of why the IPCC failed. I suggest the root cause is its failure to openly, transparently and explicitly explain its philosophy of science and to answer publically why it is not objective science. Namely the root cause of the IPCC failure is to not debate the very nature of science.
Disclaimer – I paraphrased the expression provisos, quid pro quos and caveats from a line by the character Genie in the 1992 animated movie ‘Aladdin’.
John
The IPCC’s main problem is an agenda. In essence go out and find something that the AGW’s so-called deniers won’t be able to deny. Secondly is the marginalization of these ‘deniers’ and one thing in particular the off-handed comment about weather vs climate. This a condescending tact because as an observer and Meteorologist I know more about the topic in intimate terms than the AGW crowd who study the poop of dodo birds in Brazil and use this as proof of something.
The bottom-line is we do not know definitively if the Earth is in imminent danger due to man’s influence. If you remember it was Edison v. Tesla which the issue was D/C v. A/C. Most scientists consider Tesla a loose cannon but in the end proved those 97%ers wrong. Interesting when debate is discouraged but not so much when there is a money trail and political power.
IFoghorn The IKonoclast,
My (JW’s) “the IPCC . . . promoting pre-science positions” seems to be equal to your “IPCC’s main problem is an agenda”.
Namely the agenda precedes their process of climate focused science assessment and the agenda is the measure of the science they assessed.
John
The GWPF must be recognized for their unwavering effort to expose bad science.
Thanks also for upholding good scientific practices.
protection of Planet Earth .. is my religion
I thought we had “Separation of Church and State” in this country.
Technically the UN is not part of this state and is inclusive of all religions, apparently now including Climate Science.
With apologies to Shakespeare and originally penned at the Spectator:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/02/guardian-editors-in-waiting-make-their-cases-wolfgang-blau-is-not-a-woman/
‘There are storm tides in the affairs of women which,
written after Dawlish floods, lead on to knaves’ misfortune.
DATA omitted, all the climate change in their life
Is bound in adjustments and in fripperies.
On such a freebie junket are they now to vote
And they must serve the IPCC when it serves
Or lose their privileges.’
Will things hot up over the next few weeks?
Great. To the point. Thanks.
Best Regards – Hans
Obviously the IPCC is a one-dimensional, one-sided advocate for AGW.
What might have worked grandly for the IPCC, is if they set up another group to advocate against the AGW and then have them argue their positions using the same rules of evidence and argument as in a trial. It could have been the trial of the century with individual countries and their populace judging the affair.
I know I am dreaming, but also know it brought no honor to he UN to have set up an organization of bobble heads, whereby you shake them and they all nod their heads up and down.
And they’re trained to give any skepticism the horizontal nod.
A very funny short story from WILLIAM M. BRIGGS:
http://wmbriggs.com/post/15417/
Does the GWPF have enough influence with UN member governments to to get them to change the direction of the IPCC? I’m afraid that Pachauri’s resignation doesn’t signal any kind of change. Pachauri was simply a puppet and a cheerleader for the real, behind-the-scenes movers and shakers like Maurice Strong. Pachauri is clearly just a buffoon, and would have kept his job so long as he remained a useful idiot. Nothing will change the UN or the IPCC until the US withdraws its membership and invites them to leave.
Must admit, this column was unusual. First it takes off from the original article for many comments, then it finally comes back to the misbelief that this is a “religious fervor” of those that spout AGW. This is not a religious movement, it is built from the ground up to support “one world government.” You can not hope to have one world government, and the UN and those that drive it DO see it as the first step to a one world government, without “something” so earth shaking and fear mongering that all peoples of the world are willing to give up their individual hopes and freedoms. AGW is precisely the avenue chosen to implement world wide control. If it wasn’t so, there would be acceptance of the validity of the data that disproves it at some point. It is too vital to the one world government movement to do anything but bury those that show their “tool” to be wrong. You can argue until they come and take you away, but you will not get anywhere as long as you don’t realize that this is not what it is being made out to be, it is an instrument to grab absolute control over every living person on this planet, as well as the resources. Don’t be fooled. This isn’t about making money, this isn’t about, religious fervor, this IS about domination of the planet.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
It is not possible to overemphasize the religious nature, the fundamentalist religiosity, of the global warming cult. Many of those involved are just blinded scientists. (“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Upton Sinclair.) However, many are religious zealots in the most horrific sense of the term. Fundamentalists, radicals, many of whom have called for imprisonment, even execution, of the opposition.
I’m back, I forgot to add the source of the post about how to fight the climate change this year.
[Please use only one screen name. ~mod.]