arrest the crimatologists
Posts tagged ipcc
Hulme: IPCC’s 2500 Scientists “Disingenuous”
Jun 19th
June 13, 2010
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
This Day in Climategate History – May 18, 2006
May 18th
May 18, 2006: email 1147982305
Neil Roberts writes to Jonathan Overpeck:
Please excuse me for writing direct, but Keith Briffa suggested it would be simplest. I have looked through the draft Chapter 6 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report … However, bullet 4 on page 6.2, starting “global mean cooling and warming…..” strikes me as incorrect and misleading.
Roberts outlines his objections. Overpeck replies:
Hi Neil—Thanks for your interest in providing feedback on the draft … Since the IPCC has very strict rules about all this, I’m going to ask them (the IPCC) to send you an official invitation to review, along with the process—formal, but highly efficient—to follow. If you could send your comments in that way it would be a great help. We’ve been asked to keep everything squeaky clean, and not to get comments informally.
So, “squeaky clean” only when criticized?
Pachauri refuses to step down
Mar 18th
Pachauri
via Reuters
March 16, 2010
Chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), R K Pachauri, said he would not resign for making claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035, which he termed as “one mistake”.
Some climate researchers have criticized the IPCC in recent days for over-stating the speed of shrinking of Himalayan glaciers, whose seasonal thaw helps to supply water to many nations including India and China.
Delingpole on Climate cover-up
Mar 16th
Herod orders top UN scientists to investigate mysterious infant slaughter in Judaea
James Delingpole
The Telegraph
March 11, 2010
What marvellous news to learn that the UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon is to launch a thorough investigation into the science behind climate change! It’s the equivalent of Kenneth Lay promising to organise a full and frank investigation into the accounts at Enron, or Herod ordering an urgent inquiry into the appalling and mysterious slaughter of infants in Judaea: all it will do is end up confirming the prejudices of the person who commissioned the report.
And as Ban Ki Moon himself says, keeping a studiedly neutral position on the issue:
“I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of that [Fourth IPCC Assessment] report. The threat posed by climate change is real.”
Make no mistake, we are accelerating at breakneck speed towards hell. There are now so many political entities dedicated to creating a regulatory system predicated on the existence on AGW – besides the UN these include the European Union, the Obama administration, the EPA, the terrifying Carbon Disclosure Project, the Labour government and the forthcoming Heath administration – that none of them is remotely interested in hearing any answers they don’t want to know. It will be like another of those EU referenda where the only acceptable answer is “Yes”, even when the people keep saying “No.”
As ever, Richard North has been unearthing some choice examples of the vast sums of taxpayers’ money which is about to be squandered in the name of ManBearPig and end up lining the pockets of a few canny businessmen, and of the mad schemes being dreamt up to “combat” AGW.
Here’s one that will involve the British taxpayer spending the equivalent of four aircraft carriers a year, every year, forever.
And here’s a possibly even crazier scheme to harness the flatulence of Welsh cows.
I said before the battle ahead of us was tough. It just got a whole lot tougher.
EDITORIAL: More errors in temperature data
Feb 19th
The Washington Times
February 18, 2010
Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ top climate-change official, announced his resignation yesterday. Good riddance. The bureaucrat’s departure is no surprise because his pseudo-scientific global warming religion was proved to be a hoax on his watch.
The list of problems central to the global warming fraud just doesn’t seem to end. As if hiding and losing data, the numerous errors in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the suppression of academic research that disagrees with global warming weren’t bad enough, now comes word that basic ground-based temperature data may have been biased towards incorrectly showing temperature increases.
Joseph D’Aleo, the first director of meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org, are well-known and well-respected scientists. On Jan. 29, they released a startling study showing that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate-measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures drove up the average measured temperature. The stations eliminated were in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea and more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.
Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Watts provide some amazing graphs showing that the jumps in measured global temperature occurred just when the number of weather stations was cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.
Unfortunately, all three terrestrial global-temperature data sets (by NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the University of East Anglia) really rely on the same measures of surface temperatures. These three sources do not provide independent measures of how the world’s temperatures have changed over time. The relatively small differences that do arise from these three institutions result from how they adjust the raw data.
The findings by Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Watts also explain some puzzles that have bothered researchers. For example, land-based temperatures have been rising while satellite-based measures haven’t shown the same increase since 1990. Their answer is that at that point in time, the elimination of weather stations produced a false measured increase in temperatures that didn’t affect the satellite readings. There is no evidence (yet) that this effort was consciously designed to increase recorded temperatures, but that is beside the point. The crux of the matter is that fanatics about man-made global warming want to spend trillions of dollars based on conclusions from faulty data.
As the frigid winter days pass and the scandals mount, it becomes clear that claims of man-made global warming aren’t based on scientific methods at all. The hysteria is based on fraud.
Most recent comments