arrest the crimatologists
Editorial
Editorials and opinion pieces related to the science and policy of manmade climate change and anthropogenic global warming (AGW)
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming
via AustralianClimateMadness / January 27, 2012 /
Sixteen scientists, including such luminaries as Lindzen, Kininmonth, Happer and Shaviv, write to the Wall Street Journal, expressing the view that the global warming scare is completely overblown, and that AGW alarmism may result in increased research funding. Shock!
What heresy! Wait for the excuses: they’re not the “right” scientists, of course. They’ve all been “bought off” by big oil. They’re all probably suffering from delusions caused by mental illness. The fact that they may have reached these conclusion by means of proper impartial scientific enquiry wouldn’t occur to the alarmist head-bangers (given they haven’t a clue what “impartial scientific enquiry” is – “Surely science is avoiding FOI requests, deleting data and fudging results? That’s what I was taught!”).
Cue collective warmist head-pop in 3, 2, 1… (more…)
Defund the IPCC Now
by Willis Eschenbach
WattsUpWithThat.com
January 5, 2012
Well, I woke up to some bad news this morning. It turns out that the GAO, the US General Accounting Office, says US has been secretly hiding their funding of the IPCC for the last decade.
They were already told not to do that by the GAO. In the 2005 GAO report with the swingeing title of “Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete”, the GAO said … well, basically what the title said. But noooo, those sneaky bureaucrats didn’t do that at all.
The latest 2011 GAO Report says the US government has not changed their ways. They have been clandestinely providing about half the operating funds for the IPCC for the last decade. In other words, the IPCC funding arrangements are of a piece with their “scientific” claims and their other actions—secretive, shabby, with a hidden agenda, and full of disinformation.
Editorial: Full Emails Show Climategate 2.0 is More Than Just Hot Air
via DailyTech /
Full emails show inarguably the researchers fought transparency, to keep public in the dark
Some commenters on our recent article on the snippets of the alleged “Climategate 2.0″ emails — leaked correspondences between U.S. and UN researchers with officials at the UK University of East Anglia‘s embattled Climate Research Unit (CRU) — complained that the commentary was too biased or misleading. That’s not suprising — similar criticism has been leveled against reports on the topic in Forbes, The New York Times, and other top publications.
And there is at least one fair point in most of these criticisms. Thus far very few major news publications have published full emails so it’s been left for the readers to blindly decide whether to trust reporters who imply the emails are disturbing and those who claim they’re innocent. While we won’t possibly have the chance to review all the emails, here’s an in depth review of at least one of the more important email threads — something readers elsewhere have deserved, but haven’t received.
Interview: Donna Laframboise on the IPCC
via CorbettReport.com / December 13, 2011 /
Donna Laframboise is the editor of a climate blog, NoFrakkingConsensus.com, and the author of a new book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. She joins us today to discuss the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), how it functions, and who is really behind the production of its coveted Assessment Report, often referred to as the “Climate Bible.”
Listen: Play in new window | Download
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Climatic Research Unit Shameful Peer-Review Control Tactics: The Soon/Baliunas Debacle.
by Dr. Tim Ball / drtimball.com / November 28, 2011 /
I noticed a few phrases repeated in attacks against anyone challenging ‘official’ science created at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One phrase said the person had no peer-reviewed work – it was falsely used against me. Another, also used against me, claimed the person was not a “working climate scientist”. This was necessary because they and many supporters were unqualified. I suspected it was a chosen strategy, which was confirmed in a leaked email from Michael Mann.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”.