Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’

AGENDA-DRIVEN CLIMATE SCIENCE – AMAZON RAIN FOREST DANGER IS A PHONY

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2010

All of that “hockey stick” talk turned out to be a load of balderdash, but it hasn’t been enough. The inability of scientists to explain why the world isn’t warming anymore doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that not a single computer model managed to predict the current cooling patterns hasn’t seemed to curb anyone’s hysteria. The reality that global temperatures are trending down is explained away as being “part of the larger climate change problem.” The fact that no one can seem to tell us what the correct temperature should be hasn’t stopped the climate fascists from pushing their agenda. The idea that the world’s leading authorities on global warming were caught in a disgraceful data manipulation scandal has not kept the zealots at bay.

To be clear, the polar bear population is not decreasing, the Arctic will not lose all of its ice inside of five years, coastal cities are not in danger of being submerged beneath ice-cap melting floods, and using multiple squares of toilet paper will not make Sheryl Crowe’s music sound any better.

But it doesn’t matter.

The science is settled. We’re just waiting on the data to catch up.

A couple of weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to retract a claim that “climate change” would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by the year 2035. The “warning” was not based on peer-reviewed science, mind you, but on anecdotal observations from a magazine.

Brilliant, no?

The fact is, even with climatic conditions at their ice-melting worst, it would likely take hundreds of years for all of that ice to turn to water.

But wait, it gets better.

This time, the anecdotally-based “science” concerns the Amazon rain forests.

Jonathan Leake at the Times Online writes:

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

So, they heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another …

The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.

In their report they suggested that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall” but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.

The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.

And where, pray tell, is the media on this one? Where are all the young, fraud-hungry Woodward and Bernsteins out there? How is it that this little masterpiece isn’t making the rounds?

And when will we finally be able to say goodbye to those God-forsaken squiggly light bulbs?

And can I get a great big “hip-hip-hooray” for those engine idling, incandescent bulb burning, over flatulating, anti-environment types?

It’s damn cold here in New York.

wordpress statistics

Advertisements

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

PEER REVIEW, WHERE ARE YOU?

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 1, 2009

From both the “Living In A Parallel Universe” file and the “Clueless At The UN” file …

For years, the fact that there even existed an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made me wonder if the existence of other such panels – like the Transnational Water-Is-Wet Agency and the World Sex-Feels-Good Council – were just around the corner. That the United Nations felt an urgency to create an intergovernmental body of scientists whose purpose was to confirm that climate actually does change always seemed a bit milky-in-the-filbert to me. Their purpose, so they said, was to assess the risk of global climate change due to the activity of humans.

It sounded so menacing, but it was nothing new.

I’d been hearing that the earth was tangoing with grim death due to one thing or another since I was a little boy – and that every threat to delicate existence could always be pinned on the actions of self-absorbed, gluttonous excesses of humanity.

By the time the IPCC came along, one couldn’t help but feel guilty about being alive.

By my thirtieth birthday, the end of the planet must have come and gone at least twelve times, maybe more.

When the IPCC – an organization that doesn’t do its own research, incidentally – won the Nobel Peace Prize a couple of years ago (along with Al Gore), I knew that either this whole “global warming” thing was a grand hoax of the highest order or someone had slipped a psychotropic drug into my Yoo Hoo. It was so fantastically surreal listening to hysterical apocalyptic climate jockeys predict certain doom when common sense prescribed that even if all of humanity decided tomorrow to make the earth warmer, it simply couldn’t be done.

But agendas are powerful little bastards, persistent and merciless. Like illegals that gather in front of the Home Depot, or the sound of Barack Obama’s voice, they don’t just go away – even when the evidence points to the contrary.

Rajendra Pachauri is the Chairman of the IPCC. Despite the recent “climategate” revelations of manipulated data, conspiratorial suppression of opposing opinion, and the blackballing of dissenters, Pachauri displays what can either be called colossal ignorance or steadfast leftism.

According to him, on the level playing fields of modern science, such bias cannot exist.

James Randerson at the UK Guardian writes:

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.

“Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

It just isn’t possible, he says.

It’s all so very transparent, he explains.

Well, if it is, you can thank hackers for that.

Despite Mr. Pachauri’s claims, the fact remains that the global warming all-stars – like Phil Jones and Michael Mann – were doing what they could to exclude dissenting papers from being peer reviewed in scientific journals.

That’s kind of an important point.

Therefore, how could peer reviewed papers disagreeing with Climate Research Unit (CRU) conclusions be considered when none were offered in the first place thanks to the likes of Jones and Mann?

No one – not even a chairman of one of those feckless UN commissions – can possibly be that ignorant.

Can they?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Joe Biden | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THE MYTH UNRAVELS – HACKING AWAY AT GLOBAL WARMING

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 23, 2009

Could this be what triggers the final unraveling of the global warming myth? Is this the beginning of the end for the environmentally hysterical? Since a decade of cooling temperatures hasn’t done the trick, and the fact that there isn’t a stitch of evidence proving that rising CO2 levels cause rising temperatures, could this possibly be what sends this fairy-tale trolly off the rails?

Theoretically, you’d think this is one story that just couldn’t be ignored by the mainstream media. Even the most hard-nosed skeptic would have to concede that this juicy little ditty is alphabet-channel newsworthy.

I must therefore tip my hat to the Washington Post who actually put on its journalism shoes yesterday.

They decided to report on the big computer security breach that resulted in over a thousand e-mails and some seventy-two documents being stolen (and made public) from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre in Britain on Thursday – one of the foremost climate research facilities in the world.

The hacking of a major institution’s computer system is always good for a mention or two on the evening news, but what makes this story so delicious is that it goes beyond the run-of-the-mill cyber-invasion. This is actually an attack on global warming itself – and for doomsday environmental zealots, that’s a shot at the jugular.

The stolen documents (specifically the e-mails) are proving to be rather embarrassing, and quite damning, to those who authored them. And it just so happens that the authors happen to be some of the leading proponents of man-made global warming in all the world.

We’re talking the global warming big boys: James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Keith Briffa (among others).

The words “manipulation” and “deception” come to mind.

From the Washington Post:

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Isn’t that delightful?

Thus, it makes perfect sense when the believers of a planet on the brink of doom due to man-made global warming look directly into the cameras, hold up the IPCC report, and say there is scientific consensus on the matter. How could there not be when they deliberately leave out the work of others who refute or question it? These are the same hysterical global-warming intellectuals who go out of their way to blackball or shun those with opposing points of view  – or at least those who think more debate is reasonably appropriate. As a result, those who dare to question man-made global warming are omitted from scientific journals and publications altogether.

In other words, if the trouble-making crowd can be pushed off into the scientific hinterlands, they can’t get in the way of forwarding the agenda.

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Positively incredible.

These are supposed to be scientists, mind you – not a group of pre-teen girls deciding who will or won’t be part of their “club.”

But the Washington Post doesn’t go far enough.

For example, according to Tom Wigley (climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), in an e-mail to Phil Jones, there is a problem with some of the temperature readings from the 1940s. There is a temperature “blip,” as he calls it, that apparently does not conform properly to the man-made global-warming theory. It is problematic enough that adjustments need to be made. The “blip” must be resized.

Although a tad technical in some spots, the gist of the e-mail is clearly understood:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Silly me, I wasn’t aware that scientists could retroactively adjust data to meet the desired models.

John Hinderacker at the great Power Line blog comments:

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the “science” up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.

Touché.

And make no mistake about it … this is, indeed, a scandal. Whether or not the rest of the mainstream media decides it is worth their time is another story.

Still, there is a whole lot of information to tap into here: From e-mails suggesting that some data would be better off deleted than subjected to public scrutiny, to (as Rob at Say Anything writes) “attempts to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests aimed at getting some of this information disclosed so that it could be reviewed by objective experts,” this one seems to have legs … or so you’d think.

Of course, if the debate wasn’t already over, this could be real trouble.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »