Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old May 3rd, 2010 #121
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Clim...n-seaside-home

It’s good to be green - Al Gore buys $9 million seaside home
April 29, 12:53 PM

Apparently not as worried about dangerous sea level rises as he touts in his speeches, Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife Tipper have purchased a seaside villa in Montecito, California. The Nobel Laureate reported paid $8.8 million for the property.

TheLos Angeles Times, via the Montecito Journal is reporting that the home is on a 1.5 acre lot complete with a swimming pool, spa and fountains in an area that is also home to Oprah Winfrey and other Hollywood celebrities. The Gore’s will have plenty of room for guests and entertaining with five bedrooms and nine baths in the home as well as six fireplaces.

Gore has come under fire in the past for leaving a carbon footprint far in excess of the average American leading to charges of “do as I say, not as I do.”

His 10,000 square foot mansion in Nashville, Tennessee was the subject of much discussion three years ago when it was revealed that it used 12 times as much electricity as the average home in the area. Similarly, he flies tens of thousands of miles a year further adding to his role as a lightning rod in the debate about global warming.

The former vice president says he lives a ‘carbon neutral’ life by purchasing carbon offsets. Those are purchased largely from Generation Investment Management, a firm in which Gore serves as chairman and profits from. The U.K. Telegraph speculated last year that Gore would become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.”
 
Old May 19th, 2010 #122
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

Al Gore Gives Depressing Commencement Speech On Global Warming

YouTube- The Most Depressing Graduation Speech Ever

Instead of providing encouragement for the graduates of the University of Tennessee, Al Gore takes the opportunity to promote his doomsday global warming scenarios.

Last edited by The Bobster; May 19th, 2010 at 05:26 PM.
 
Old May 20th, 2010 #123
Hugo Böse
Jeunesse Dorée
 
Hugo Böse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Four Seasons Jalalabad
Posts: 9,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bobster View Post
Al Gore takes the opportunity to promote his doomsday global warming scenarios.
Doesn’t anybody tell this gimp that his credibility is shot? If he had any self respect he would go into hiding.
__________________
_______
Political correctness is an intellectual gulag.
 
Old May 26th, 2010 #124
Hugo Böse
Jeunesse Dorée
 
Hugo Böse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Four Seasons Jalalabad
Posts: 9,747
Default Aaaah, so they think the citizens already forgot all about it, ay.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e2a74522-6...44feab49a.html
Brussels reopens climate change debate
Quote:
The European Commission reopened an acrimonious argument on climate change policy on Wednesday, with the presentation of a discussion document on toughening its targets on greenhouse gas emissions.
Some member states, including the UK, are calling for the European Union to cut its emissions by 30 per cent compared with 1990 levels by 2020, a substantial strengthening of the 20 per cent already pledged.
But nations such as Poland and Italy are adamant that the higher level of cuts represents too heavy a burden on their industries.

In the document, the Commission noted that the effects of the recession, which pushed down emissions across the bloc, had made it much easier and cheaper to cut emissions.

The cost of meeting the 20 per cent target has dropped from €70bn to €48bn per year since 2008, according to the report. Moving to a 30 per cent target would cost an extra €33bn per year by 2020.
Weighed against this would also be benefits, such as lower health costs from air pollution.
Some member states say moving to 30 per cent would stimulate the growth of low-carbon technologies, and would make it easier for Europe to meet the 2050 target of cutting emissions by 80 per cent.
Chris Huhne, the UK’s secretary of state for energy and climate change, said: “Global climate change is the biggest challenge the world faces and securing an ambitious deal is a priority for this government. That’s why we will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership by supporting an increase in the EU emissions reduction target to 30 per cent by 2020.”

But the last time the possibility of 30 per cent cuts was discussed, there was such opposition to it that a compromise was established of cutting emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 but offering to move to higher cuts if other nations also agreed to substantial reductions. This was intended to encourage other countries to up their offers of taking action on greenhouse gases.

That did not happen at the Copenhagen climate summit last December, when the Commission was forced to admit that no other country was calling on the EU to move to the higher target. Critics of the higher target say agreeing unilaterally to the increase in cuts only leaves Europe without leverage in the international negotiations.
Wednesday’s announcement was timed to come just before the restart on May 31 of the stalled United Nations talks on a new treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol.

However, the document does not represent a firm plan by the Commission to push for member states to adopt the 30 per cent target. Instead, it has been carefully positioned as a way of providing information on the costs and benefits of toughening the target.

Connie Hedegaard, commissioner for climate change, is well aware that any proposal to increase the target will face vocal opposition from some member states, and from many sections of business.
Of course the (p)EeeUeeww has to start pushing this bull shit again, and during the start of a major downturn of all things, because gosh, we all know government and bankers create wealth, not production and private industry, and heeey, tax payers get to keep forty percent of their earnings, there´s still room for wise and noble government to raise taxes and mandate higher prices for everything.

Funny how the ole pink shit rag, the FT, doesn’t spare a word to mention that just recently MGW was embroiled in a major scandal of scientific dishonesty, that the whole theory is standing on shaky ground at the moment.


Connie Hedegaard, an unelected bureaucrat whore who´s sole purpose it to rape the European tax payers and consumers.

A lifelong civil servant and proud of it.
Connie_Hedegaard Connie_Hedegaard
__________________
_______
Political correctness is an intellectual gulag.

Last edited by Hugo Böse; May 30th, 2010 at 09:51 AM.
 
Old June 3rd, 2010 #125
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,377
Default

AGAINST all the odds, a number of shape-shifting islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are standing up to the effects of climate change.

For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet - island states that barely rise out of the ocean - face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown.

Paul Kench at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Arthur Webb at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji used historical aerial photos and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land surface of 27 Pacific islands over the last 60 years. During that time, local sea levels have risen by 120 millimetres, or 2 millimetres per year on average.

Despite this, Kench and Webb found that just four islands have diminished in size since the 1950s. The area of the remaining 23 has either stayed the same or grown (Global and Planetary Change, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003).

Webb says the trend is explained by the islands' composition. Unlike the sandbars of the eastern US coast, low-lying Pacific islands are made of coral debris. This is eroded from the reefs that typically circle the islands and pushed up onto the islands by winds, waves and currents. Because the corals are alive, they provide a continuous supply of material. "Atolls are composed of once-living material," says Webb, "so you have a continual growth." Causeways and other structures linking islands can boost growth by trapping sediment that would otherwise get lost to the ocean.

All this means the islands respond to changing weather and climate. For instance, when hurricane Bebe hit Tuvalu in 1972 it deposited 140 hectares of sedimentary debris onto the eastern reef, increasing the area of the main island by 10 per cent.

Kench says that while the 27 islands in his study are just a small portion of the thousands of low-lying Pacific islands, it shows that they are naturally resilient to rising sea levels. "It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown," he says. "But they won't. The sea level will go up and the island will start responding."

It's been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown. But they won't
John Hunter, an oceanographer at the University of Tasmania in Australia, says the study is solid, and good news for those preparing evacuations. The shifting shape of the islands presents a challenge, however. Even on islands where the total land mass is stable or grows, one area may be eroded while another is being added to. It's not possible to simply move people living in highly urbanised areas to new land, says Naomi Biribo of the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia.

Webb and Kench warn that while the islands are coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise could overtake the sediment build up. Calculating how fast sea levels will rise over the coming decades is uncertain science, and no one knows how fast the islands can grow.

Barry Brook, a climate scientist at the University of Adelaide in Australia and a supporter of the 350 campaign - which calls for the most stringent global emissions targets in the hope of saving low-lying states from sea-level rise - points out that sea-level rise is already accelerating. But, while he was initially surprised by the findings, he agrees with Webb and Kench's analysis. "It does suggest that islands have been able to adapt to sea-level rises," he says. And Biribo, who lives on the Pacific island of Kiribati, says: "It gives me that sense that we can still live on this island."

Good news, but the warnings stand
At its highest point, Tuvalu stands just 4.5 metres out of the Pacific. It is widely predicted to be one of the first islands to drown in the rising seas caused by global warming. Yet Arthur Webb and Paul Kench found that seven islands in one of its nine atolls have spread by more than 3 per cent on average since the 1950s. One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 hectares, or nearly 30 per cent of its previous area.

Similar trends were observed in the neighbouring Republic of Kiribati. The three major urbanised islands in the republic - Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai - increased by 30 per cent (36 hectares), 16.3 per cent (5.8 hectares) and 12.5 per cent (0.8 hectares), respectively.

Yet warnings about rising sea levels must still be taken seriously. Earlier this year, people living on the low-lying Carteret Islands, part of Papua New Guinea, had to relocate. Kench says anecdotal reports that the islands have been submerged are "incorrect", saying that instead erosion has changed the shape of the islands, forcing people to move.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...evel-rise.html
 
Old June 16th, 2010 #126
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...stnews#content

Boxer Declares Climate Change as the Greatest Threat, But Opponents Slam The Crazy Bitch

Published June 15, 2010

Terrorism. Nuclear weapons. Corrupt and oppressive regimes.

Sen. Barbara Boxer said last week that climate change -- not any of that other stuff -- will stand as the "leading cause of conflict" over the next two decades. The comment was apparently based on reports and studies over the past few years that have linked climate change to other security issues, but her colleagues -- as well as her Senate campaign opponent -- described the prediction as a big stretch.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Boxer's Republican counterpart on the environment committee she chairs and arguably the most outspoken global warming skeptic in Congress, decried the warning on Tuesday as a bogus ploy to win support for a sweeping energy regulation bill.

"We know global warming alarmists frequently use scare tactics to push the U.S. to pass costly cap-and-trade legislation. But to say that carbon emissions will be the leading cause of conflict in the next 20 years represents a new low in alarmist propaganda," Inhofe, ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a written statement to FoxNews.com.

"Given the tremendous security challenges confronting our nation today -- from Iran, North Korea, Islamic extremism and much else -- Senator Boxer's statement seems a bit out of touch. I would hope that she simply misspoke."

The chairwoman of the EPW committee made the remark on the floor last Thursday, when the Senate was taking up a challenge to the Obama administration's EPA rules that would cut greenhouse gas emissions. Democrats succeeded in stopping the Republican-led resolution, with the help of senators like Boxer.

On the floor, she warned that climate change would have far-reaching consequences in the not-so-distant future.

"I'm going to put in the record ... a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm's way," Boxer said. "And that's why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue."

According to Boxer's office, the senator believes climate change will be "one of the" leading causes of conflict -- not necessarily the primary cause -- despite her statement on the floor last Thursday. It's unclear whether Boxer simply misspoke or whether she was intentionally escalating her warning.

Boxer's office backed up her statement afterward by pointing to a Pentagon report that discussed the security implications of climate change; the creation by the CIA of a Center on Climate Change and National Security; and a statement from 33 retired generals and other high-ranking military officials saying climate change is "making the world a more dangerous place."

But the recent studies and statements on the connection between climate change and other problems generally do not conclude that the issue will drive all-out chaos on a global scale.

Rather, they say climate change has the potential to exacerbate existing problems like poverty and droughts and social tensions.

That was the conclusion reached by a National Intelligence Assessment in 2008 that found climate change could lead to food and water shortages, among other problems, and in turn fuel conflict.

"Climate change alone is unlikely to trigger state failure in any state out to 2030, but the impacts will worsen existing problems," then-National Intelligence Council Chairman Thomas Fingar said in a statement to Congress. Fingar said the problems would hit poor, developing countries hardest leading to pressure on the U.S. military to respond, but that the United States might actually "benefit slightly" from climate change over the next few decades because of "increased agricultural yields."

The Pentagon's latest Quadrennial Defense Review also concluded that climate change would contribute to "food and water scarcity" and could worsen "mass migration." The report said that "climate change alone does not cause conflict," though it "may act as an accelerant" of instability.

Even that conclusion has been called into question by experts who say the theory lets bad governments and bad leaders off the hook by blaming future problems on climate.

Idean Salehyan, a University of North Texas professor who co-authored a book on this subject, wrote a column in 2007, when the theory started to gain traction, in which he called predictions of "apocalyptic" consequences from climate change "misleading" and "irresponsible."

"They shift liability for wars and human rights abuses away from oppressive, corrupt governments," he wrote. Salehyan could not be reached for comment for this article.

The Heritage Foundation's James Carafano testified last year before Boxer's committee that political violence has actually dropped as emissions have risen.

"The environment does not cause wars -- it is how humans respond to their environment that causes conflicts. Climate change does not necessarily ensure that there will be more or less conflict," he said.

The campaign of Boxer's Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, cited Carafano's testimony and others in criticizing the senator's claim from last week.

"We can all agree that terrorists pose a serious security threat to our nation. However, there is wide disagreement within the security community, and the American people, about the role climate change plays in global security. Despite this, Barbara Boxer has chosen to fight for cap-and-trade legislation under the auspices that somehow raising energy prices and costing America jobs will make us safer," Fiorina spokeswoman Amy Thoma said in a written statement to FoxNews.com.

Robert Dillon, spokesman for EPW committee member Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Boxer was "overstating" the problem. He said Democrats have been employing a lot of "hype" to try building support for the stalled cap-and-trade energy bill. Murkowski sponsored the EPA challenge that was defeated last week.

"I think we all understand that climate change adds to those issues [detailed in the studies]," Dillon said. "What made Senator Boxer make that leap? ... I have no idea."
 
Old June 18th, 2010 #127
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100617/NEWS01/100619733

Global warming book withdrawn
By Joe Dejka
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

Millard Public Schools will stop using a children's book about global warming -- but only until the district can obtain copies with a factual error corrected.

A review committee, convened after parents complained, concluded that author Laurie David's book, "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming," contained "a major factual error" in a graphic about rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.

Mark Feldhausen, associate superintendent for educational services, this week sent a letter to parents who complained, including the wife of U.S. Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, outlining the committee's findings.

"Although the authors have pledged to correct the graph in subsequent editions, the committee recommends that this correction be made to all MPS-owned texts before using it with students in the future," Feldhausen wrote.

Corrected versions will continue to be used in Millard's sixth-grade language arts curriculum, he wrote.

However, the district will cease to use a companion video about global warming, narrated by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, he wrote.

The committee found the video "without merit" and recommended that it not be used.

Robyn Terry, the congressman's wife, had described the video as a "political commercial."

Lee and Robyn Terry released a statement saying they were pleased with the decision and "impressed" by the district’s handling of the case.

"We are pleased with their decision not to use the politically natured global warming video as a classroom instruction tool and that they have set a standard that information-based texts must be factually correct to be put in front of our children," they wrote.

A committee of five middle school parents, three teachers and one administrator met to determine whether the book and video served a proper purpose within the curriculum.

The book, new to the Millard curriculum this year, was part of "Plugged in to Non-Fiction," a collection of books on a variety of subjects. Parts of the book were required reading for sixth-graders in Millard reading and language-arts classes.

Three parents, including Robyn Terry, complained to the district. The Terrys’ 12-year-old son attended Beadle Middle School last year. Mrs. Terry said that the materials used in his class portrayed global warming as fact when scientists disagree.

In the video, DiCaprio attributes global warming to mankind’s "destructive addiction" to oil. He says "big corporations" and politicians gained too much money and power "on our addiction," making them "dangerously resistant to change."

In the letter to parents, Feldhausen said the committee recognized there are "multiple viewpoints" on global warming. The committee recommended that all teachers using the book "make students aware of both sides of the global warming theory," he said.
 
Old June 29th, 2010 #128
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...-97329474.html

Sex complaint against Gore is detailed, credible
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
June 29, 2010
(AP File)

The allegation that Al Gore sexually assaulted a woman in a Portland, Ore., hotel room nearly four years ago has dealt a serious blow to the former vice president's story that he and wife Tipper simply "grew apart" after 40 years of marriage.

The police report of the masseuse's complaint is 73 pages long and extremely detailed. According to the document, she got a call from the front desk of the trendy Hotel Lucia on the night of Oct. 24, 2006. The hotel had a special guest. Could she come at 10:30 p.m.?

She went to Gore's room carrying a folding massage table and other equipment. Gore, whom she had never met, greeted her with a warm embrace. "The hug went on a bit long, and I was taken just a bit aback by it," the masseuse told police. But she went along because Gore "was a VIP (Very Important Pervert) and a powerful individual and the Hotel Lucia had made it clear to me by inference that they were giving him 'the royal treatment.'"

Gore said he was tired from travel and described in detail the massage he wanted. It included work on the adductor muscles, which are on the inside of the thighs. "I mentally noted that a request for adductor work is a bit unusual," the masseuse told police, because it can be "a precursor to inappropriate behavior by a male client."

Gore also requested work on his abdomen. When that began, "He became somewhat vocal with muffled moans, etc.," the masseuse recounted. Gore then "demand[ed] that I go lower." When she remained focused on a "safe, nonsexual" area, Gore grew "angry, becoming verbally sharp and loud."

The masseuse asked Gore what he wanted. "He grabbed my right hand, shoved it down under the sheet to his pubic hair area, my fingers brushing against his penis," she recalled, "and said to me, 'There!' in a very sharp, loud, angry-sounding tone." When she pulled back, Gore "angrily raged" and "bellowed" at her.

Then, abruptly, the former vice president changed tone. It was "as though he had very suddenly switched personalities," she recalled, "and began in a pleading tone, pleading for release of his second chakra there."

"Chakra," in Gore's new-agey jargon, refers to the body's "energy centers," which the masseuse interpreted as having a specific meaning. "This was yet another euphemism for sexual activity he was requesting," she told police, "put cleverly as though it were a spiritual request or something."

She wanted to end the session, but Gore "wrapped me in an inescapable embrace" and "caressed my back and buttocks and breasts." She tried to get away -- in the process calling Gore a "crazed sex poodle" -- but the former vice president was too strong for her.

A little later, she said, Gore produced a bottle of brandy and mentioned there were condoms in the "treat box" provided by the hotel. "He then forced an open mouth kiss on me," she said.

At that moment, the masseuse brought up Gore's long marriage. "How do you rectify this with your wife?" she asked. That brought on another "quick shift" in Gore's mood. "I never saw anybody's moods just go like this," the masseuse told police, snapping her fingers.

The accuser said Gore maneuvered her into the bedroom. His iPod docking station was there , he told her, and he wanted her to listen to "Dear Mr. President," a lachrymose attack on George W. Bush by the singer Pink.

"As soon as he had it playing, he turned to me and immediately flipped me flat on my back and threw his whole body face down over atop of me," she said. "I was just shocked at his craziness."

"He pleaded, grabbed me, engulfed me in embrace, tongue kissed me, massaged me, groped by breasts and painfully squeezed my nipples through my clothing, pressed his pelvis against mine, rubbed my buttocks with his hands and fingers and rubbed himself against my crotch, saying, 'You know you want to do it.'"

Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, libtards like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."

She got a lawyer and made an appointment to talk with authorities. She canceled and did not tell police until January 2009 and even then did not press charges.

In 2007, a Portland paper learned what had happened. Gore's lawyers called the story "absolutely false," and it wasn't published.

Now the National Enquirer has made the police report public. And Gore's family-man image will never be the same.
 
Old July 5th, 2010 #129
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.philly.com/philly/health_...atereport.html

Dutch agency admits error in UN climate report
ARTHUR MAX - AP Hack
The Associated Press

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - A leading Dutch environment agency reported Monday that the seminal 2007 U.N. scientific report on climate change is too generalized and has even more errors than discovered so far, including one contributed by the agency itself.

But the review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency claimed the errors had no effect on the fundamental conclusion by U.N. panel of scientists: that global warming caused by humans already is happening. (Of course!)

Glaring mistakes discovered in the 3,000-page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year fed into an atmosphere of skepticism over the reliability of climate scientists who have been warning for many years that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases could have catastrophic consequences, including rising sea levels, drought and the extinction of nearly one-third of the Earth's species.

The errors put scientists on the defensive just as a major conference on climate change in Copenhagen, attended by some 120 world leaders, met with limited success to agree on how to limit carbon emissions and contain the worst effects of global warming.

The Dutch agency acknowledged responsibility for one mistake by the IPCC when it reported in 2005 that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, when only 26 percent is. The report should have said 55 percent is prone to flooding, including river flooding.

"The incorrect wording in the IPCC report does not affect the message of the conclusion," that the Netherlands is highly susceptible to sea level rise, it said. "The lesson to be learned for an assessment agency such as ours is that quality control is needed at the primary level."

The second previously reported error claimed the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, which the Dutch agency partly traced to a report on the likely shrinking of glaciers by the year 2350.

The review, which lasted six months, also found several other errors in the IPCC report on regional impacts of climate change, one of four separate IPCC reports in 2007, although it said they were inconsequential.

The original report said global warming will put 75 million to 250 million Africans at risk of severe water shortages in the next 10 years, but a recalculation showed that range should be 90 million to 220 million, the agency said.

Another error it found involved the effect of wind turbulence on anchovy fisheries on Africa's west coast.

The Dutch agency said it examined 32 conclusions in the summary that the IPCC produced as a guideline for policy makers on the impact of climate change in eight regions.

Some conclusions were based on "insufficiently founded generalizations," and it found instances where the scientific references were unclear.

"Our findings do not contradict the main conclusions of the IPCC," the report said. "There is ample observational evidence of natural systems being influenced by climate change ... (that) pose substantial risks to most parts of the world."

It said future IPCC reports should have a more robust review process and should look more closely at where information comes from. It also recommended more investment in monitoring global warming in developing countries.

The IPCC, in a statement from its Geneva headquarters, welcomed the Dutch agency's findings that confirmed the IPCC's conclusion that "continued climate change will pose serious challenges to human well-being and sustainable development."

It said it will "pay close attention" to the agency's recommendations.
 
Old July 8th, 2010 #130
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

Like ACORN, they investigated themselves and found no major problems.

http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20100...in_emails.html

UK inquiry finds emails do not undermine climate science

By Peter Griffiths
Posted Wed Jul 7, 2010 6:12am PDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Emails stolen(!!) from one of the world's leading climate change research centers contained no evidence to undermine the case for manmade global warming, a report found on Wednesday.

An investigation into the British research unit cleared its scientists of serious wrongdoing, but criticized their lack of openness and said some of their data was misleading.

The University of East Anglia, eastern England, launched the inquiry after 1,000 emails hacked from its climate research unit were put on the Internet and held up as evidence scientists had exaggerated or lied about man's role in global warming.

The leak's timing, just before U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen last December, was awkward for policymakers and scientists trying to persuade an often skeptical public that trillions of dollars must be spent on fighting global warming.

The third and most comprehensive investigation into the emails, led by former civil servant Muir Russell, defended the integrity of the university's Climatic Research Unit.

It also said the emails contained nothing to overturn the case for manmade global warming put forward by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt," the report concluded. "We did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC."

However, the scientists were criticized for failing to respond openly to questions about climate data lodged under Britain's freedom of information laws.

"We found a tendency to answer the wrong question or to give a partial answer," the report said. Other emails were deleted in anticipation of requests for their release.

Two of the most contentious parts of the emails were the phrases "hide the decline" and "trick," seen as evidence of an attempt to massage data to support the scientists' views.

With reference to "hide the decline," the review said the unit's presentation of data was misleading. It said the use of the word "trick" may have been shorthand for a neat mathematical approach to a problem.

The Internet and blogs have exposed science to unprecedented scrutiny, the report added. Russell said researchers must do more to explain that science can be mired in uncertainty.

The university's vice chancellor, Edward Acton, said the report had exonerated his staff and he hoped it would end the "conspiracy theories and untruths" that have dogged the unit.

In April, an inquiry into the scientists' actions found no evidence of malpractice, while in March a British parliamentary committee cleared the unit of manipulating the evidence. Police are still investigating the theft of the emails.
 
Old July 8th, 2010 #131
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07...tegate_report/

Climategate report: 'Campaign to win hearts and minds' needed
But what's it mean for the bloke on the bus?

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Environment, 7th July 2010 14:43 GMT


The University of East Anglia's enquiry into the conduct of its own staff at its Climatic Research Unit has highlighted criticisms of the department and staff conduct - but clears the path for the individuals concerned to carry on.

The CRU played an important role in writing the UN's IPCC summaries on climate science, so the issue is far from a parochial one. The most serious charge is poor communication; Sir Muir Russell even calls for "a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds" to restore confidence in the team's work.

<snip>

What did the CRU crew do?

The Climatic Research Unit is one part of the picture, an important one, but not at the heart of climate theory. They're not physicists, and they don't do the physics upon which competing explanations of how the climate works stand or fall, once measured against observation. So in that sense, 'Climategate' isn't a 'Climategate' - it isn't a Scopes Trial of the global warming theory.

But CRU does two important things that shape our understanding of the present and the past. CRU is one of a small number of bodies that calculates global temperature readings (of where we are today), and is probably the pre-eminent body that performs historical temperature reconstructions, quite literally writing or re-writing history. And its importance is magnified since the leading academics are also lead authors of the UN's IPCC reports - the vast volumes policy makers like to cite as their scientific justification, but rarely read.

In the absence of a strong physics story, this temperature work became hotly contested. The biggest bone of contention is whether modern, post-1850 warming is anomalous. If it is, then the likelihood that we were in strange and uncharted territory is much greater. If it isn't, then consequently, the need for "urgent political action" - involving sweeping changes to industrial policy and social policy - became weaker.

The father of modern climatology, HH Lamb, founded CRU in 1972, and the building the academics work in takes his name. When Lamb contributed to the first IPCC report in 1990 the historical temperature record looked like this.


Lamb's temperature graph, featured in the first IPCC report in 1990

By 2001, it looked like this.

Without the error bars (grey), the Medieval Warm Period disappears Source: IPCC TAR 2001


What Climategate is largely about, then, is whether the academics were justified in making that Medieval Warm Period disappear.

Unfortunately, none of the three 'independent' reviews have grappled with this. The absence of anomalous warming doesn't, as some skeptics say, make the problem go away. But it takes the issue back onto the blackboard, back into realms of the potential threats. It certainly removes much of the impetus for a sweeping and urgent political program of mitigation.

Yet in the academics' own words, we learn that the recent burst of warming, while real, is far from unusual.

One of the leading CRU academics, Keith Briffa, wrote that:

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter...

"For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”

In an interview in February, CRU director Phil Jones agrees that recent warming isn't statistically significant, and is matched by previous periods in the instrumental record - such as 1860 to 1880.

The sensible end of the climate debate hinges on how much of a lasting consequence an increase in CO2 has on the climate system. Some prominent scientists who as recently as 2001 were lead authors for the IPCC don't dispute there's an effect, but maintain that once it's worked itself out, the effect is small.

Proponents of large positive CO2 feedbacks have pointed to various 'fingerprints' which are absent, or refuse to manifest themselves. Greenhouse gas warming was supposed to create a telltale warming of the troposphere, but instrumental readings show no such evidence. More recently, they have posited that CO2 must have caused warming, but this is still trapped in the oceans. This "missing heat" has yet to be found, and in the Climategate archive we find US scientist Kevin Trenberth expressing frustration: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," adding that "we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

For Trenberth, if we had better instruments, we'd find the heat. For skeptics, the heat might not be there.

By the mid-2000s the issue had become so politicised the academics were acting like a "priesthood", in the words of environmental writer Fred Pearce, no friend of the skeptics. As Jones wrote in an email: “Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them."

In a sense the CRU team are carrying the can for the physicists' failure to do the science.
 
Old July 8th, 2010 #132
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Anytime you begin with a conclusion and bullshit back to a hypothesis, you're going to make a fool of yourself. This "technique" is called "Jewish Science" for a reason.

But it will persist until the shekels run out. . .just as the securitization of subprime mortgages/unnecessary housing construction persisted. . .just as the investment mania in unprofitable tech companies, etc.
 
Old July 9th, 2010 #133
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...remains-toxic/

Climategate: reinstating Phil Jones is good news – the CRU brand remains toxic

By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: July 8th, 2010

“Move along now, please… Nothing to see here…” was the predictable burden of Sir Muir Russell’s investigation into Climategate. Are we surprised? Any other conclusion would have made world headlines as a first for the climate change establishment. This is the third Climategate whitewash job and it would be tempting to see it as just as futile as its predecessors. That, however, would be to underrate its value to the sceptic cause, which is considerable.

This is because Russell’s “Not Guilty” verdict has been seized upon as an excuse to reinstate Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia CRU, this time as Director of Research. That is very good news. It spells out to the world that the climate clique looks after its own; that there is no more a culture of accountability and job forfeiture for controversial conduct in AGW circles than there is in parliamentary ones; that it is business as usual for Phil and his merry men. Or, to put it more bluntly, the brand remains toxic.

Apart from Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, there is no name more calculated to provoke cynical smiles in every inhabited quarter of the globe than that of Phil Jones. The dogs in the street in Ulan Bator know that he and his cronies defied FOI requests and asked for e-mails to be deleted and that people only do that if they have something to hide. Every time some UN-compliant government or carbon trading interest group tries to scare the populace witless with scorched-earth predictions of imminent climate disaster and cites research from the East Anglia CRU – of which Phil Jones is Director of Research – it will provoke instant scepticism.

As I pointed out earlier this week, the AGW lobby has recently shown signs of belatedly getting its PR act together, of assuming a false humility, of being less dogmatic, in an effort to win round public opinion. It is an attempt to turn over a new leaf – on the Dave Cameron model, to detoxify the brand. It is, of course, a ploy to recover lost credibility and impose upon the public more effectively. Putting Phil Jones back at the centre of the picture completely wrecks that rehabilitation scheme. It is as if Dave appointed Lady Thatcher to oversee his “compassionate Conservatism” agenda.

The problem for the more sophisticated warmist propagandists is that, on this occasion, the attempt to construct a Cameron-style “modernised” climate scare party collided with the primeval instinct of the British academic and public-sector establishment to protect its own. It shares with the Spanish Legion the principle of never abandoning its wounded. None of our boys will ever be taken out by the sceptics, is the rule, no matter how badly they goof up.

So, this is an important and encouraging development for everybody dedicated to blowing the AGW scam out of the water. It means one of the principal pillars of the IPCC that might have been cosmetically repaired now remains irretrievably compromised. The next few years will be critical for the survival of the AGW superstition: it is now, partly due to Climategate and partly to the global recession, fighting for survival. This latest blunder significantly lessens its prospects of pulling through. A big thank you to Professor Edward Acton and the climate establishment at the University of East Anglia and elsewhere, without whose purblind sense of entitlement the eventual overthrow of this false orthodoxy might not have been possible.
 
Old July 27th, 2010 #134
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/99280639.html

Al Gore interviewed by Portland detectives
By KATU Staff

Story Published: Jul 26, 2010 at 5:09 PM PDT
Story Updated: Jul 27, 2010 at 7:09 AM PDT

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Detectives interviewed former U.S. Vice President Al Gore this past week in San Francisco, a law enforcement source has confirmed to KATU News.

Portland police detectives interviewed Gore on Thursday, questioning him further about allegations that he sexually abused a licensed a massage therapist.

Investigators had filed a special report in January 2007, recording the massage therapist's claims that Gore grabbed and groped her when she gave him a massage at a Portland hotel in October 2006. The woman went public in a June 23 National Enquirer story and held up "soiled" pants for a June 30 Enquirer cover.

On July 1, the Portland Police Bureau reopened its sexual assault investigation into the former vice president. Officials said the extra review was needed as detectives looking into the matter this past year failed to notify high-ranking officials of the decision to drop the case.

The Enquirer has published the stories of two other massage therapists. Those therapists, who worked at hotels in Tokyo and Los Angeles, have also claimed Gore made unwanted sexual advances toward them.
 
Old August 18th, 2010 #135
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41192.html

Hot button: GOP candidates knock global warming
Republican candidates have spoken up against the validity of global warming and climate change.

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 8/18/10 4:31 AM EDT

Fueled by anti-Obama rhetoric and news articles purportedly showing scientists manipulating their own data, Republicans running for the House, Senate and governor’s mansions have gotten bolder in stating their doubts over the well-established link between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

GOP climate skeptics have held powerful positions on Capitol Hill in recent years, including the chairmanship of the House Energy and Senate Environment panels. But they’ve typically been among the minority. Now, they could form a key voting bloc, adding insult to injury for climate advocates who failed to pass an energy bill this year.

Environmental groups fear that adding more voices to the skeptic camp could further polarize the debate and make it more difficult at all levels of government to pass legislation curbing carbon dioxide emissions, especially if coupled with the defeat of standard-bearers such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

Ron Johnson, running against Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, is the latest in a line of Republicans to take a shot at the validity of global warming.

“I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change," Johnson told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday. "It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination."

Johnson told the newspaper that the climate change theory was “lunacy” and blamed changes in the Earth’s temperature to “sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time."

Similar remarks have been heard from GOP candidates in all parts of the country even as mainstream climate scientists defend their work from a steady line of attack.

Four independent reviews have concluded that the so-called “Climategate” e-mails stolen(!!!) last fall from a United Kingdom research unit showed nothing more than a frank discussion among scientists working through large and complicated sets of data. And while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has admitted it erred in its 2007 report by citing a report concluding Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. organization said the mistake didn’t undermine its larger body of work.

Former Republican Rep. Steve Pearce, running for his old seat in southern New Mexico, told POLITICO that climate scientists should be questioned more thoroughly because of the stolen e-mails.

“I think we ought to take a look at whatever the group is that measures all this, the IPCC, they don’t even believe the crap,” Pearce said in Artesia, N.M. “They’re the ones who say in the e-mails we’ve got to worry about this, keep these voices quiet. If they don’t believe it, why should the rest of be penalized in our standard of living for something that can’t be validated?”

Sharron Angle, the GOP opponent for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, said on her website in June that she thought legislation to curb greenhouse gases “is based on an unscientific hysteria over the man-caused global warming hoax.”
 
Old August 18th, 2010 #136
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677...hange-inaction

Gore calls for major protests on government's climate change inaction
By Russell Berman - 08/17/10 04:54 PM ET

Former Vice President Gore is calling for major rallies to protest congressional inaction on climate change.

In a post on his personal blog headlined “The Movement We Need,” Gore linked to and quoted from an Australian wire service report that “tens of thousands of libtarded protesters … have taken to the streets across Australia to urge the major political parties to take action on climate change.”

“Across the world, when politicians fail to take action to solve the climate crisis, envirokooks are taking action,” Gore wrote.

He added after excerpting the news report: “It is my hope we see activism like this here in the United States.”

Gore noted he trained activists in Australia to deliver the slideshow that formed the basis for the documentary film that won him an undeserved Academy Award. A representative of Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection addressed the rally in Sydney.

Gore has in recent weeks stepped up his criticism of the Senate for its inability to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill that would put a price on carbon. In a conference call with environmental activists last week, he reportedly said “the United States government in its entirety, largely because of the opposition in the United States Senate to taking action on clean energy and a solution to the climate crisis, has failed us.”
 
Old August 18th, 2010 #137
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/cl...noaa-disgraced

US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced Written by John O'Sullivan, special to Climate Change Fraud | 09 August 2010
UPDATE 8-10-2010:

Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.

The tax-payer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in fresh global warming data scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that substantially ramp up averages.

A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet seen. Official records have been confirmed as evidence that a handful of temperature records for the Great Lakes region have been hiked up by literally hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern United States.

The web pages at the center of this latest climate storm were created by NOAA in partnership with Michigan State University.


Disgraced Administration Mired in Another Climategate-style Data Fix

Someone under the pseudonym ‘Sportsmen’ anonymously tipped off skeptic blog, Climatechangefraud.com. Independent analysts affirm the web pages as genuine.

In his email the faceless whistleblower explains that what precipitated the scoop was “a rather dubious report in the media that the Great Lakes temperatures have risen 10 to 15 degrees, I found it was downright laughable.”

He continues, “ Prior to this report I would frequent the ‘Coastal Watch’ temperature maps for northern Lake Michigan. When this report came out it dawned on me that the numbers didn't match what I had been reading on the Coastal Watch temperature page.”

Under a scheme called ‘Sea Grant’ NOAA collaborates with national universities to compile an official federal temperature record. In this instance, the partnersip is with Michigan University’s ‘Coastal Watch.’

Together the two institutions show temperature maps for northern Lake Michigan registering an absurd 430 degrees Fahrenheit -yes, you read it right –that’s four hundred and thirty degrees-and this is by no means the highest temperature recorded on the charts.

In the heated debate about Earth’s ever-changing climate you certainly don’t need to be scientist to figure out that the Great Lakes would have boiled away at a mere 212 degrees so something has seriously gone awry inside this well-funded program.

In addition to its civilian employees, NOAA research and operations are supported by 300 uniformed service members who make up the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps. But don’t bet on anyone being court-marshalled over this latest global warming fiasco.

Paid for entirely from federal taxes, the shamed public body’s key responsibilities include warning of dangerous weather and protection of ocean and coastal resources, and conducts research to improve understanding and stewardship of the environment.


Michigan State University Also Complicit in Fraud?

The worst evidence of hyper-inflated global warming data is on a web page entitled, ‘Michigan State University Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services.’

While another web page identifies that Michigan State University’s ‘Coastal Watch’ site is officially connected to NOAA thus implicating both institutions in a climate data conspiracy. At the bottom of the web page mention is made of ‘Sea Grant’ that is described as a “unique partnership of public and private sectors that combines research, education and technology transfer for public service.“

The legend further boasts that such data is shared across “ a national network of universities meeting the changing environmental and economic needs of Americans in coastal ocean and Great Lakes regions.”


NOAA Makes it White Hot in Wisconsin

But our intrepid anonymous whistleblower wasn’t done yet. He pointed out that Egg Harbor, Wisconsin, really got cooking this July 4th around 9:59AM, according to NOAA and Coast Watch. It was there, at the bottom left row of the temperature data points, that the records reveal on that day a phenomenally furnace-like 600 degrees Fahrenheit.
 
Old August 18th, 2010 #138
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/caruba12.1.html

Big Green Lies Are Imploding
by Alan Caruba

As World War Two wound down, in 1945 Italian partisans found Benito Mussolini and his girlfriend trying to flee to Switzerland. They shot both of them and then hung them by their heels in the Piazza Loreto in Milan. He had led the National Fascist Party and had been the 40th prime minister from 1922 until being deposed, jailed, and rescued by his pal Adolf Hitler.

I was reminded of this when I read a list of 1970 Earth Day predictions because, sooner or later, lies implode and the liars must be held accountable.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something,” said Kenneth Watt, an ecologist, when asked about global warming.

“Civilizations will end within 15 to 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” said George Wald, a Harvard biologist.

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” said Barry Commoner, a Washington University biologist.

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100–200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years,” predicted Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and author, none of whose predictions ever came true.

It’s been 40 years since the first Earth Day.

This, of course, brings us to the greatest serial liar of our era, former vice president Al Gore, author of “Earth in the Balance,” the star of An Inconvenient Truth, Nobel Prize winner, Oscar winner, and surely worthy of being metaphorically hung by his heels for general repudiation, disdain, and ignominy.

Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com and the GreenHellBlog, reported that Al Gore told a conference call of supporters that the battle to enact a Cap-and-Trade bill, imposing limits on so-called greenhouse gases, and creating “carbon credits” to be bought like medieval indulgences for the remission of sin, that “The federal government has failed us.”

No, what failed was the long, relentless and utterly mendacious campaign to convince people that global warming was an actual event and a genuine threat to the Earth. It never was because it was utter fiction. Well, the part about massive increases in the Earth’s overall temperature was. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has gone through a succession of ice ages and warming periods since it began.

To demonstrate how deranged Gore is, he actually blamed a “biased right-wing media…bolstered by professional deniers.” There is The Wall Street Journal and Fox News whose reporting reflects a conservative philosophy and outlook, but the rest of the mainstream media has been so demonstrably left-wing there was little else available to the public until the advent of cable television and the Internet. And they all lied about global warming.

In November 2009 the release of thousands of emails between the small band of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “scientists” revealed they were a cabal of data fabricators who were by then increasingly alarmed that global warming wasn’t happening despite their best efforts to deceive the entire world. The event was dubbed “Climategate.”

Now we learn that a U.S. funded agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in a new scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that misrepresent average temperatures there. The latest word as of Wednesday, August 11, is that NOAA has removed an entire NOAA-16 satellite data set from its website – leading some to wonder if a decade’s worth of North American data will be discredited.

In sum, do not trust NOAA and most definitely, do not trust the Environmental Protection Agency that is desperately trying to get authorization to regulate carbon dioxide on the grounds that it is causing global warming. This isn’t just a rogue agency. The EPA has the look of a criminal enterprise bent on destroying the U.S. economy.

There is NO global warming and hasn’t been any for a decade as the Earth has been cooling thanks to a predictable lack of sunspot activity known to affect the overall planetary temperatures.

The Green lies are imploding. In the midst of a very ugly recession, the nation’s governors can do us all a favor by ending all funding to the various “environmental” programs tied to the global-warming fraud.

The next Congress, if power is transferred to the Republican Party, should begin to trim the budget of billions of bogus “climate” and related “environmental” related programs.

It’s time to send the liars packing. It’s time to regain our fiscal and environmental sanity.
 
Old August 30th, 2010 #139
Hugo Böse
Jeunesse Dorée
 
Hugo Böse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Four Seasons Jalalabad
Posts: 9,747
Default A particularly stupid piece from the FT

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d1fd25c-9...44feab49a.html

Research says climate change undeniable
Quote:
International scientists have injected fresh evidence into the debate over global warming, saying that climate change is “undeniable” and shows clear signs of “human fingerprints” in the first major piece of research since the “Climategate” controversy.

The research, headed by the US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration, is based on new data not available for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 2007, the target of attacks by sceptics in recent years.

The NOAA study drew on up to 11 different indicators of climate, and found that each one pointed to a world that was warming owing to the influence of greenhouse gases, said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK’s Met Office, one of the agencies participating.

Seven indicators were rising, he said. These were: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, marine air temperature, sea level, ocean heat, humidity, and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the earth’s surface. Four indicators were declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers, spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere, and stratospheric temperatures.

Mr Stott said: “The whole of the climate system is acting in a way consistent with the effects of greenhouse gases.” “The fingerprints are clear,” he said. “The glaringly obvious explanation for this is warming from greenhouse gases.”
Some scientists hailed the study as a refutation of the claims made by climate sceptics during the “Climategate” saga. Those scandals involved accusations – some since proven correct – of flaws in the IPCC’s landmark 2007 report, and the release of hundreds of emails from climate scientists that appeared to show them distorting certain data.

“This confirms that while all of this [Climategate] was going on, the earth was continuing to warm. It shows that Climategate was a distraction, because it took the focus off what the science actually says,” said Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics.
But the report nonetheless remained the target of scorn for sceptics.

Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the US, said the new report would not change people’s minds. “It’s clear that the scientific case for global warming alarmism is weak. The scientific case for [many of the claims] is unsound and we are finding out all the time how unsound it is.”

Pat Michaels, a prominent climate sceptic, ex-professor of environmental sciences and fellow of the Cato Institute in the US, said the NOAA study and other evidence suggested that the computerised climate models had overestimated the sensitivity of the earth’s temperature to carbon dioxide. This would mean that the earth could warm a little under the influence of greenhouse gases, but not by as much as the IPCC and others have predicted.

“I think it is the lack of frankness about this that emerged with Climategate, and that seems to continue [that make people doubt the findings],” he said.
Steve Goddard, a blogger, said the conclusion that the first half of 2010 showed a record high temperature was “based on incorrect, fabricated data” because the researchers involved did not have access to much information on Arctic temperatures.

David Herro, the financier, who follows climate science as a hobby, said NOAA also “lacks credibility”.

But Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of NOAA, said the study found that the average temperature in the world had increased by 0.56° C (1° F) over the past 50 years. The rise “may seem small, but it has already altered our planet ... Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying, and heat waves are more common.”
__________________
_______
Political correctness is an intellectual gulag.
 
Old August 31st, 2010 #140
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642

CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED

Tuesday August 31 2010

THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research.

Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”

Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”

The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence” after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.

It condemned the panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best scientific advice on climate change – for its “slow and inadequate response” after the damaging errors emerged.

Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent.

It also claimed that water supplies for between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.

The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected.

Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”

In yesterday’s report, the IAC said: “The IPCC needs to reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how to respond to climate change.”

The review also cast doubt on the future of IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

Earlier this year, the Daily Express reported how he had no climate science qualifications but held a PhD in economics and was a former railway engineer.

Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research Institute, is set to receive up to £10million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.

Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: “We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments.

“The scientific community agrees that climate change is real. Greenhouse gases have increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values.”
 
Reply

Tags
global warming hoax, global warming scam, hoax of the 21st century

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 AM.
Page generated in 0.60721 seconds.