The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > Political Debate

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-29-2009, 07:01 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Lightbulb Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.



By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009


CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty



A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work.

It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 11-30-2009, 09:35 AM
reconeil's Avatar
reconeil reconeil is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avenel, New Jersey
Posts: 5,967
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default Puposefully Rigged Science

Trillions of Dollars (NO DOUBT MOSTLY U.S. Taxpayer Monies!!!) will be spent to avert 'IT' (re: Bogusly Concocted Global Warming)",...pretty-much explains it all.

Whatever, and if anything, some very important realities have come to light from such truths finally being exposed. It's now obvious that Phony Al Gore & Clique are just as UNbelievable & UNtrustworthy as President Barack Hussein Obama II or Jr. & Gang.

Granted, Al's & Barack's or Barry's fanatically staunch ideologies are quite different.

But, and regardless of whether A Marxist or just some: "Sky is falling" Global Warming Nut,......just: "Follow The Money" and/or TRILLION$ of MY/YOUR/OUR Money!!!

Such Charlatan Deceivers (friends, cliques or gangs inclusive) ALWAYS Fair Quite Well Financially from their Duplicitous Deeds & Deceits.

Ever hear or heard of either A POOR Dictator, Politician or Impresario???
Well, at least in America, anyway?

Neil
__________________
My Salute & "GarryOwen" to all TRUE Patriots.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-23-2010, 09:13 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Exclamation

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report



Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent

(Bob Strong/Reuters)



Rajenda Pachauri









The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.

They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment.

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.”

He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the report , who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese.

The “co-ordinating lead authors” were Rex Victor Cruz of the Philippines, Hideo Harasawa of Japan, Murari Lal of India and Wu Shaohong of China.

But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”

He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.

It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.

The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.

An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.

Professor Hasnain, who was not involved in drafting the IPCC report, said that he noticed some of the mistakes when he first read the relevant section in 2008.

That was also the year he joined The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Dr Pachauri.

He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.

He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time.

“I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?”

Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme.

But he too admitted that it was “really odd” that none of the world’s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was a stupid error,” he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6999051.ece
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-28-2010, 10:33 AM
colmurph's Avatar
colmurph colmurph is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,047
Default

Reminds me fo the Y2K scam.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-28-2010, 11:40 AM
1CAVCCO15MED's Avatar
1CAVCCO15MED 1CAVCCO15MED is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,857
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Christopher Booker

Now there is a skeptic after my own heart. He has no political leaning, he has come out against global warming, white asbestos and second hand smoke causing cancer, and against intelligent design. He majored in history and has been both a comedic writer and newspaper columnist. I have in the past looked up the backgrounds and sponsors of people writing against global warming and found that many of them have a connection to or are paid by the Oil Industry. Then the falsified evidence from the scientists at the University of East Anglia and this thing about Himalayan glaciers comes out. Now, it is expected that bloggers and paid spokesmen will lie and try to lead the public opinion around by the nose but scientists are supposed to be held to a higher standard. They should be run out of their respective scientific organizations. Does this prove absolutely that global warming is a lie? Not by itself, not any more than the lies of the opposition prove it is true. I guess the question is what about the other evidence? Quite frankly I don't know. One thing for sure, I am not going to jump on the global warming debunker side because it is some kind of test of loyalty to the true believers of the right any more than the opposite. I am perfectly comfortable not knowing for sure if that is where my own research into the data has lead me. One thing I do know for sure is false certainty is the hallmark of a lazy fool. See my quote below.

Murph, about Y2K, the hospital where I worked had a Y2K comitteee for a year before the date, exploring every aspect of the problem and setting up safeguards. When midnight 1 Jan 2000 came around they had the entire management staff on hand in the hospital in case problems arose. I think that hospital has the distinction of being the only place where every dire prediction about Y2K was realized. The power went off, the emergency generators wouldn't come on, the phones went dead both inside and outside the hospital, the computer system crashed, and of course every vital thing powered by electricity quit. I think this says more about the incompetence of the committee system than anything else.
__________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report darrels joy Political Debate 1 11-19-2009 12:27 PM
Expeditions, Diplomatic and Scientific Activity, and Operations Against Native David Navy 0 09-17-2009 05:49 PM
Finally! The long awaited scientific proof! revwardoc General Posts 11 01-26-2005 06:51 PM
Security Impact of Rapid Climate Change thedrifter Marines 0 02-02-2004 07:37 AM
FDA ruling on PB ignores scientific facts thedrifter Gulf War 0 02-10-2003 07:10 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.