Posted on 11/29/2009 5:17:03 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
* UN climate panel report "in no way" tarnished
* Review process makes bias impossible
LONDON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - The head of the U.N.'s panel of climate experts rejected accusations of bias on Thursday, saying a "Climategate" row in no way undermined evidence that humans are to blame for global warming.
Climate change sceptics have seized on a series of e-mails written by specialists in the field, accusing them of colluding to suppress data which might have undermined their arguments.
The e-mails, some written as long as 13 years ago, were stolen from a British university by unknown hackers and spread rapidly across the Internet.
But Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stood by his panel's 2007 findings, called the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). "This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings," he told Reuters in an email exchange.
This report helped to underpin a global climate response which included this week carbon emissions targets proposed by the United States and China, and won the IPCC a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
The e-mails hacked from Britain's University of East Anglia last week showed scientists made snide comments about climate sceptics, and revealed exchanges about how to present the data to make the global warming argument look convincing.
In one e-mail, confirmed by the university as genuine, a scientist jokingly referred to ways of ensuring papers which doubted established climate science did not appear in the AR4.
Pachauri said a laborious selection process, using only articles approved by other scientists, called peer review, and then subsequently approving these by committee had prevented distortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
See page 20 of the 25 page PDF for a marvelous Graphic representation of what the purpose of the careful modification of the climate data leads to...
If the email is on public servers paid for with taxpayer dollars, they are not private.
An overt, explicit, inescapable, baldface by the 2nd word.
It cannot damage the credibility, since they never had credibility to begin with.
Vermin.
Excellent....thanks!
Ha, untarnished in their own eyes, perhaps.
The Missing Hotspot ...more easily available:
*****************************EXCERPT*********************************
The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.
If greenhouses gases are warming the planet that warming will happen first in the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It’s freezing cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less freezing cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All 20-odd climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to warming by some other cause, like solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, or ozone depletion etc etc.
Look at A above, the greenhouse gas fingerprint is markedly different from the rest and dominates the overall predicted pattern in graph F. The big problem for the believers of AGW is that years of radiosonde measurements can’t find any warming, as shown in part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 of the US CCSP 2006 report
SOURCES:
(A) Predicted changes 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000;
(B) Hadley Radiosonde record: Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP,, Chapter 5, p116, recorded change/decade, Hadley Centre weather balloons 1979-1999, p. 116 , fig. 5.7E, from Thorne et al., 2005.
Perhaps we’re looking in the wrong spot and the hot-spot is lurking somewhere else?
If we are, that gets us right back to square one. The theory of greenhouse gas warming depends on finding a hotter spot of air above the equator… if that hot spot is somewhere else, the greenhouse theory itself collapses in a heap. It means either the greenhouse effect is not causing much of the recent warming, or the greenhouse theory is just plain wrong. AGW supporters are not asking this question because they can’t win either way.
Possibly we just can’t measure the air temperatures accurately enough to find the hot-spot?
Maybe, but we’ve been recording temperatures up there repeatedly for decades, and it’s not that the hot-spot is weak—it’s absent. There is no sign at all.
AGW says: Santer and Sherwood have found the missing hot spot.
Skeptics say: Santer uses statistics to show that the hot spot might be hidden under the noise. He hasn’t found any sign of warming–just the sign of fog in the results. Sherwood ignores the thermometers altogether and uses wind gauges to tell us the temperature. (Who’d a thought?!)
On my blog there’s more answers to the claims that the hot spot is not missing here.
See all posts tagged “Missing Hot Spot”
The bottom line is that either the thermometers are wrong or the theory is.
On David Evans site there’s a full definitive explanation of the missing hot spot and all the common attempts to rebut it on one pdf here (25 pages). If you can’t open it in Mozilla try Explorer.
Excerpt:
**”Delete all emails related to AR4”**
Hmm, sounded pretty bad to me
I think we need a graphic of the AR4 Report as toilet paper.
*PING* to post #27 this thread.
Cheers!
Its only a flesh wound!
Unmentioned is that the emails showed that the fraudulent scientists CONTROLLED the peer review process. THEY WERE THE PEERS REVIEWING EACH OTHER.
Arrest!Prosecute! Imprison! That is what we do to frauds and extortionists in America.
Only we need to remember this and live up to it when we take thess cretans we have now in Amercia and do the same in the not to dostant future.
Ill second this motion!
Excellent!
Thanks for adding.
I just have one question. Does this mean we can go back to using incandescent light bulbs?
The “people” will buy this hook, line and sinker...
because the “people” are too busy twittering.
What are WE going to do about?
The time for talk is over.
Thanks to dr_lew for doing the photoshop.
Cheers!
These people work for the purposes of the IPCC in formulating an UN controlled global economy building a tax base to spread the wealth internationally.
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.htm
Global Warming, Falling in the same foot steps of Jim Jones JonesTown.
Tells you a GREAT DEAL about the intent of the Nobel Committee awarding the Peace Prize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.