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 ...
There is one huge pot of money just waiting out there to be had by these UN’ers using either a figurative or a literal ‘scorched’ earth policy. Imagine the real numbers of money they are anticipating collecting off this scam.
I am reminded of their ‘oil’ for rotten ‘food’ program they cooked up with Saddam, and all those business opportunities that got squashed when we deposed old Saddam.
One World Global domination comes to mind.
And it becomes more curious how that out of the wild blue yonder BamaKennedy is bestowed for a prize without ever having done anything that we are aware of to earn said prize.
And just how is it that a supposed 'hacker' knew exactly where to find the 'damning' data to be released mere weeks before this global arrangement was to be agreed to?
Here's Harry the CRU programmer in his code comments:
"...getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too."
And this:
"OH (expletive) THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."
Yet the MSM still has absolute faith in the quality of the CRU's work. Yup, environmentalism is a religion.
Good Climategate stuff:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO,
The FACT that the charlatans had destroyed the underlying data.
PLUS the fact that only “friendly” peers reviewed any conclusion, with Mikes Nature Trick data included makes the GW/CC reports credible. I THINK NOT.
These guys have been living in their circular world for so long they wouldn’t know the truth if they tripped over it.
Face it guys...your high paying Grifter jobs are over.
here’s a good read
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UnprecedentedWarming.htm
w/groovy graphs, too
Where is the evidence that CO2, at anywhere near the levels we have today, leads to global warming?
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.