Beam me to Planet Gore !
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 ...
Climate change data dumped!!!!!!!!
I.E.> they only kept the modified data...
What BS! We already had enough sense to know it was junk science and the e-mails proved it.
Sorry UN, you do not get to tell us what we see and know with our own eyes. Take a hike!
Just more evidence that the real agenda isn’t saving the climate, but controlling the world.
This is the biggest fraud going. Bigger than Madoff and Enron and every other financial scandal in history COMBINED!!
Arrest!Prosecute! Imprison! That is what we do to frauds and extortionists in America.
This is what we get when tax dollars are used to support scientific studies with a political motive.
Show of hands, now....
Who here has ever actually been shilled by college profs in such as way as to indicate that the ONLY appropriate theories were leftist/marxist? C’mon.....
Who here KNOWs college profs who dare not breathe a conservative word?
Who here has HEARD college profs confide something to effect that “we have to get them indoctrinated young?”
Reuter-wash: A division of the IPCC PR machine?
***************************EXCERPT****************************
The IPCC says ClimateGate doesn’t change anything. (Well Shock Me! Really?)
Source: Reuters
Imagine if a politician called “Jones” had been caught emailing a colleague saying “Delete all those files. Don’t tell anyone about that off-shore tax haven I have. Burn those receipts, ask Keith to burn his too and I’ll let Casper know. By the way, I’ve used that accounting trick Mike talked about to hide the money.”
Let Reuter-wash swing into gear and the “news” article would blandly say Jones’ emails were “seized upon by his opponents, showing he made snide comments, and talked about ways to present his accounts in the most favourable light”. In other words, Reuters wouldn’t mention that he’s been caught red-handed and implicated as a colluding fraud who squandered funds and mislead the public. What’s really newsworthy is that he’s been exposed being not-very-nice, and glossing up his reports. Would we sack those journalists? We couldn’t. But we could cancel our subscriptions and just go searching blogs for the real news.
Here’s the actual Reuter-wash:
“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.”
Gerard Wynn, the Reuters “journalist” did mention the word “collude” but only as an accusation made by opponents about data that might have weakened an otherwise very strong, well backed, and over analysed case.
“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 Reuter-wash words of choice are “accusing” and “might have”. These qualifiers can take the sting out of any sentence.
Reuters gives plenty of space for the IPCC’s view of how well researched their material is:
“The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments,” he added in a written statement to Reuters.
“There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.” (My italics)
And of course, there’s no mention of how East Anglia scientists work hard to make sure that skeptics can’t pass that peer reviewed hurdle.
“This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.”
Below are the detailed questions from the open-minded and well informed journalist who searches for the possibility that the IPCC might not be the Global God of perfect committees:
Reuters IPCC Question-list
………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
That’s right. The investigation into the IPCC point of view can be described as “swallowed whole and repeated verbatim”. They accept without question the idea that there is “no possibility” any contrarian views would have been excluded, even though the emails show that IPCC leading scientists were trying and claiming privately to do exactly that. It’s clear the IPCC is going for the big ambit bluff here, and Reuters are just nodding. There is no admission that the IPCC could possibly have done anything even remotely better. The words “extensive”, “repeated”,”experts”, “thoroughness”, “every assessment”, “no possibility” and “ensure” is a lexicon of utter certainty. The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachuri, even claims there’s nothing “accidental”, which is possibly a Freudian slip. In this context of the leaked emails, he’s saying that the IPCC lauding and repetition from scientists with undenied criminal intent, was… no accident. OK. So maybe it wasn’t.
Observe here the special moment where Reuters quote the Imaginary Global Spokesman for All Scientists. Here he or she is, pronouncing the full summary of the meaning of the 160Mb of information that was leaked:
“The revelation of the e-mails was more embarrassing than serious fodder for doubts about the causes of, or basis for climate change, scientists responded this week.”
So, we don’t need to investigate all those other documents right? All that computer code, it’s not important?
Once again, it shows that “science” and “scientists” is a brand name any authoritative unit can wield and exploit. Why would Reuters, who used to pride themselves for their journalistic ability, advertise their bias so nakedly? They won’t interview the skeptical experts, or the skeptical politicians. They cover for fraudulent scientists, and the bureaucracies that use these scientists.
News of ClimateGate is running riot on the web. The word came into existence a week ago, and there are 5 million hits on the term today. Do the Reuters team think that no one will notice how much they risk their journalistic reputations on this?
Or could it be that since Reuters was taken over by Thompson Financial, a company that provides market news to financial corporations, that the conflict of interest that was feared has already arrived?
“Robert Peston, business editor at BBC News, stated that this has worried Reuters journalists, both because they are concerned that Reuters’ journalism business will be marginalized by the financial data provision business of the combined company, and because of the threat to Reuters’s reputation for unbiased journalism by the appearance of one majority shareholder.” Wikipedia.
Most of Thompson Financial’s largest clients must be the same companies who will profit wildly from carbon trading. Amazing coincidence, eh?
LOL!
Cue the Monte Python Black Knight duel sketch.
“Its just a flesh wound”
Pass the popcorn, please.
In the old Soviet Union, they used to swear that their elections were not rigged. Of course, each office only had one candidate running, and all party members were expected to vote. But, hey, it was a fair election. Trust us.
and some written as recently as 13 days ago...
Jokingly! Seriously, I was just kidding.
Posts tagged The Skeptics Handbook
This is circling the Globe:
The Skeptics Handbook ( as in Skeptics of the Global Warming IPCC Story)
**********************************
…
“The science has changed since 2003″
…
This booklet has captured attention around the world.
Donors have paid for over 160,000 copies so far in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and soon in Germany. Volunteers have translated it into German, French, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Turkish, Portuguese and Danish. (Versions in Japanese, Dutch, Spanish, and possibly Italian are on the way). Updates are placed here, along with translations, as well as places to read comments and links to the web-pages where each part of the handbook will be discussed.
 |
… | The second Skeptics Handbook “Global Bullies Want Your Money” is out! … For information see it’s announcement. Click on the image to download the 2.5 Mb copy. A large copy will be available for better quality printing soon. Translations are coming. |
Jokingly, uh huh. Just a joke. Ha-hah, move along now...
1) Declare consensus
2) Change the data
3) Produce phony movies
4) Make lots of noise so you can pretend to not hear what you are being told
5) Change the rules of the game after the fact
6) Hire trial lawyers to sue for slander, damages and trial lawyer fees
7) Bury your head in the sand
8) Go to Copenhagen
The Missing Hotspot ---The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.
*********************************EXCERPT INTRO************************************
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.
***********************************************
See the Graphs at JoNova website
**********************************
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
*************************************
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.
Latest Weather Channel headline:
GORE’S GLOBAL FLATULENCE HACKED! GORE VOWS TO EAT MORE BEANS!
*********************************************************
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.