Carnival Barker: Step right up folks and see the incredible melting glacier...global warming on display right before your eyes.
Small Boy: Excuse me sir..glaciers have been growing and receding for millions of years.
Carnival Barker: Get outta here kid...yer bothering me! Step right up folks!!!
The ClimateGate deniers, you know, those Leftist environmentalcase statists who still believe that the science on global warming is settled, continue to march on as if nothing has changed in their world…kind of like Obama who wants to double down on his Leftist agenda in the wake of the Massachusetts Massacre.
So for the time being we will continue to be subjected to:
Earth Day
Going Green!! (Hey kids...green is the new red)
Eco-friendly green jobs, eco-friendly smart cars, eco-friendly smart grids, eco-friendly smart thermostats, eco-friendly alternative energy, eco-friendly wind and solar power
CFL lightbulbs...the ones that need a HazMat team for the cleanup if they break
Carbon footprints and "dangerous" CO2 gas emissions
NBC Earth Week and the ridiculous green icon on the lower right hand side of the TV screen
NEA-controlled teachers exhorting their captive audiences to save the earth and protect the planet.
Advertisements for silly little hybrids and clown cars exhorting us to save the earth and protect the planet.
Advertisements exhorting us to recycle everything to save the earth and protect the planet.
Insufferable, holier-than-thou shoppers schlepping their overused ratty-ass germ-laden eco-friendly shopping bags into stores so they can convince themselves they are saving the earth and protecting the planet.
Al Gore (he is a small "planet in peril" unto himself)
AFP Update: Jan. 30, 2010
Al qaeda strongman Osama bin Laden has jumped on the climate change bandwagon calling for world to boycott American goods and an end to the dollar's domination as a world currency, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a newly released audiotape.
Bin Laden said that the way to stop climate change is to bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt. He also blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."
"We should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible. I know that this has great consequences and grave ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America."
So what else is new? Note to Al Gore: When you and your socialist pals find yourselves on the same side as Osama bin Laden, and in the wake of ClimateGate and Glaciergate, it might be time to take your Climate Change bucks and go sit on a beach somewhere, enjoy your retirement, and leave the rest of us alone with our incandescent lightbulbs.
Meanwhile the Information Commissioner's office at the University of East Anglia accused Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), also at the University of East Anglia, of breaking the law when he refused to give raw data to the public. However the scientist will escape prosecution because the offenses took place more than six months ago.
Talk about a short staute of limitations and the fix being in. It pays to have friends in the right place.
Meanwhile more climate fraud has been unveiled…this time at the U.N. We are shocked…SHOCKED!!
When it comes to unsubstantiated research we always turn to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC.
The IPCC issued a now discredited 2007 report insisted that the Himalayan glaciers-which feed the rivers that in turn feed much of South Asia-were very likely to nearly disappear by the year 2035. "The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the [sic] global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases." That date turned out to be wrong. There were other bogus claims as well, among them:
that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the United States (it was 1934)
that sea levels could soon rise by up to 20 feet and put Florida underwater (an 18-inch rise by the year 2100 is the more authoritative estimate)
that polar bears are critically endangered by global warming (most polar bear populations appear to be stable or increasing)
Rajendra Pachauri, chief U.N. climate change fraud and head of the IPCC, said that the U.N. body was studying how the IPCC "derived" (ginned up) the information about glacier retreat, according to a spokesman at the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, where Dr. Pachauri is the director. Pachauri said glaciers were melting, but the 2035 date was now "in question."
It's amazing how much of what the U.N. does is always in question.
Last November 2009 Pachauri delivered a blistering rebuke to India's environment minister for casting doubt on the notion that global warming was causing the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.
"We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."
The IPCC has finally gotten around to acknowledging that the claim was "poorly substantiated," though Mr. Pachauri also suggested it amounted to little more than a scientific typo. This admission of error comes on heels of the East Anglia Climategate scandal which occurred just prior to the 2009 Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.
The IPCC report cited a 1999 article in New Scientist magazine that quoted Indian glacier expert Syed Hasnain as saying Himalayan glaciers could disappear "within forty years" but it made no reference to 2035. Hasnain said in another New Scientist article that his previous assertions were based on "speculation" rather than firm science.
Even more interesting is that the IPCC was warned in 2006 by leading glaciologist Georg Kaser that the 2035 forecast was baseless. "This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," Kaser told the Agence France-Presse. "It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing."
Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the 2007 report by said J.Graham Cogley, a professor of geography and glaciers at Trent University in Peterborough, Canada, forcing the Nobel prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful.
"There's a failure to review this data adequately by qualified experts. It is a very shoddily written section," said Cogley. "It wasn't copy-edited properly." Pachauri's scientific typo, no doubt.
Cogley cited these mistakes:
"Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world." Cogley and Michael Zemp of the World Glacier Monitoring System said Himalayan glaciers are melting at about the same rate as other glaciers.
If the Earth continues to warm, the "likelihood of them disappearing by the 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." Nowhere in peer-reviewed science literature is 2035 mentioned. However, there is a study from Russia that says glaciers could come close to disappearing by 2350. The numbers in the date were probably transposed, Cogley said.
"Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035." Cogley said there are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.
The entire paragraph is attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from the WWF, Cogley said. And further, the IPCC likes to brag that it is based on peer-reviewed science, not advocacy group reports. Cogley said the WWF cited the popular science press as its source.
A table says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters. Then comes a math mistake: It says that's a rate of 135.2 meters a year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year.
Getting caught with their hands in the climate change cookie jar hasn't affected any of these frauds. So they responded by circling the wagons. A number of scientists pointed out that no one is disputing the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and that the mistakes in the IPCC report do not invalidate the main conclusion that global warming is without a doubt man-made and a threat.
Cogley : "I'm convinced that the great bulk of the work reported in the IPCC volumes was trustworthy and is trustworthy now as it was before the detection of this mistake."
"What is happening now is comparable with the Titanic sinking more slowly than expected," Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s senior climate change official said in his e-mail. "But that does not alter the inevitable consequences, unless rigorous action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is taken. The credibility of the IPCC depends on the thoroughness with which its procedures are adhered to," said de Boer. "The procedures have been violated in this case. That must not be allowed to happen again because the credibility of climate change policy can only be based on credible science."
Mr. de Boer, with all due respect, nobody believes you or your lapdog Pachauri. Your "data gathering" procedures were followed to the letter.
"The IPCC has established a reputation as a real gold standard in assessment; this is an unfortunate black mark," said Chris Field, a Stanford University professor who in 2008 took over as head of this part of the IPCC research. "None of the experts picked up on the fact that these were poorly substantiated numbers. From my perspective, that's an area where we have an opportunity to do much better."
The skeptics responded:
Colorado University environmental science and policy professor Roger Pielke Jr. said the errors point to a "systematic breakdown in IPCC procedures," and that means there could be more mistakes.
Patrick Michaels, a global warming skeptic and scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called on the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, to resign, adding: "I'd like to know how such an absurd statement made it through the review process. It is obviously wrong."
For the record, most Himalayan glaciers do seem to be retreating, and they have been "since the earliest recordings began around the middle of the nineteenth century," according to a report from India's ministry of environment and forests. The reasons are complex and still poorly understood, and we're glad to see responsible scientists acknowledge as much. If more of them could help the IPCC get its facts straight, we might put more stock in its reports.
Meanwhile the UN has abandoned it's timetable to reach a global deal when it waived the first deadline of the process laid out at last month'sdisastrous Copenhagen summit. The participating nations agreed then to declare their emissions reduction targets by the end of January 2010. Developed countries would state their intended cuts by 2020: developing countries would outline how they would curb emissions growth.
But Yvo de Boer, the UN's senior climate change official, admitted the deadline had been shelved.
"You could describe it as a soft deadline," de Boer said. "There is nothing deadly about it. If [countries] fail to meet it, they can still associate with the Copenhagen accord after."
The "developing" countries and the despots who run them will be disappointed because they will be unable to push their climate change extortion racket as readily.
In other words: where's the money? Where's the wealth redistribution that was promised to us?
Folks, man made climate change is an elaborate global wealth redisribution scheme, a con, a scam and a fraud. More and more people in high places are starting to say so:
Godfrey Bloom, European Parliament, Ovt 20 2009:
With the loss of Obama's super-majority in the Senate, the climate change cap-and-trade bill is all but dead in the Senate. Instead, the administration will do an end run around the will of the American people through regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency has unveiled new draft rules that would sharply tighten regulations on so-called greenhouse gas emissions by ruling that carbon dioxide and five other gases pose a danger to health.
This is what Leftists do. As with Obamacare, the con artists, frauds and political grifters running the country will try to jam through their agenda Alinsky-style through legislative sleight-of-hand like reconciliation, or through the courts or through heavy-handed regulation. The ends justify the means.
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by "Climategate."
If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to "strongly reconsider" her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.
What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic a la Al Gore.
Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
The revelation of Climategate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth's temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974-87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
"It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in."
Dr Lal's admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC's statement of principles, its role is 'to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information - IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy'.
The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres - the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as 'unsound', and saying it 'regrets any confusion caused'.
Dr Lal said: 'We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was "grey literature" [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.'
In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.
'My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,' he said.
'But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn't seem to me that exaggerating the problem's seriousness is going to help solve it.'
One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: 'Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.'
When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as 'voodoo science'.
Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.
It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. 'We as authors followed them to the letter,' he said. 'Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.'
However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.
For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.
In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were 'unable to get hold of the suggested references', but would 'consider' this in their final version. They failed to do so.
The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was 'very high'. 'What is the confidence level?' it asked.
The authors' response said 'appropriate revisions and editing made'. But the final version was identical to their draft.
Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.
Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. 'He didn't contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,' he said.
The damage to the IPCC's reputation, already tarnished by last year's 'Warmergate' leaked email scandal, is likely to be considerable.
Benny Peiser, the GWPF's director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was 'skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments'.
Environmentalist Alton Byers said the panel's credibility had been damaged. 'They've done sloppy work,' he said. 'We need better research on the ground, not unreliable predictions derived from computer models.'
Last night, Dr Pachauri defended the IPCC, saying it was wrong to generalise based on a single mistake. 'Our procedure is robust,' he added.
