This broke yesterday, just in case you missed it. Seems like those dire “Scientific” predictions that the Himalayan glaciers are all gonna melt away due to Global Warming were a bit less than scientific, in fact, this bombshell that has fueled the Global Warming hysteria for years was based upon a short phone call to an obscure Indian scientist who was speculating out his ass because there had been NO formal research done to back up said speculation!
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Related Internet Links
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped:
Go read it all. Ain’t it grand that our Obamessiah and his HarryPelosi lawmakers want to followup Obamacare with Cap & trade Crap & Tax legislation to tax the livin’ bejeesus out of all of us to stop the Global Warming that ALL, most, some, a few, well, maybe one or two, real-live-actual climate scientists actually, really, well maybe just a little bit believe.
Mostly they are just trying to keep that Global Warming grant money rolling in. Ol’ Big Al Gore just wants you to buy his Carbon Offsets so that he can light up that big ol’ mansion of his.
BTW — it’s balls off the brass monkey freezin’ in Boston. That won’t stop the Brown voters! Maybe we’re gonna get a pass on both Obamacare and Crap & Tax?
The only thing worse than gettin’ your tit caught in the wringer, is gettin’ both tits caught in the wringer. If you thought that Climategate was going to be bad news for the anthropogenic global warming hysterics, check out this news from a Russian economics institute:
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration. [Emph: mine]
OK, let’s recap: Climate-change-“believing” scientists cherry picked data from the 25% of the Russian meteorological stations and observatories that support their claims of global warming and totally ignored the data from the 40% that showed no warming for the last 100+ years. They also chose to use data from sources that were incomplete rather than those that supplied “uninterrupted observations”, once again because the interrupted data sets show warming while the contiguous ones do not.
Wow — Sounds like science fiction, not science.
Actually, to me it sounds like collusion and corruption and global fraud.Isn’t there a RICO act provision to use against these criminals? Not that the Obamanaughts would ever . . .
At the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research there’s a recap of Kenneth P. Greens’ Nov. 10, 2009 testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance about global warming issues. Specifically they cover Green’s response to Senator John Kerry’s (D-MA) assertion that “not one peer-reviewed paper contradicts the “consensus” view that greenhouse gas emissions will cause devastating consequences[.]”
Readers of this blog know better, but this is the accepted talking point pushed by the Holy Order of Global Warming Hysteria and its minions — hundreds of which are FREEZING their tookuses (tooki?) off in Copenhagen where all that anthropogenic Global Warming is making standing in line for hours in near-freezing tempsinteresting. Heh!
But, back to Green. Along with citing numerous peer-reviewed papers calling AGW into question and or calling into question the research leading to the pro AGW positions, he gave Senator Kerry and whoever else bothered to show up for that hearing a little lesson on the potential economic effects of Cap & Trade legislation.
Cap-and-trade is an inappropriate mechanism for the control of greenhouse gases. I observed that this was not only my opinion, but also that of the economists who first developed the concept, as well as people like James Hansen, and the organization Earth First!, neither of which are known to dismiss climate change as a problem. I have subsequently learned that Greenpeace also opposes cap-and-trade as a mechanism for controlling greenhouse gases.
Cap-and-trade will fail to control carbon emissions because of inevitable corruptions of the scheme in the political process and afterward in trading markets.
Cap-and-trade will, however, cap economic growth, as every time the economy grows, we use more energy, which will increase permit prices, eventually stifling growth.
Higher energy prices will increase the costs of goods and services, suppressing demand and killing jobs.
Higher energy prices will make American industry less competitive, leading to industry flight and more lost jobs, unless we wish to return to the days of tariff-wars and unfree trade.
Current cap-and-trade legislation will cause economic winners and losers both regionally and sectorally across the United States, often unjustly transferring money from poorer communities to more wealthy communities.
Cap-and-trade will create a new class of poorly understood financial instruments (PUFIs) that risk creating a bubble far larger than the one that recently knocked the economy into a deep recession.
By favoring biofuels, cap-and-trade will put a bounty on ecosystems and lead to massive conversion of forests and prairies into biofuel plantations.
The idea that current legislation can be described as a “jobs bill” is ludicrous. One hundred and fifty years of economics tells us that governments do not create jobs, they just move them around, invariably killing more than they create.
From the revealed secret deals that were leaked last week in Copenhagen, to the stated goals of the radical environmentalists all over the globe, to our own Progressive Senators and Representatives it is absolutely crystal clear — Man-Caused Climate Change is nothing but a dangerous bit of political theater designed to scare the masses into giving their governments ever more control of their lives and to accelerate the ever ongoing redistribution of wealth, not just from OUR richer to OUR poorer, but all around the globe.
Except, of course, for those save-the-planet elites that think nothing of jet-setting to far-off places, like Copenhagen, along the way emitting tons and tons of that nasty ol’ carbon into the atmosphere, accelerating the very Global Warming they so decry, if it was actually happening — but hey, they’re doing it to SAVE Mother Gaia, don’t ya know?
Oh, ya betcha! Gaia, and their own filthy little bank balances . . . or big ones.
Iowahawk has deviated from his usual super-snark-parodies to provide a (relatively) simple-to-comprehend layman’s guide to climate-change statistical modeling. The MSM has never done much investigative homework on climate change and have constantly parroted the supposed “scientific consensus” to one and all; obviously it must take super-scientists with super-computers to crunch all those numbers, right? Iowahawk answers:
Au contraire! The climate reconstruction models used by Mann, et al. are relatively simple to derive, don’t take a lot of data points, and don’t require any special or expensive software. In fact, anybody with a decent PC can build a replica at home for free. Here’s how:
I didn’t play along with my Open Office Calc, but I did read through all of it. My head’s kinda spinning right now, but I certainly do get the drift. The graphs representing the analysis are only as good as the data being used to do the modeling. The significance of the Climategate emails and working-data that was released by the hackers for, finally some independent review, is that the climate scientists have been massaging their working data for decades. Their credo: If the data didn’t predict the intended outcome, ie rapidly accelerating temperatures at the end of the 20th Century, then keep working the little suckers until it did just that!Tossing all the original core data into the dustbin of history leaving only the manipulated data for further review was a masterful touch, a veritable scientific touché on the skeptics, so to speak. “Here you climate heretics, just try and prove us wrong now — HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! Can’t be done! Our Hockey Stick is the most robustest of all Hockey Sticks!”
Oh . . . really? As Iowahawk so deftly puts it:
What you’ll find is that contrary to Mann’s assertion that the hockey stick is “robust,” you’ll find that the reconstructions tend to be sensitive to the data selection. M&M found, for example, that temperature reconstructions for the 1400s were higher or lower than today, depending on whether bristlecone pine tree rings were included in the proxies.
What the leaked emails reveal, among other things, is some of that bit of principal component sausage making. But more disturbing, they reveal that the actual data going into the reconstruction model — the instrumental temperature data and the proxy variables themselves — were rife for manipulation. In the laughable euphemism of Philip Jones, “value added homogenized data.” The data I provided here was the real, value added global temperature and proxy data, because Phil told me so. Trust me!
The idiocy of hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon emissions being spewed into the atmosphere by all those Global Warming zealots and lip-smackingly-tax & power-hungry statists that have congregated in Copenhagen for the mother of all Climate Change Circle Jerks is off the scale. In a move to impress this gathering of the most Climate Change holy, our Chosen One President, BHO, is expected to have ‘his’ EPA declare that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant. As you might expect, business is tad bit concerned.
EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.
The Saudis in Copenhagen called for an investigation into Climategate, saying “[W]e think this [Climategate] is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations[.]” Seeing as how the MSM has been in total lockstep mode to cover up and keep the American public in the dark about the climate-scandal-emails and screwed-around-with data, ya think someone over at NBC, CBS, ABC, the NYT and LAT et all might just bother to mention the Saudi statement? Don’t hold your breath.
You won’t be hearing anything about California’s little Climategate scandal either, cause doing so would upset too many eco-religious apple carts. Here’s the skinny. Basically, CARB (California Air Resources Board) made a ruling that CO2 was a dangerous pollutant and then followed up with regulations on diesel trucks that would be retro-active to models that had never been subject to emission controls. The ruling was based upon scientific findings by a scientist, or more accurately a statistician with a PHD — or, whoops! Maybe not a REAL PHD. Today’s Trucking has that covered:
There are calls to suspend California’s statewide Truck and Bus Rule because of allegations that research behind the legislation was tainted.
Members of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have taken to the media to request that the board suspend the truck rule, which would require exhaust filter retrofits and engine upgrades starting in 2011 and the replacement of pre-2010 model engines between 2012 to 2022.
CARB members Ron Roberts and Dr. John Telles allege that CARB had tried to cover up that the lead scientist and coordinator of the research used to justify the new emissions rules, had lied about holding a Ph.D. in statistics.
Hien T. Tran’s Ph.D. was the mail-order version, according to local media reports, and senior CARB officials were aware that his falsified credentials before voting on the truck retrofit legislation.
Telles, a cardiologist on the board, wrote a letter to the air board’s chief counsel, saying CARB staff failed to meet its “ethical if not legal obligation” to provide all board members with pertinent information before a vote on a state regulation.
Like Telles, Roberts is generally in favor of the rule, but admonished how it was achieved. He penned a 750-word guest commentary in the San Diego Union-Tribune last week, alerting the public to the cover-up.
Estimated costs of this little rule? $4.5 billion! That oughta put some CA truckers and trucking companies out of business, with what’s left of the industry passing that cost along to the rest of us via higher shipping rates — all to save a little tree food! But the most damning thing is that CARB doesn’t give a whit about their fake-PHD-holding expert. “Nothin’ goin’ on around here . . . just move along.”
Beginning with two editorials in late December 2008, this editorial page repeatedly has criticized the California Air Resources Board for its headline-hunting decision to adopt unprecedentedly sweeping and costly diesel-emission rules at its meeting earlier that month. Soon after that meeting, we had confirmed that Hien Tran – lead author and coordinator of the study justifying the rules – lied about having a Ph.D. in statistics from the University of California Davis.
Our subsequent reporting showed senior air board officials from Chairwoman Mary Nichols down knew of Tran’s academic fraud before the Dec. 12, 2008, vote but chose not to inform the public, the media or most of the board members who voted for the diesel rules.
The outrageousness of this deceit is finally being acknowledged. One of the board members who was kept in the dark – Fresno cardiologist John Telles – learned of the deception earlier this fall. Now Telles and another board member, San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts, are calling for suspension of the diesel rules.
But the reaction from the agency’s hierarchy and board members to this common-sense request has been obtuse to the extreme.
Chief Counsel Ellen M. Peter told Telles that the board officials’ failure to reveal the deception before the Dec. 12 vote didn’t amount to a violation of proper procedures.
Nichols is worst of all. In an e-mail to Telles, she acknowledged Tran’s fraud was “illegal and unethical” and apologized for not disclosing it to the full board before the vote. But she characterized the matter as a “distraction” and a “stupid personnel problem” – not a real scandal.
It was, is and will continue to be a real scandal until the rules are suspended and a new study is done. It is worth remembering why the scandal ever came to light: because UCLA epidemiologist James E. Enstrom was so dismayed by the study’s omission of crucial evidence that he began looking into Tran’s background.
That’s how it’s done in the big leagues folks — lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, destroy, ruin — all action verbs for the Climate Change believers that want to see our modern way of life sent packing back to the stone age, those that want to increase the power of the state and control every little thing that you think, say or do, right down to the light bulbs in your lamps, those that want to be granted the power to tax, Tax, TAX the very beejeezus out of us to fund their oppressive Utopian fantasies — all in the name of saving poor, distressed little Mother Gaia.
Actually, I think that our little planet can take care of its own self, and really doesn’t give a whit about what we pathetic humans do — witness Boxing Day 2004.
Trying to change Earth’s climate with CO2 emission controls is like standing on the beach and waving your fist at the tsunami — a fool’s errand, all for naught.