Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Earth Changes / Global Warming / Chemtrails / Weather Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 14-02-2010, 11:11 AM   #1381
dangermouse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: West Cork, Ireland
Posts: 4,049
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default African crops another catastrophe for the IPCC

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...-the-IPCC.html

Quote:
Ever more question marks have been raised in recent weeks over the reputations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and of its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. But the latest example to emerge is arguably the most bizarre and scandalous of all. It centres on a very specific scare story which was included in the IPCC's 2007 report, although it was completely at odds with the scientific evidence – including that produced by the British expert in charge of the relevant section of the report. Even more tellingly, however, this particular claim has repeatedly been championed by Dr Pachauri himself.

Only last week Dr Pachauri was specifically denying that the appearance of this claim in two IPCC reports, including one of which he was the editor, was an error. Yet it has now come to light that the IPCC, ignoring the evidence of its own experts, deliberately published the claim for propaganda purposes.


One of the most widely quoted and most alarmist passages in the main 2007 report was a warning that, by 2020, global warming could reduce crop yields in some countries in Africa by 50 per cent. Dr Pachauri not only allowed this claim to be included in the short Synthesis Report, of which he was co-editor, but has publicly repeated it many times since.

The origin of this claim was a report written for a Canadian advocacy group by Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan academic who draws part of his current income from advising on how to make applications for "carbon credits". As his primary sources he cited reports for three North African governments. But none of these remotely supported what he wrote. The nearest any got to providing evidence for his claim was one for the Moroccan government, which said that in serious drought years, cereal yields might be reduced by 50 per cent. The report for the Algerian government, on the other hand, predicted that, on current projections, "agricultural production will more than double by 2020". Yet it was Agoumi's claim that climate change could cut yields by 50 per cent that was headlined in the IPCC's Working Group II report in 2007.

What made this even odder, however, was that the group's
co-chairman was a British agricultural expert, Dr Martin Parry, whose consultancy group, Martin Parry Associates, had been paid £75,000 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for two reports which had come to totally different conclusions. Specifically designed to inform the IPCC's 2007 report, these predicted that by 2020 any changes were likely to be insignificant. The worst case they could come up with was that by 2080 climate change might decrease crop yields by "up to 30 per cent".

British taxpayers poured out money for the section of the IPCC report for which Dr Parry was responsible. Defra paid £2.5 million through the Met Office, plus £330,000 for Dr Parry's salary as co-chairman, and a further £75,000 to his consultancy for two more reports on the impact of global warming on world food supplies. Yet when it came to the impact on Africa, all this peer-reviewed work – including further expert reports by Britain's Dr Mike Hulme and Dutch and German teams – was ignored in favour of a prediction from one Moroccan activist at odds with his own cited sources.

However, the story then got worse when Dr Pachauri himself came to edit and co-author the IPCC's Synthesis Report (for which the IPCC paid his Delhi-based Teri institute, out of the £400,000 allocated for its production). Not only did Pachauri's version again give prominence to Agoumi's 50 per cent figure, but he himself has repeated the claim on numerous occasions since, in articles, interviews and speeches –such as the one he gave to a climate summit in Potsdam last September, where he boasted he was speaking "in the voice of the world's scientific community".

Only last week, in an interview available on YouTube, Dr Pachauri was asked about errors in the IPCC's 2007 report and his own Synthesis Report, with specific reference to the loss of North African crops. His reply was that – aside from the prediction that the IPCC has now had to disown, that Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035 – the reports contained "no errors". Passages such as those on African crops were "not errors and we are absolutely certain that what we have said over that can be substantiated".

In the wake of all the other recent scandals, "Africa-gate" may be the most damaging of all, because of the involvement of Dr Pachauri himself. Not only is the reputation of the IPCC in tatters, but that of its chairman appears irreperably damaged. Yet the world's politicians cannot afford to see him resign because, if he goes, the whole sham edifice they have sworn by would come tumbling down.
__________________
They don't just hope for our ignorance, they depend on it... it's time to break that cycle!
dangermouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2010, 06:28 PM   #1382
secret66mechanism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: southampton uk
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

China's fears of rich nation 'climate conspiracy' at Copenhagen revealed
'Conspiracy to divide developing world' will make future talks harder, says leaked government report
Rich nations furthered their "conspiracy to divide the developing world" at December's UN climate summit in Copenhagen, while Canada "connived" and the EU acted "to please the United States", according to an internal document from a Chinese government thinktank obtained by the Guardian.
The document, which was written in the immediate aftermath of Copenhagen but has only now come to light, provides the most candid insight yet into Chinese thinking on the fraught summit.
"It was unprecedented for a conference negotiating process to be so complicated, for the arguments to be so intense, for the disputes to be so wide and for progress to be so slow," notes the special report. "There was criticism and praise from all sides, but future negotiations will be more difficult."
The authors - all members of a government environmental research institute - were not part of the Chinese negotiating team, but their paper was commissioned by the environment ministry and circulated internally to the minister, vice-ministers and department chiefs in the days after the conference. The ministry currently plays only a marginal role in climate policy making but many of the paper's observations were echoed by China's chief climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, in a recent speech given at Beijing University.
The authors were downbeat about the prospects for international talks and China's position within them. "China, which was in the conference spotlight, played an active and constructive role, but was also under huge international pressure. It is predictable that our country will face a tougher challenge in future climate talks," it says.
Analysing international reaction to Copenhagen, the paper lists a selection of responses from the UN secretary-general, the Chinese foreign minister, the European commissioner, prominent NGOs and major media organisations, including the Guardian. It was written before the publication of the most strident criticisms of China's tactics by Mark Lynas, climate change adviser to the Maldives, and the UK climate and energy secretary, Ed Miliband.
Contrary to those views, the paper argues that the primary goal of China's negotiators was not to spoil the summit, but to resist a deal from rich nations that would put an unacceptable burden on China and other developing countries.
In their evaluation of the outcome, the officials' top point is that "the overall interests of developing countries have been defended" by resisting a rich nation "conspiracy" to abandon the Kyoto protocol, and with it the legal distinction between rich nations that must cut carbon emissions and developing nations for whom action is not compulsory.
The internal report acknowledges that unity among China's traditional allies in the developing world became harder to maintain in Copenhagen. "A conspiracy by developed nations to divide the camp of developing nations [was] a success," it said, citing the Small Island States' demand that the Basic group of nations - Brazil, South Africa, India, China - impose mandatory emission reductions.
The paper is scathing about the US-led "umbrella group", which it says adopted a position of inaction. Canada, it says, "was devoted to conniving" to convince the world that its pledge of a 3% emissions reduction between 1990 and 2020 is significant, while having no intention of meeting its Kyoto protocol target of 6%.
There are no comforting words for the European Union, which used to pride itself on playing a leadership role in climate talks. "Copenhagen was a setback for the EU", the authors say, in part because Europe "suggested the abandonment of the Kyoto protocol in order to please the US." The ministry has not responded to the Guardian's request for a comment on the leaked paper.
The authors note that the Copenhagen accord which emerged from the summit was not legally binding and lacked a global target for emissions. But it says that overall the accord was a "step forward", noting progress on a consensus to limit global warming within 2C, progress on the funding by rich nations of climate change adaptation measures in poorer nations and a "last minute" compromise by developing nations on the verification of their carbon pledges.
Lynas, who was present at many of the key negotiating sessions, said: "It's astonishing that this document suggests the Chinese really believes the absurd conspiracy theory that small island states were being played like puppets by rich countries. The truth is that the small island states and most vulnerable countries want China and its allies to cut their emissions because without these cuts they will not survive. Bluntly put, China is the world's No1 emitter, and if China does not reduce its emissions by at least half by mid-century, then countries like the Maldives will go under."
He added: "I think these claims of conspiracy are just a bullying tactic, to force more progressive developing countries back into line in case they too start demanding more serious action by China."
Speaking last month, China's chief climate negotiator, Xie - who also serves as vice-minister of the National Development and Reform commission which controls China's climate policy - also referred to the pressure from small island nations. "The rich nations were completely trying to make conflict among developing countries," he said.
He also described the "international fight on climate change" as a contest for economic development space and stressed that the way forward for China was to put more effort into building a low-carbon economy. "Countries with low-carbon industries will have a developmental advantage," said Xie. "Some people believe this is a global competition as significant as the space race in the cold war. "
The concluding section of the leaked document proposes a series of constructive initiatives. In what appears to be a bid by the environment ministry to play a greater role in carrying out climate-related policy, the report suggests amending air pollution control laws to include greenhouse gas emissions.
The official US version about what happened at Copenhagen is also harsh. Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, said this week that the summit "a snarling, aggravated, chaotic event." But America attributes the difficulties to a central divide between those countries - led by China - insisting rich countries bear the entire burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the position held by the US that rapidly emerging countries must also take action. Stern suggested the divide had not been bridged. China, along with India, South Africa and Brazil, had been "ambiguous" in its follow-up commitments to the accord.
Tom Burke, the influential environmentalist and a founder of E3G consultants, said: "There was indeed a lot of work done to get developing nations to put pressure on China. [But] it was not a conspiracy of any kind unfortunately as Britain was acting entirely alone on this front. Neither our EU allies nor the US mounted any kind of diplomatic effort. Pretty well everyone in Copenhagen, not just the developed countries, complained about China's blocking tactics."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hagen-document
secret66mechanism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2010, 06:30 PM   #1383
secret66mechanism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: southampton uk
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Utah delivers vote of no confidence for 'climate alarmists'
The US's most Republican state passes bill disputing science of climate change, claiming emissions are 'essentially harmless'
Friday 12 February 2010
Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?
Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.
The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming.
But it does offer a view of state politicians' concerns in Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.
The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".
In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.
By the time the final version of the bill came to a vote, cooler heats apparently prevailed. The bill dropped the word "conspiracy", and described climate science as "questionable" rather than "flawed".
However, it insisted – against all evidence – that the hockey stick graph of changing temperatures was discredited. It also called on the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency to order an immediate halt in its moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions "until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated".
As Noel explained: "Sometimes ... we need to have the courage to do nothing."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...mate-alarmists
secret66mechanism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2010, 06:32 PM   #1384
secret66mechanism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: southampton uk
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels
Latest embarrassment comes as key sceptic Benny Peiser backs down in row over fabricated quote
Sunday 14 February 2010
Climate experts have been forced to admit another embarrassing error in their most recent report on the threat of climate change.
In a background note – released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last night – the UN group said its 2007 report wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands lies below sea level. In fact, only 26% of the country does. The figure used by the IPCC included all areas in the country that are prone to flooding, including land along rivers above sea level. This accounts for 29% of the Dutch countryside.
"The sea-level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions," the IPCC note states. Nevertheless, the admission is likely to intensify claims by sceptics that the IPCC work is riddled with sloppiness.
The disclosure will intensify divisions between scientists and sceptics over the interpretation of statistics and the use of sources for writing climate change reports, disagreements that have led to apologies being made by both sides of the debate. Last week a key climate-change sceptic apologised for alleging that one of the world's leading meteorologists had deliberately exaggerated the dangers of global warming.
In an email debate in the Observer, Benny Peiser, head of the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation, quoted Sir John Houghton, the UK scientist who played a key role in establishing the IPCC, as saying that "unless we announce disasters, no one will listen".
But in a letter to the Observer, Houghton said: "The quote from me is without foundation. I have never said it or written it. Although it has spread on the internet like wild fire, I do not know its origin. In fact, I have frequently argued the opposite, namely that those who make such statements are not only wrong but counterproductive."
Houghton said he was incensed because he believed the quote attributed to him, and to the IPCC, an attitude of hype and exaggeration and demanded an apology from Peiser.
For his part, Peiser told the Observer that he welcomed the clarification. "For many years, the Houghton 'quote' has been published in numerous books and articles. I took Sir John's failure to challenge it hitherto as a tacit admission that the 'quote' was accurate and reflected his view on climate policy. Now that he has publicly disowned the statement, I will certainly refrain from using it."
Houghton's "quote" has become one of the most emblematic remarks supposed to have been made by a mainstream scientist about global warming, and appears on almost two million web pages concerned with climate change. The fact that it now turns out to be fabricated has delighted scientists.
"We do not over-egg the pudding when it comes to the evidence about global warming – and I hope people will now appreciate this point," said Alan Thorpe, head of the Natural Environment Research Council.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...n-ipcc-apology
secret66mechanism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2010, 09:41 PM   #1385
moonflower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland, Land of Scots
Posts: 911
Likes: 46 (19 Posts)
Default

I was watching the Great Global Warming Swindle and happened to spot - in a crowd of enviroactivists - the hammer and sickel flag:

See video at 5:39

moonflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2010, 11:07 PM   #1386
secret66mechanism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: southampton uk
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Head of United Nations Climate Change negotiations resigns
The resignation of the head of the U.N. Climate Change unit comes just as nations are scheduled to gather again in an attempt to create a concrete agreement on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Dutch-born Yvo de Boer announced his resignation Thursday, effective July 1, 2010. de Boer cited stress and depression following December's Copenhagen Climate Change negotiations as reasons for stepping down. de Boer currently is the Executive Director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He was criticized during the Copenhagen negotiations as being part of the reason that a binding agreement was not achieved. Robert Page, Chairman of Canada's National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy described de Boer to the Globe & Mail.
"I never had the sense that we were dealing with a person of vision, a person who could see the changes that were necessary in the international system to get a climate-change agreement."
Observers say that de Boer's resignation weakens and threatens the latest attempt to create a global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. The United Nations has been coordinating the negotiations. The agreement that was drafted at the last minute in December has been criticized for not being strong enough, and is not binding, but nearly 100 nations have signed on to date.
de Boer's resignation has cast a shadow of doubt on the negotiations, with some even saying the resignation is proof that the world's biggest producers of greenhouse gases now control the negotiation process. The positions taken by The United States media around the world serve to emphasize the lack of leadership and unity evident during the ongoing climate change negotiatons. Some view de Boer's resignation as a disaster while others believe his stepping down presents a new opportunity to acheive consensus.
However, with commentary that de Boer would not resign if a binding agreement were imminent, there is a concern his resignation will give more ammunition to climate change skeptics. Armed with news about errors and ommissions made by some climate change scientists, skeptics have become increasingly vocal and are working to subvert an agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. Those who support a binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an attempt to prevent permanent climate change are now under attack by skeptics.
de Boer will not be leaving the field of climate change -- he has accepted a post with KPMG as a consultant on climate and sustainability.
The head of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, will appoint someone to take de Boer's place. There is no hint as to who is being considered to fill the position.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287807
secret66mechanism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2010, 11:08 PM   #1387
secret66mechanism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: southampton uk
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

secret66mechanism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-02-2010, 11:23 PM   #1388
mystic nomad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the shade.
Posts: 535
Likes: 7 (6 Posts)
Default

Newsnight has just announced the government have given the Met Office the go ahead to re-examine 150 years worth of weather records!

Wonder what conclusions they'll come to this time?

A re-vamped global warming package I suspect?

If it wasn't so pathetic it'd be hilarious
__________________
A society becomes great when old men plant trees who's shade they will never sit in.
mystic nomad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2010, 11:09 PM   #1389
diamond dogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 206 (111 Posts)
Default

Professor Phil Jones (looking frail and nervous) has been defending his e-mails in front of MP's..problem is most of the scum are in on the scam

Professor Phil Jones, director of the unit, appeared before the science and technology committee's hearing into the disclosure of climate data.

Ian Stewart (Lab, Eccles) said the climatic research unit (CRU) at UEA had made exaggerated claims that snow would become rare in the UK because of global warming.

Jones denied he had made any such statements, and said there will always be cold spells with some snow.

It has been alleged that CRU intended to mislead people over global temperatures by refusing to release the data they use.

Earlier Lord Lawson, a former chancellor of the exchequer and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the leaked emails showed a culture of evasion and lack of disclosure at the CRU.

He said "scientists of integrity" wish to reveal all their data and methods so others can test their theories.

Instead of being open, UEA was deluged with freedom of information requests to try to get the data from the CRU.

Full transparency, as opposed to peer review, is key to the process, Lawson said.

Tim Boswell (Con, Daventry) asked if the CRU scientists were guilty of intransigence.

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the CRU's whole attitude is "quite unusual".

Normal scientific practice rests on testability and replication of methods so others can test the conclusions. In this case data was shared, but not with critics.

Lawson was asked to explain who funds the foundation he declined to do so as some donors may wish to remain anonymous.

He said no money had been accepted from energy companies or others with a "vested interest" in the climate change debate.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11/20100301...t-0a1c1a1.html
diamond dogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2010, 07:59 AM   #1390
aronia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,857
Likes: 203 (134 Posts)
Post Former Climate and Energy minister wind Prize

Connie Hedegaard will wind price
27. March 2010 3.55 pm CET

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/201...3.htm?rss=true

EU climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard has received Wind Prize 2010th The award was presented to the conservative politician and former Climate and Energy minister at the Danish Wind Power Association's annual meeting Saturday.

- It is your strong personal commitment to both national and international climate policy and an energetic work for the development of renewable energy sources including wind power, not least, there are reasons why the Danish Wind Power Association has chosen you as a receiver, said the association's chairman, Kristian Jakobsen, by giving.

Wind prize given annually to one or more persons who have made a special effort to wind power.

Last year's recipient was the late former Socialist Environment and Energy minister Svend Auken.
aronia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2010, 09:07 PM   #1391
diamond dogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 206 (111 Posts)
Default

The Goon Show otherwise known as 'The University of East Anglia' has announced that 3.8 million tonnes of Carbon emissions has been saved due to the volcanic ash cloud grounding all UK flights and this should be an election issue..Could this be one of the reasons for the grounding??

No link via radio news report
__________________
''Media control is still based in the main on cultural manipulation. It's just so easy to do. When you set up one set of objectives toward the public and you've given them a certain definition for each code word, you hit them with the various code words and they're not going to believe anything if you don't want them to." Bowie
diamond dogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 05:34 PM   #1392
heartysoup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: rock, moon.
Posts: 257
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lextorite View Post
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.
what an interesting first sentence.

whats wrong with investing in alternative energy?

if you want big oil companies to have less leverage over decisions made on this planet then i would think people should invest in alternative energy regardless of the causes of global warming / climate change.

simply put, the point you're trying to make is retarded.
heartysoup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2010, 01:19 AM   #1393
aronia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,857
Likes: 203 (134 Posts)
Post Report: 'Campaign, to win hearts and minds' needed

Climategate report: 'Campaign, to win hearts and minds' needed

But what's it mean for the bloke on the bus?


By Andrew Orlowski

7th July 2010 14:43 GMT

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07...tegate_report/

Easy reading : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07...ort/print.html


The University of East Anglia's enquiry into the conduct of its own staff at its Climatic Research Unit has highlighted criticisms of the department and staff conduct - but clears the path for the individuals concerned to carry on.

The CRU played an important role in writing the UN's IPCC summaries on climate science, so the issue is far from a parochial one. The most serious charge is poor communication; Sir Muir Russell even calls for "a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds" to restore confidence in the team's work.

Russell was appointed by the institution to investigate an archive of source code and emails that leaked onto the internet last November. The source code is not addressed at all. His report suggests that the problems were of the academics' own making, stating that they were "united in defence against criticism". Yet the enquiry found that despite emails promising to "redefine" the peer review publication process, and put pressure on journal editors, staff were not guilty of subverting the IPCC process, and their "rigour" and "honesty" were beyond question.

Leading academics were called for written and oral evidence before the Russell enquiry, and in many cases the report accepts their account of events. The subjects of their criticism were not invited, not were climate scientists critical of their behaviour. For example, in their capacity as IPCC gatekeepers, the academics are cleared of excluding critical evidence, and yet bending the rules to include supporting studies. To reach this particular conclusion, for example, the report finds a criterion: a "consistence of view" with earlier work. The earlier work here was in fact produced the academics under scrutiny. So, having compared the CRU academics' work against their previous work, and found it to be consistent, they are cleared of malpractice.

Despite the gentlemanly and clubbable tone, the report nevertheless has deep systemic criticism of the institution and the team's processes. UEA "fell badly short of its scientific and public obligations", according to one review panel member, Lancet editor Richard Horton.

It criticises the team's decision to curtail a temperature reconstruction at 1960, and splice on an instrumental temperature record, without explanation, noting:

"The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data."

There's a selective approach to criticism of scientific techniques - officially, Muir Russell says it doesn't examine the validity of scientific arguments. But as you can see, in places, it does. On the issue of the Yamal reconstruction, CRU is cleared but the related issues of basing the reconstruction on a limited sample of proxies, and using techniques which exaggerate and validate outliers (basically, one tree) is not addressed.

FOIA

On compliance with Freedom of Information requests, the inquiry found the CRU team evasive, and "found a tendency to answer the wrong question or to give a partial answer". They also found "a clear incitement to delete e-mails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made". (Jones had told a US academic that "I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and requesting deletions from other staff.)

The defensiveness "set the stage", says Russell, for the barrage of FOIA requests last year, but "clear and early action would likely have prevented much subsequent grief". It adds that "CRU helped create the conditions for this campaign by being unhelpful in its earlier responses".

The institution itself had failed to anticipate the new FOIA regime, and let the academics run amok. Strangely it calls for "a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds" to restore confidence.

On information handling, the report "highlighted significant problems in the areas of: imbalance of authority; lack of effective challenge at appeal; over dependence on single individuals; inadequate escalation processes and limited strategic oversight."

The panel avoided examining the scientific work of the CRU Team - as have the two other reviews of the leaked archive by Lord Oxburgh, and the Commons Select Committee on science. If the academics had used bats' wings or tea leaves to create temperature reconstructions, that wasn't a matter for any of the panels to judge. And this is undoubtedly a shortcoming. The voter is entitled to see the evidence and understand the arguments that may answer the question: "Is this climate thing anything to worry about?"

It's worth taking a step back from the details of Climategate to understand the background to the enquiries. By understanding what the CRU academics do, we can judge how important the criticism of them may be - or not.


What did the CRU crew do?


The Climatic Research Unit is one part of the picture, an important one, but not at the heart of climate theory. They're not physicists, and they don't do the physics upon which competing explanations of how the climate works stand or fall, once measured against observation. So in that sense, 'Climategate' isn't a 'Climategate' - it isn't a Scopes Trial of the global warming theory.

But CRU does two important things that shape our understanding of the present and the past. CRU is one of a small number of bodies that calculates global temperature readings (of where we are today), and is probably the pre-eminent body that performs historical temperature reconstructions, quite literally writing or re-writing history. And its importance is magnified since the leading academics are also lead authors of the UN's IPCC reports - the vast volumes policy makers like to cite as their scientific justification, but rarely read.

In the absence of a strong physics story, this temperature work became hotly contested. The biggest bone of contention is whether modern, post-1850 warming is anomalous. If it is, then the likelihood that we were in strange and uncharted territory is much greater. If it isn't, then consequently, the need for "urgent political action" - involving sweeping changes to industrial policy and social policy - became weaker.

The father of modern climatology, HH Lamb, founded CRU in 1972, and the building the academics work in takes his name. When Lamb contributed to the first IPCC report in 1990 the historical temperature record looked like this.


Lamb's temperature graph, featured in the first IPCC report in 1990


By 2001, it looked like this.


Without the error bars (grey), the Medieval Warm Period disappears Source: IPCC TAR 2001


What Climategate is largely about, then, is whether the academics were justified in making that Medieval Warm Period disappear.

Unfortunately, none of the three 'independent' reviews have grappled with this. The absence of anomalous warming doesn't, as some skeptics say, make the problem go away. But it takes the issue back onto the blackboard, back into realms of the potential threats. It certainly removes much of the impetus for a sweeping and urgent political program of mitigation.

Yet in the academics' own words, we learn that the recent burst of warming, while real, is far from unusual.

One of the leading CRU academics, Keith Briffa, wrote that:

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter...

"For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”

In an interview in February, CRU director Phil Jones agrees that recent warming isn't statistically significant, and is matched by previous periods in the instrumental record - such as 1860 to 1880.

The sensible end of the climate debate hinges on how much of a lasting consequence an increase in CO2 has on the climate system. Some prominent scientists who as recently as 2001 were lead authors for the IPCC don't dispute there's an effect, but maintain that once it's worked itself out, the effect is small.

Proponents of large positive CO2 feedbacks have pointed to various 'fingerprints' which are absent, or refuse to manifest themselves. Greenhouse gas warming was supposed to create a telltale warming of the troposphere, but instrumental readings show no such evidence. More recently, they have posited that CO2 must have caused warming, but this is still trapped in the oceans. This "missing heat" has yet to be found, and in the Climategate archive we find US scientist Kevin Trenberth expressing frustration: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," adding that "we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

For Trenberth, if we had better instruments, we'd find the heat. For skeptics, the heat might not be there.

By the mid-2000s the issue had become so politicised the academics were acting like a "priesthood", in the words of environmental writer Fred Pearce, no friend of the skeptics. As Jones wrote in an email: “Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them."

In a sense the CRU team are carrying the can for the physicists' failure to do the science.
aronia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 01:23 AM   #1394
drhemp
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Totnes
Posts: 6,006
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default More global warming bullshit

Quote:
In a series of dramatic artistic impressions, the Government illustrates how hospitals and fire stations should be built on hills to escape floods, skyscrapers designed to reflect the sun's rays and tracts of land allowed to be reclaimed by the sea. At the same time, two major reports that will make the urgent scientific and economic case for action this week.
source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...r-2077175.html
drhemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2010, 11:34 AM   #1395
diamond dogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 206 (111 Posts)
Default Three stooges to appear at UEA Norwich

Sir John Houghton, Prof Phil Jones and Sir David King (The three stooges) are giving a lecture 12th November at UEA Norwich £6 a ticket..could be a chance to ask some delving questions although I would find it difficult to sit through hours of their bullshit without getting out of my seat??

http://www.ueaticketbookings.co.uk/e...avid-king.aspx
__________________
''Media control is still based in the main on cultural manipulation. It's just so easy to do. When you set up one set of objectives toward the public and you've given them a certain definition for each code word, you hit them with the various code words and they're not going to believe anything if you don't want them to." Bowie
diamond dogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 01:28 AM   #1396
sephera
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 771
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I don't understand that working class and middle class are being punished for these climate taxes, when the likes of the Royal family, presidents, prime ministers are using private airforce jets, helicopters and going through a ridiculous amount of material goods. Their carbon foot print per day probably equates to one of ours per year.
sephera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 08:07 AM   #1397
ownoiz
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,310
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sephera View Post
I don't understand that working class and middle class are being punished for these climate taxes, when the likes of the Royal family, presidents, prime ministers are using private airforce jets, helicopters and going through a ridiculous amount of material goods. Their carbon foot print per day probably equates to one of ours per year.
Understand that we are paying for them to cruise around on jets and yachts and bugatti veyrons and whatever other gas guzzling vessels they use.

And they are going for high income earners too with this one, anyone that isnt one of them cant get credits on the sly from NM Rothschild and Goldman Sachs.

Just a "climate change" recap for any new readers...

Rolling Stone exposes Goldman Sachs and the carbon credit scam
http://www.infowars.com/cap-and-trad...nd-enron-scam/



Alex Jones on Climategate: Hoax of all time a global Ponzi scheme


The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade, CCX, Goldman Sachs, BP, Barclays, DuPont, Shell -
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663#



CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark was the former Director of Rothschild bank in Australia (you couldnt make this shit up, then again of course you could)
http://wakeup2thelies.com/2011/06/20...ank-australia/



Rothschild Australia and E3 International to take the lead in the global carbon trading market, analysts estimate worth $150 billion by 2012
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=90090



Murdoch, Rothschild, invest in shale oil, set to produce up to 300 billion barrels
http://www.jpost.com/Business/Globes...aspx?id=196217



The Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda



Respected weather scientist Piers Corbyn on Jones Show - The Lies and Deception of Global Warming 1/4



The Story of Cap and Trade - why a banker Ponzi scheme wont help the planet



Alex Jones - Carbon Tax and the left - right party paradigm explained here

.
ownoiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 08:09 AM   #1398
ownoiz
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,310
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ownoiz View Post
Just a "climate change" recap for any new readers...


Rolling Stone exposes Goldman Sachs and the carbon credit scam
http://www.infowars.com/cap-and-trad...nd-enron-scam/



Alex Jones on Climategate: Hoax of all time a global Ponzi scheme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2153...eature=related



The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade, CCX, Goldman Sachs, BP, Barclays, DuPont, Shell -
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663#



CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark was the former Director of Rothschild bank in Australia (you couldnt make this shit up, then again of course you could)
http://wakeup2thelies.com/2011/06/20...ank-australia/



Rothschild Australia and E3 International to take the lead in the global carbon trading market, analysts estimate worth $150 billion by 2012
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=90090



Murdoch, Rothschild, invest in shale oil, set to produce up to 300 billion barrels
http://www.jpost.com/Business/Globes...aspx?id=196217



The Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIBc5OM9XL4



Respected weather scientist Piers Corbyn on Jones Show - The Lies and Deception of Global Warming 1/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SllWdXdzxDc



The Story of Cap and Trade - why a banker Ponzi scheme wont help the planet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM



Alex Jones - Carbon Tax and the left - right party paradigm explained here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTahZE4q90U

Quoted to show videos, when they inevitably disappear due to forum bug.
.
ownoiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 08:48 AM   #1399
sephera
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 771
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

This Carbon Tax is going to be the new taxing system of the NWO. It's a sickening plot. They will tax and bleed humans to the core. They will impoverish entire nations. They really won't stop until they have every last drop of our blood. The biggest polluters are making money off their pollution now. NATO and and a global police force will use to apply the law. We cannot break free from this.

Tesla created free energy and his research was confiscated by the US government. JP Morgan stopped their funding when he discovered free energy.

We could have had free energy a long time ago if the American government and big business didn't suppress it.

The question is what can we do about it?
sephera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 10:51 AM   #1400
ownoiz
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,310
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sephera View Post
This Carbon Tax is going to be the new taxing system of the NWO. It's a sickening plot. They will tax and bleed humans to the core. They will impoverish entire nations. They really won't stop until they have every last drop of our blood. The biggest polluters are making money off their pollution now. NATO and and a global police force will use to apply the law. We cannot break free from this.
It was announced in Australia today, its pretty much a done deal as the "left" and the "greens" have the numbers in parliament...a carbon trading scheme...it will become law soon...so it has begun in the land of Oz.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sephera View Post
The question is what can we do about it?
I dont know, so many people have fallen for it, they think they are "getting" the big corporations by supporting it, but ofc they are supporting the biggest corporations create global monopolies on business, on a scale never seen before.

All i have now is...wait for the real agenda to become apparent and say i told you so...so not much.
.
ownoiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
climate change is dead, un emails

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.