AGW science falling apart

[Guest]

Head of IPCC head on the chopping block over alleged corruption

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...ri/#more-15552



HIGHNOON for Pachauri
23

01

2010
UPDATE: links to new information posted at the bottom of this article, including a new story from the Times

UPDATE2: Jonathan Leake’s story at the Time is Online, linking Pauchari’s TERI organization to government funding grants that were solicited using the bogus “Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035″ claim.

Christopher Booker of the Telegraph has a story that shows Pachauri’s own employee at TERI was the source of the bogus glacier claim. Now the corruption comes full circle.

UPDATE3: Pachauri now bizarrely claims in a press interview that the IPCC’s credibility has been strengthened.

IMHO, Dr. Pachauri is toast. He has nowhere to go except out.

See links at end of this story

We’ve covered some of the travails of IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajenda Pachauri here at WUWT in the past couple of weeks. Besides the facts mentioned above, the National Hurricane Center chief scientist Christopher Landsea resigned in 2007 from the IPCC over what he cited as lack of confidence in the science.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

Most notable recently was the bogus claim In the IPCC AR4 that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 that appeared to be based on nothing more than a journalist’s opinion piece, contrary to IPCC rules that reports be based on peer reviewed science. The Times of India has just run their first political cartoon on the subject.


Political satire from the Times of India - click for source

That in itself was a bombshell, since the IPCC had to withdraw the claim. Other errors in the report have been found also and it is looking like the IPCC didn’t do any checking of this section of their report, bringing the entire report into question.

There’s also been quite a bit of first class investigative work done by Christopher Booker of the Telegraph and Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum about Dr. Pachauri’s connections to TERI (The Energy Research Institute) and his IPCC position. As I pointed out about his email usage, it seems he has a difficult time delineating the two to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

Now it appears that conflict of interest charges are about to go to a higher level.

The “IPCC 2035 glacier error” has been used to solicit funds for new projects, and guess where the money goes?

This PDF File is from the EU’s HighNoon website, and shows how the EU set up a project to research the ‘rapid retreat’ of glaciers in the Himalayas based on the bogus IPCC report. Some of the EU taxpayers’ money put into this project has gone to TERI, which is run by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.

See slide number 5 for the IPCC citation.



It appears that is using this single “…disappearing by the year 2035″ statement as justification for an entire research project, funded by the EU, which is funded by taxpayers.

As we see in slide 7, they got a nice tidy 10 million Euros ($14.13 millon USD) to study a false statement based on nothing more than a passing opinion.



I have word through a backchannel that Jonathan Leake of the London Times is about to make known financial linkages to this and several more TERI/IPCC projects funded by taxpayer dollars.

Here’s his Times report from last week.

I’ll make his newest report available here as soon as it appears.

[Update, additional links from Jonathan Leake below ~ ctm]

Carnegie grant announcement from The Energy and Resources Institute
EU grant announcement of research into rapid glacier melt
How bloggers helped break the story
RELATED:
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor

BREAKING NEWS:

Leake: UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers
Taxpayers funding research under Pachauri’s TERI organization

Booker: Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal :
Dr Pachauri has rapidly distanced himself from the IPCC’s baseless claim about vanishing glaciers. But the scientist who made the claim now works for Pachauri, writes Christopher Booker

Bizarre claim: ‘IPCC’s credibility has increased’: Pachauri

“Facing a barrage of questions from the media about his `loss of credibility’, Pachauri maintained that all “rational people” would continue to repose their faith in IPCC and its findings.” – yeah right.

[Guest]

whether the figures are fudged or not, how can anyone deny the arctic and antarctic ice is melting, fairly quickly too especially the arctic, one thing melts ice, increased temperature?

Are you sure about that?

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice...-1225700043191


Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away
By Greg Roberts April 18, 2009 11:52AM 21 commentsIncrease Text Size Decrease Text Size Print Email Share Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Kwoff Add to Myspace Add to Newsvine What are these? Ice expanding in much of Antarctica Eastern coast getting colder Western section remains a concern

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.


However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

[Guest]

They put those temperature stations in the weirdest heat seeking places

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

[Billy Gunn]

They put those temperature stations in the weirdest heat seeking places

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

How old do you think these stations are?

I would think they pre date climate change talks, I did like the way they mentioned light bulbs in nearly all of them but they were not on.

[Guest]

How old do you think these stations are?

I would think they pre date climate change talks, I did like the way they mentioned light bulbs in nearly all of them but they were not on.

No these are currently used stations

[Billy Gunn]

No these are currently used stations

I mean how long have they been in operation?

[Guest]

I mean how long have they been in operation?

Since the late 1800's

[stephenj]

its a very well documented fact that the arctic ice is receeding rapidly, ask the polar bears? might be different in the antarctic, another anomoly? the world is definitly going through another change, which may or may not be exasperated by carbon emissions? but it is definitly changing!

[Billy Gunn]

Since the late 1800's

Thus proving my point

[Guest]

Thus proving my point

your point being?

[Guest]

its a very well documented fact that the arctic ice is receeding rapidly, ask the polar bears? might be different in the antarctic, another anomoly? the world is definitly going through another change, which may or may not be exasperated by carbon emissions? but it is definitly changing!

If it is very well documented that the artic ice is receeding rapidly then you will have no trouble providing such evidence to me?

[Guest]

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/hor...ing/#more-6283

Horrifying examples of deliberate tampering


Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse for the cult of the carbon scare.
Now we need to ask if the world has even warmed? I’ve always said, “global warming is real”, but the recent exposés of shocking corruption in science have made me start to wonder whether even that is true.
Today a study by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, was announced by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).
From their media release:
An extensive survey of the literature and data regarding ground and sea surface temperature records uncovers deception through data manipulation, reports the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).
Authors veteran meteorologists Joe d’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.
That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.

The researchers found –

All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.

All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.

Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.

There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.

Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper station sitting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstate warming.

Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.

Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.

Satellite temperature monitoring has already taken the place of terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record.

The terrestrial global-temperature databases on which so many important policy decisions based are entirely inadequate and unfit for further use.

NOAA, not CRU, was the driving force behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming” – a warming that has been exaggerated in level and rate.
Graph GHCN temperature stations 1701-2008

Robert Ferguson, President of SPPI, said: “The entire case for alarm about ‘global warming’ is of course predicated on the assumption that ‘global warming’ has actually occurred. D’Aleo and Watts sampling of horrifying examples of deliberate tampering with the temperature data from all parts of the world raises very serious questions not just about how much ‘global warming’ occurred in the last century but also about whether there was any significant warming at all.
“The serious question now arises: do these transparent data manipulations by self-interested government agents add to cascading revelations of worldwide scientific and financial fraud?
This paper shows the question to be far more than merely academic or rhetorical. Unless climatology cleans up its act, it will discredit not only itself but science as a whole. Certainly there is now no scientific basis for any of the policies recommended by the UN’s climate panel or Western governments, now being pursued at catastrophic cost to national economies and personal liberties of a once sovereign citizenry.”

Full Report below

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...rface_temp.pdf

[Guest]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...pcc.aspxttp://

Leading IPCC author bails out of the IPCC and exposes the truth


Terence Corcoran: Heat wave closes in on the IPCC
Posted: January 26, 2010, 8:10 PM by NP Editor
Terence Corcoran, Climate change, IPCC, Andrew Weaver

Insider Andrew Weaver is getting out while the going is good

By Terence Corcoran

A

catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they’ve been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.
If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports. For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some “dangereous crossing” of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.


Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangereous line between hype and science. It is Mr. Weaver, for example, who said the IPCC’s 2007 science report — the one now subject to some scrutiny —“isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.”


He has also made numerous television appearances linking current weather and temperature events with global warming, painting sensational pictures and dramatic links. “When you see these [temperature] numbers, it’s screaming out at you: ‘This is global warming!”


Mr. Weaver is also one of the authors of The Copenhagen Diagnosis, an IPCC-related piece of agit-prop issued just before the recent Copenhagen meeting.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis is as manipulative a piece of policy advocacy as can be found, filled with forboding and alarming assessments. Described as “an interim evaluation of the evolving science,” it was an attempt to jump-start decision-making at Copenhagen. It failed, perhaps in part because one of the authors was U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann, who plays a big role in the climategate emails.


That Mr. Weaver now thinks it necessary to set himself up as the voice of scientific reason, and as a moderate guardian of appropriate and measured commentary on the state of the world’s climate, is firm evidence that the IPCC is in deep trouble. He’s getting out while the getting’s good, and blaming the IPCC’s upper echelon for the looming crisis.


In the language typical of an IPPC report, one might say that the radiative forcing created by climategate and glaciergate strongly suggest there is very likely to bring about cataclysmic melting of the organization within the next portion of the current decadal period. The words “very likely” in IPCC risk assessment terms mean a 90% or greater probability that something will happen. As it looks now, the IPCC is burnt toast and unless it is overhauled fast there’s a 90% probability the climate change political machine is going to come crashing down.

Mr. Weaver’s acknowledgement that climategate—the release/leak/theft of thousands of incriminating emails from a British climate centre showing deep infighting and number manipulation — demonstrates a problem is real news in itself. When climategate broke as a story last November, Mr. Weaver dismissed it as unimportant and appeared in the media with a cockamame story about how his offices had also been broken into and that the fossil fuel industry might be responsible for both climategate and his office break-in.
The latest IPCC fiasco looks even more damaging. In the 2007 IPCC report that Mr. Weaver said revealed climate change to be a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles, it turns out one of those missiles — a predicted melting of the Himalayan ice fields by 2035 — was a fraud. Not an accidental fraud, but a deliberately planted piece of science fiction. The IPCC author who planted that false Himalayan meltdown said the other day “we” did it because “we thought ... it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

Mr. Weaver told Canwest that the Himalayan incident is “one small thing” and not a sign of a “global conspiracy to drum up false evidence of global warming.” We shall see. It is a safe bet that there have been other tweaks, twists, manipulations and distortions in IPCC science reports over the years. New revelations are inevitable. Now is a good time to get out of the kitchen. Mr. Weaver is the first out the door.
National Post

[Guest]

As usual you've shot your load a bit prematurely.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225824148004

Professor Beddington said particular caution was needed when communicating predictions about climate change made with the help of computer models. "It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change...

Professor Beddington said that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction.

"Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem," he said."But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of crashing?"
__________________________________________________ ______________

Despite your continous promulgation of skeptic websites, real scientists are still conducting real reaseach into this issue. You assertion that it's "all falling apart" are just the wishful ramblings of a deluded mind.

Chook.

[Guest]

__________________________________________________ ________

Despite your continous promulgation of skeptic websites, real scientists are still conducting real reaseach into this issue. You assertion that it's "all falling apart" are just the wishful ramblings of a deluded mind.

Chook.[/QUOTE]


Prime Minister Rudd is the one prematurely shooting his load as you put it.

He is the one trying to pass a massive new tax in the ETS that will send this country broke based on dodgy manipulated science as shown by the evidence I have already provided.