Fausta’s Blog

Let’s review the series of lies on global warming:

The evidence of tampering within the environmental science community continues to mount.

• We have learned that the data behind the famous hockey stick graph was altered to hide the decline.
• The researchers at the CRU used their influence to hijack the peer review process and keep scientists who’s research opposed the view of AGW from publishing in established journals.
• The Russians have accused climate researchers of cherry-picking Siberian station data which if considered in its entirety does not substantiate the AGW theory.
• The former Green Peace leader admitted to exaggerating the claims of polar ice cap melt in order to sway public opinion.
• A Nobel-prize-winning IPCC report has been found to include bogus claims about Himalayan glacier melt and, now, about dire threats to the Amazonian rain forest.
• IPCC chair Pachauri used this report to secure funding for his institute of research and could now be facing criminal charges.

I could go on about Carbon-billionaire Al Gore and his use of CGI footage from the Day After Tomorrow in his An Inconvenient Truth documentary, but that is old news.

And now another one: Amazongate,

The IPCC claimed that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests were risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by “tropical savannas” if temperatures continued to rise.

This claim is backed up by a scientific-looking reference but on closer investigation turns out to be yet another non-peer reviewed piece of work from the WWF. Indeed the two authors are not even scientists or specialists on the Amazon: one is an Australian policy analyst, the other a freelance journalist for the Guardian and a green activist.

The WWF has yet to provide any scientific evidence that 40% of the Amazon is threatened by climate change — as opposed to the relentless work of loggers and expansion of farms.

Every time I have questioned our politicians about global warming they have fallen back on the mantra that “2,500 scientists can’t be wrong”, referring to the vast numbers supposedly behind the IPCC consensus.

But it is now clear that the majority of those involved in the IPCC process are not scientists at all but politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.

May I ask why does the World Wildlife Fund have any credibility on their statements to begin with? It’s an environmental advocacy group whose income depends on scaremongering, not a scientific research institute of any kind, and their work is not peer-reviewed:

The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication.

Head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri – who, as Andrew Neil points out is often wrongly described in the media as the world’s leading climate scientist, when he’s actually a railway engineer – sticks to his guns and insists he won’t resign, while we are railroaded.

Video via EU Referendum, which has a great roundup.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

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.

It turns out the claim was made by an Indian scientist, and never documented,

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.

Then some other guy must have done a google search and came across that story, and from there it was just a matter of time before it became a full-blown lie to push for policy change and put the squeeze on the developed countries,

The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

Or, as Just One Minute put it, Now It Is The IPCC That Is Melting Down.

The University of East Anglia scientists found the shortest distance between the facts and the results they were looking for: when the data didn’t fit, they dumped it.

Climate change data dumped

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

Why does this matter?

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

How come?

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

So much for the scientific method.

No science is possible, then:

So, basically we are being asked to restructure the entire economy of the planet on the say-so of a few “scientists” whose work cannot be verified or even reconstructed. Is there any intellectually honest person who thinks that is a good idea?

Well, Obama’s heading to Denmark.