Fausta's Blog

American and Latin American Politics, Society, and Culture

By

IPCC hurricane data blown away

Via both Gay Patriot Bruce and Instapundit,
Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Gay Patriot Dan wants to know

So, where are the global warmists left to be discredited? They’ve been hiding the decline (in temperatures), exaggerating the melting of Himalayan glaciers and the devastation of the Amazon rain forest and now they’ve been doctoring data about hurricanes. Wonder if they made any predictions about tornadoes.

The global warmists are going after the money: EU Referendum reports,

The EU is riding to the rescue, with a research project called HURRICANE, oddly enough. The University of Durham, with Bristol and the US Skidmore College, are carrying out a five-year exercise, which started this January, to answer the question: “Have humans increased storm risk?” So much for “the science is settled”.

The research involves using stalagmites in caves to develop “extraordinarily high-resolution” North Atlantic hurricane activity records for the past five hundred years, “thus permitting more statistically robust comparisons of hurricane activity between pre- and post-anthropogenic greenhouse gas climatic states.”

And the “starting grant” is only going to cost €1.39 million – a trivial amount for finding out (or not) what Hatton is already able to tell us for free, over the period that matters. But then, what is the point of having global warming is there are no grants available to study it, and people can work it out for themselves?

Global warming: It’s all about the money.

Share

By

Global Warming failure linkfest blizzard

The scam is revealed, and now there is a blizzard of damning information on the fraud while the country is in the middle of yet more record-breaking snowfall:

The WaPo misleads the public with this headline, Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda, which A. J. Strata translates into plain English,

It should read “Series of unscientific claims destroys false image of ’settled science’, CRU head concurs”.

Strata goes on to shred the WaPo fallacy,

But you know these journalists who struggled through high school math and science – they are geniuses in their own minds. Let me show how much so:

But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes — including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level — give doubters an opening.

Typos? The cries that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was no typo – people within the IPCC tried to get that fixed. It was a deliberate lie. How do you typo the claim Africa is going to lose 50% of its food production in 10 years? Is that ’sloppy’ sourcing (i.e., using green propaganda and claiming it is peer reviewed science)? These now proven false and unscientific claims did not give us math and science savvy skeptics an opening – it proved we were right.

Dr. Melissa loves the WaPo’s understatement: Monumental Man-Made Scientific Scandal Climategate Described As “Missteps By Scientists” By WaPo ; Just One Minute expands on how The WaPo On Climate Change – Can’t Get It Right Even When Reporting Others Are Wrong

Michelle Malkin: The global warming scandal of the century deepens

Ed Morrissey wants to know, Was there any actual warming to begin with?, a good question considering this:

The Times of London delivers a separate blow to the AGW movement today in a report on scientific review of the data used to claim man-made warming of the planet over the last few decades. Several researchers have found that the measurements of temperatures in the AGW record that showed temperature increases mainly came from land development and urbanization, not from actual temperature increases. They have made their findings public through peer-reviewed studies that come at a very bad time for the IPCC and AGW advocates

Roger Kimball has an interesting reading list here, It’s Not That I Like Saying “I Told You So” About “Global Warming,” but . . .

Instapundit has a roundup, too, including links to The Guardian, Foreign Policy, and how Scientists seek better way to do climate report. They could start by saving their data, saving their code, and not stonewalling their critics.

Via Gerard (two links to Gerard in one day? Yes, the guy’s on a roll.) and Paul, another Hitler parody, this time Hitler finds out global warming is a fraud,

At the end of the parody Hitler asks whether they can go back to global cooling, a theory that was in vogue back in the 1960s and 1970s, as many of us remember. A friend has pointed out that several of the hacks pushing global cooling then switched to global warming once the warming grant money started coming. Gateway Pundit reminds us that

The CPU fraudsters bilked the EU and US for £800,000 ($1,253,624.84) annually for the last 20 years.

As the Hitler parody said, “These are the best scientists money can buy”!

UPDATE
Welcome, ShrinkWrapped and Hot Air readers. Please visit often!

And more,
U.N. Climate panel pummeled for misinformation, high and low
CRU’s Former Head Phil Jones: Well, I Guess Maybe There Hasn’t Been Any Warming Since 1995, And Oh Yeah, Maybe The Medieval Warm Period and Subsequent Periods Were Warmer Than Things Are Now

Share

By

Four trillion euros, and counting

The academics who have promoted the global warming scam are only doing it for small potatoes. The big numbers are in the carbon trades and the investment funds. At Big Journalism,
Climategate, UK Edition: Following the Money, All €4 Trillion of It:
Al Gore, the first green billionaire,
The IPCC, and its controversial director Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who

has been acting as a director or advisor to a score of companies, including Pegasus Capital Advisors, GlorOil, Toyota, and Deutsche Bank

And the Beeb,

the BBC, a prime proponents of warming theory, or AGW, has heavily invested its pension fund in the theory, and thus have had a major non-Scientific reason for their bias. As revealed this weekend in The Express:

The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit. Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted. The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe.

The IIGCC is an interesting group. As their website explains:

The IIGCC is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4 trillion.

Wait… I hate to be a skeptic, but did they just say… “Four Trillion Euros”?

They did.

The Chairman of IIGCC investment group is Peter Dunscombe, who also happens to be the BBC’s Head of Pensions Investment.

Just so you know on which side the globally warmed bread is being buttered.

Considering this is only the initial information coming out on the melting iceberg of the global warming scam, I expect there will be lots, lots more of this type of report.

However, even when I am by nature an optimist, I forecast that nothing will come from it. Witness the other UN scam, the Oil For Food scandal.

What happened to the UN after that?

I rest my case.

Share

By

Amazongate: Railroaded by Pachauri

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.

Share

By

Looks like the Himalayan glaciers will still be around for a while

Him385_673369a

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.

Share

By

If the data won’t fit, dump it!

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.

Share