Apr 14

Well, the UN IPPC’s report card is out for its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), and a citizen audit has given it 21 grades of F:

21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.

Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.”

We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.

Meantime, more than two months after this blog reported it, Real Climate is still laughably touting the IPCC reports on their page of global warming resources:

“You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves”

6 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 16

A video, a petition, The Donald: Momentum builds for revocation of Al Gore’s and the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize

By Editor Al Gore, IPCC, Nobel Peace Prize Comments Off on A video, a petition, The Donald: Momentum builds for revocation of Al Gore’s and the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize

As Glaciergate was breaking, I believe I was the first to call for the Nobel Committee to revoke Al Gore’s and the UN IPCC’s share Nobel Peace Prize, despite the fact that Nobel rules prohibit revocation of the Nobel Peace Prize. I said, “Screw it, set a new precedent!

Fast forward a few weeks (and a few more IPCC fill-in-the-blank-“gates”) and momentum seems to be building a bit more for revocation of Gore’s and the IPCC’s award:

1. This video surfaced on YouTube:

2. An on-line petition has started demanding to “Strip Al Gore and The UN IPCC of Their Nobel Prize and Award It Instead to The Much More Deserving Irena Sendler:

Al Gore and The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) shared a Nobel Peace Prize
in 2007. Since receiving the award, a UK court has ruled that An Inconvenient Truth, the work for which Al Gore received his half of the prize, contained nine factual errors.

Recently, it was discovered that the UN IPCC 2007 Report, the work for which the IPCC received its half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, contained false information regarding the risk of glacier melt, species extinction, sea-level rise
and natural disaster in an effort to frighten the public and goad politicians into taking action. By signing this petition, you are sending a clear message that you wish for Al Gore and the UN IPCC to be stripped of their 2007 award.

In signing, you are also asking that the 2007 prize to Irena Sendler who risked her life daily during WWII to ultimately rescue more than 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis.  Irena Sendler was among those up for the Prize in 2007 that the much less deserving Gore and IPCC won for political reasons.

3. The Donald has spoken:

Tycoon Donald Trump, citing the East Coast’s massive snowstorms, says former Vice President Al Gore should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize, according to the New York Post.

The paper reports that the billionaire told about 500 members of his Trump National Golf Club in Westchester, N.Y.:

With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore.

Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.

When will the Nobel Committee take action and revoke this award which was buillt on an elaborate lie? Not until hell freezes over.

8 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 06

Um, it might be time for the Hockey Team to edit that page a bit.

9 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 04

Mr. President, last week I urged you to call out the UN IPCC to keep your inaugural pledge to “restore science to its rightful place”.  You didn’t.

This week India has set an excellent precedent for restoring scientific integrity by pulling out of the IPCC because they “cannot rely” on that body due to the many false claims contained in IPCC AR4 that have recently come to light.

And so Mr. President, you have another opportunity to stand behind another, but very similar pledge that you made shortly after your inauguration:

…I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.

I know that this puts you in a tough place, Mr. President.  It’s a lot easier to make these promises when you are on the campaign trail, than it is to keep them when it’s your butt sitting in the Oval Office, isn’t it? But, they were promises just the same.  What will you do? We’re waiting, Mr. President.

7 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 04

India environment minister’s parting shot as it pulls out of IPCC: ‘There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science.’

By Editor India, IPCC Comments Off on India environment minister’s parting shot as it pulls out of IPCC: ‘There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science.’

Via the UK’s Telegraph:

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own Nobel prize-winning scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.

The move is a significant snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.

In India the false claims have heightened tensions between Dr Pachauri and the government, which had earlier questioned his glacial melting claims. In Autumn, its environment minister Mr Jairam Ramesh said while glacial melting in the Himalayas was a real concern, there was evidence that some were actually advancing despite global warming.

He announced the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor the effects of climate change on the world’s ‘third ice cap’, and an ‘Indian IPCC’ to use ‘climate science’ to assess the impact of global warming throughout the country.

“There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses… they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.

Love it! They are saying to to group think and junk science. Hopefully this is a tipping point that causes the collapse of the IPCC.

5 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 26

Pachauri video: ‘I want to tell the skeptics…that I am in no mood to oblige them. I am going to remain chairman of the IPCC….’

By Editor Glaciergate, IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri Comments Off on Pachauri video: ‘I want to tell the skeptics…that I am in no mood to oblige them. I am going to remain chairman of the IPCC….’

From the YouTube notes:

Dr. RK Pachauri of the IPCC/TERI tells the BBC January 25, 2010 “I’m here to stay” refusing to take responsibility for the false data included in the IPCC AR4 with the absurd claim Himalayan Glaciers disappearing by 2035, the same false claim that was used to secure large amounts of funding from the EU and the Carnegie Company.

4 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 23

As Glaciergate scandal grows with UN scientist’s admission that false data was used to ‘impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action’

By Editor glaciers, IPCC Comments Off on As Glaciergate scandal grows with UN scientist’s admission that false data was used to ‘impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action’

Less than two months after Climategate broke with the leak (or hack) of thousands of damning e-mails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), a UN scientist has now admitted that he knew that false data was included in the UN IPCC’s AR4 report purely to “impact policy makers…and encourage them to take concrete action”.

Mail Online has the story:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.

Is this not exactly what we skeptics has always alleged, i.e. that data was being falsified to further a political agenda?  We have been vindicated again!

This scam is over. How many final nails have been put in this coffin anyhow?

Hat tip: Watts Up With That

6 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
preload preload preload