Jan 25

President Barack Obama famously stated during his inaugural address:

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done… We will restore science to its rightful place…We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories… All this we can do. And all this we will do.

In regards to the emerging Glaciergate scandal, it’s time for Obama to call-out the UN IPCC to keep his promise.

We’re waiting, Mr. President.

17 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 23

Via Nobelprize.org’s FAQ:

Is it possible to revoke a Nobel Prize?

No, it is not possible according to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, § 10.

With the report today of a UN scientist’s frank admission that false data regarding Himalayan glaciers was used in the UN IPCC’s AR4, if there ever was a case for a Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked, this is it!

It’s time for the Nobel Committe to swallow their pride and set a new precedent by revoking the UN IPCC”s and Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, and save some shred of what little credibility they have left.

18 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:
Jan 22

In light of the recent UN IPCC Himalayan Glaciergate, the Mother Nature Network (MNN) has rushed out some spin claiming glaciers are indeed melting, we caused it, and it is “very scary“.  MNN has also put together a photo montage of the “Top 7 disappearing glaciers“, along with alarming commentary.

As the list starts with #7 (The Matterhorn) and ends with #1 (Glacier National Monument), the first image a reader sees are these starkly different photos of the Matterhorn:

c. 1960 & today, Getty Images

The photo caption is by MNN.  The message that they are trying to obviously convey here is that circa 1960 the Matterhorn was covered with snow, ice, and glaciers, that it was very, very cold, and that today it’s much warmer which has caused all that frozen stuff to melt.

So I asked myself, “Self, have the Matterhorn glaciers really melted that much since 1960 as the photos depict?”  Although I’d love to take a trip to The Alps to check it out for myself, I decided a more efficient way to find out quickly would be to visit the image sharing site, Flickr.com, and see from photos that others have uploaded what they discovered on their own.  Here’s a couple of relatively recent photos that indeed show a dramatic difference in the amount of white frozen stuff on the Matterhorn:

Photo taken July 15, 2006 by richardcjones & licensed by Creative Commons

Photo taken January 12, 2010 by AndiH & licensed by Creative Commons

I suppose an opportunist could conclude from photos that I found on Flickr that the the amount of snow, ice and glaciers on the Matterhorn have actually grown significantly from 2006 to today, but a realist recognizes that this is not necessarily the case, and that a better explanation would be that the photo showing little snow was shot during the summer, and the other showing a blanket of snow was shot during the winter.  Regarding the MNN photos presented, no mention is made of what season each photo was shot ,and it’s doubtful that they even want us to consider such inconvenient thoughts.  To the contrary, MNN expects readers to just swallow their photos whole, be scared, and do so without asking any pesky questions.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Via Flickr, I did find one photo taken during the winter that shows very little, snow, ice, or glaciers on the Matterhorn, and in which you can even see a waterfall formed by the melting glaciers: Continue reading »

8 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 20

CONSENSUS WATCH – 1/19/2010: Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions would have to be based on something other than hearsay

By Editor Consensus Watch, glaciers Comments Off on CONSENSUS WATCH – 1/19/2010: Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions would have to be based on something other than hearsay

More biting satire straight from Planet Moron:

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions would have to be based on something other than hearsay.

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming have had a difficult couple of months, as the scientific foundation of their claims has come under serious question.

But The Consensus does not rely solely on scientific research.  In fact, the IPCC scientists at the United Nations, who have long been at the forefront of research into which climate factors have the greatest influence on increasing levels of global hysteria, have a number of sources from which they draw their most important conclusions.

Such as “stuff they read in a magazine somewhere.”

For example, the headline-grabbing announcement a few years ago from the IPCC that global warming would cause the Himalayan glaciers to completely melt by 2035 was based on something the researchers had remembered reading somewhere in an eight-year-old copy of New Scientist magazine. Perhaps in the dentist’s office.  Or was it the hairdresser?

Regardless, some challenged the claim saying that the data showed that the Himalayan glaciers were under no such dire threat, but those denials were simply a sign of arrogance.

Look, these guys read it in a magazine somewhere.  What more proof do you people need?

Let’s face it, “stuff someone read in a magazine somewhere,” has long served as an important source of information on which we have all grown to rely.

For example, see if this sounds familiar:

This post has been interupted to send you to the source, Planet Moron.  Transport yourself to Planet Moron by clicking here.

4 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jun 15

Clueless glacier didn’t get the Al Gore memo

By Editor Al Gore, glaciers, global warming Comments Off on Clueless glacier didn’t get the Al Gore memo

The AP reports:

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.

Nourished by Andean snowmelt, the glacier constantly grows even as it spawns icebergs the size of apartment buildings into a frigid lake, maintaining a nearly perfect equilibrium since measurements began more than a century ago.

“We’re not sure why this happens,” said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. “But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change.”

Not all glaciers respond equally to climate change?  I suppose that means that they are independent thinkers with some choosing to cooperate with scientific consensus, while others just rebel against it.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 30

Video: Climate realism in a Texas elementary school; "If there’s global warming, there must have been global cooling…follow this logic…"

By Editor glaciers, Little Ice Age, video Comments Off on Video: Climate realism in a Texas elementary school; "If there’s global warming, there must have been global cooling…follow this logic…"

“…Global cooling started 2 million years ago – write that down!”

Part 2:

“Write this down. Global warming started 20,000 years ago….”

I’d really like to see Al Gore sitting down on that rug with those kids. He might learn something.

YouTube:

Owen Hopkins teaches children from Tuloso Midway elementary in Corpus Christi, TX about global cooling and warming and how it relates to the movie “Ice Age”.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
preload preload preload