The man who has served as the chair of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the past seven years, Rajendra Pachaur, knew about the false information contained in the IPCC's report before the Copenhagen summit but he kept silent to avoid undermining the summit's mission.
Do any of you proponents of the man-made global warming theory, who just a few weeks ago were ridiculing those of us who correctly called this hoax, still believe that this is a case of "settled science?" How many more of these so-called "experts" do we need to expose as frauds to change your minds?
Quote:[INDENT]Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
The IPCCâs report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: âI became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.â
Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: âThatâs ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasnât in the public sphere.â
However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: âI donât have anything to add on glaciers.â[/INDENT]
I like this comment from one of the articles "
If the "science" proves it, why do they need the lies?"
From the article linked below.
In the next few days, I talked with several scientists, including Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair, and asked them about Singer's data. All of these scientists brushed aside Singer's arguments, saying that the IPCC's primary finding is indisputable: "Warming in the climate system is unequivocal".
I believed the IPCC reports, which summarize the research of some 4,000 scientists, but I had some serious reservations. For one thing, the IPCC reports contained very little data from Chinese researchers. I was told the IPCC refused to consider Chinese data because the Chinese research was not peer-reviewed.
China is not a small country. Its landmass spans several climate zones and includes the roof of the world. I have to wonder how data from China would affect the IPCC's findings.
A series of "climategate" scandals now add more reason to give the IPCC research closer scrutiny.
Last November, hackers revealed that some scientists had favored data which supports the case for "global warming" in order to enhance their grant proposals.
Just last week, the IPCC announced that it "regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures" in a claim that glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by 2035. Instead of coming from a peer-reviewed scientific paper, the statement was sheer speculation, the IPCC conceded.
Then over the weekend, the media revealed that the IPCC had misrepresented an unpublished report, which it said linked climate change with an increase in natural disasters. However, the author of the report, Dr Robert Muir-Wood, clearly stated the opposite: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe loss." Muir-Wood is not a climatologist, but a researcher in risk management.
I am particularly troubled by the fact that top IPCC officials do not seem to take these revelations seriously. Interviewed by the BBC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, dismissed the matter as a "human mistake".
Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three "human" errors, isn't it time scientists gave its work a serious review?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/201...388032.htm
...and it gets even worse for the Global Warming/Chicken Little alarmists.
The latest twist is that part of a recent report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was based on a geography students' interviews with mountaineers. So much for peer reviewed scientific studies and "settled science."
Do we have any recent recruits to the man made global warming skeptics camp yet? :biggrin:
It is mind boggling that the Obama administration and members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are still pushing for a cap and trade legislation to reduce CO2 emissions. Have these people no shame or are they really just as stupid and misinformed as they appear?
If the US media spent 1/10th the amount of time reporting on the recent flurry of scandals as they spent cheerleading Al Gore and the other environmental extremists who manufactured this "crisis," climate change would be a dead issue.
Do any of you still believe that this nation needs to regulate the emission of CO2 to combat "global warming?"
Quote:[INDENT]UN climate claims 'based on student essay'
The United Nations climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain peaks on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering magazine, a British newspaper reported.
In a recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa were caused by global warming.
The report referred to two papers as the source of the information, but the Sunday Telegraph says one of the sources quoted was actually an article published in a magazine for mountaineers.
The article was based on anecdotal evidence about the changes the authors were witnessing during climbs.
The newspaper says the other source was a dissertation written by a geography student who was studying for a master's degree at the University of Bern in Switzerland.
The dissertation reportedly quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.[/INDENT]
A Penn State University panel has determined that further investigation in needed on one of four misconduct allegations against Michael Manns.
I doubt if the panel finds Manns guilty, but I'm sure more damaging info. will be made public.
![[Image: ateam.png]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rO4iZyXsIQs/S2RL7BIm4jI/AAAAAAAAAlU/6XyM16KGukY/s1600/ateam.png){kind=link}