Copenhagen: decision "delayed for six years"

14 December, 2009 by

Times Online

Times Online

From the Times Online:

The key decision on preventing catastrophic climate change will be delayed for up to six years if the Copenhagen summit delivers a compromise deal which ignores advice from the UN’s science body.

World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016.

The delay will anger developing countries who, scientists say, will face the worst effects of climate change despite having contributed relatively little of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A draft text published by the UN says that there should be a review in 2016, which could result in an “update of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions as well as of the adequacy of commitments and actions”.

The Times has learnt that negotiators from developed countries are planning to use the idea of a review to justify failing to agree the 25-40 per cent cut in the 1990 level of emissions by 2020, recommended by the IPCC.

Even the most ambitious provisional offers made by all the countries amount to a reduction of only 18 per cent.

In six years’ time, the science will have been blown out of the water by multiple CRU-style and Hockey Stick-type revelations, and we may have some sanity returning to the whole climate change debate.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

UN sweeps Climategate under the carpet

10 December, 2009 by

La la la - I can't hear you!

La la la - I can't hear you!

After initial reports that the UN would investigate the Climategate emails, it appears they have now backed down, and believe the only issue worth looking at is who was responsible for the leak/hack:

Speaking to an overflowing audience of scientists and media at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri said the main issue was to find out who was behind the theft. ”One can only surmise that those who carried this out have obviously done it with very clear intention to influence the process in Copenhagen,’‘ he said.

Dr Pachauri, flanked by the senior members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, defended the integrity of the scientific findings on climate change, backed the scientists under attack at East Anglia and warned the IPCC’s next report was likely to show grimmer news. [Oh please, tell me something I don’t know – Ed]

Last week he told the BBC the UN’s science body would ”look into” the matter of the stolen emails.

But he told reporters in Copenhagen he had meant the IPCC would examine the affair to see whether the organisation needed to learn any lessons from it.

He insisted the only formal investigations into the emails were being done by the university and the British police. (source)

The IPCC and Pachauri don’t even want to hear. Fingers in ears. Move along. Nothing to see here. But aren’t we just about to spend trillions of dollars based on their recommendations? Ludicrous.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Bob Carter: "Kill the IPCC"

8 December, 2009 by

Bob Carter

Bob Carter

Essential reading from climate realist Bob Carter:

The IPCC is the official UN body that has presided over this fiasco. It is an organisation that was specifically set up to provide advice to national governments (including Australia’s) for their use in setting climate policy. The IPCC’s incompetence is manifest in its failure to detect the corrupt science that has for so long permeated the activities of the international jetsetters of the climate science power group. The organisation should be closed down (without tears), and the Copenhagen COP-15 meeting would be a good place to start this process happening.

That the global warming scare should turn out to be precisely the scam that climate rationalists have been banging on about for years is shocking enough; many future PhD theses and books will undoubtedly be written about it. Yet it is but the tip of the iceberg so far as the public prostitution of science is concerned. Climategate being currently in full swing, the obvious question is when (not if) the parallel Reefgate, Murraygate and Fishgate scandals will erupt in Australia?

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

UN to investigate ClimateGate

5 December, 2009 by

Hardly impartial…

Hardly impartial…

Amazingly, the ABC did report this one! Don’t hold your breath, it will be the IPCC effectively investigating itself, so we can be pretty sure it will be a whitewash.

A top UN panel is to probe claims that British scientists sought to suppress data backing climate change sceptics’ views, its head said ahead of the the landmark Copenhagen summit.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the claims – which led a top expert to leave his post temporarily this week – were serious and needed to be investigated.

Professor Phil Jones has stood aside as head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, after emails allegedly calling into question the scientific basis for climate change fears were leaked onto the internet.

Hackers [It ain’t no hacker. This was an inside job – Ed] penetrated the centre’s network and posted online thousands of emails from researchers, including Professor Jones, ahead of the Copenhagen summit which starts Monday.

The CRU at the university in Norwich, eastern England, is a world-leader in the field. [Maybe that should be “was” – Ed]

Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations panel since 2002, told BBC radio: “We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it.

“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.” (source)

I won’t hold my breath. And at the same time, Australian scientists are doing just that: brushing it all under the carpet and hoping it will go away – all lovingly reported by the Sydney Morning Herald:

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor of marine science at the University of Queensland, said a few out-of-context quotes gained by illegally trawling through ”electronic garbage” did not undermine the huge amount of peer-reviewed scientific data on climate change.

”I think the denialist movement is so desperate, given the overwhelming conclusions of the science, that they’ll do anything,” he said. (source)

I think we all know who’s in denial now, Ove.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Shock: ABC mentions "Climategate"

3 December, 2009 by

Climate alarmism 24/7

Climate alarmism 24/7

But then plays it down, quotes Pachauri, yawn yawn. Nothing to see here…

Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, will step aside “until the completion of an independent review,” the university said in a statement.

“It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally,” university vice-chancellor Professor Edward Acton said.

Dubbing the affair “Climategate”, some climate change sceptics have seized upon the emails, some of them written 13 years ago, and accused scientists at CRU of colluding to suppress data which might have undermined their arguments.

Sceptics have pointed to phrases in the emails in which climate scientists talk of using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures as evidence that they adjusted data to fit their theories. CRU denies any manipulation.

The head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said last week that the leaks do not affect findings in 2007 that it was more than 90 per cent certain that human activities were causing climate change.

“This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the … findings,” he said, saying that all conclusions were subjected to rigorous review.

Nah, course it doesn’t mate. Destroying data is just standard procedure, I guess?

Pachauri the Denier.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Roy Spencer: Top 10 Annoyances in the climate debate

29 November, 2009 by

Waynes World...Waynes World....climate change...excellent!

Waynes World...Waynes World....climate change...excellent! Thanks to WUWT.

With all the ETS shenanigans going on, one tends to forget about the debate on climate science itself, and the flimsiness of foundations on which all global warming alarmism is based. Dr Roy Spencer lists his ten top annoyances, and Kevin and Penny would do well to read these, as they blindly believe anything the IPCC says:

Well, maybe not my top 10…but the first ten that I thought of.

  1. The term “climate change” itself. Thirty years ago, the term “climate change” would have meant natural climate change, which is what climate scientists mostly studied before that time. Today, it has come to mean human-caused climate change. The public, and especially the media, now think that “climate change” implies WE are responsible for it. Mother Nature, not Al Gore, invented real climate change.
  2. “Climate change denier”. A first cousin to the first annoyance. Again, thirty years ago, “climate change denier” would have meant someone who denied that the Medieval Warm Period ever happened. Or that the Little Ice Age ever happened. What a kook fringe thing to believe that would have been! And now, those of us who still believe in natural climate change are called “climate change deniers”?? ARGHH.
  3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. I could go on about this for pages. Yes, it is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published. But as the Climategate e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we skeptics of human-caused climate change have “peers” out there who have taken it upon themselves to block our research from being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of scientific journals who assist in this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of killing the paper. We try not to complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove motivation. I believe the day is approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer review. [Read more…]
Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Shock: Murray-Darling warming 'not due to CO2'

19 November, 2009 by

"It's the Murray, darling."

"It's the Murray, darling."

Another Science is Settled Alert, as researchers at Newcastle University conclude that elevated temperatures in the Murray-Darling basin were a combination of natural factors:

Lead researcher Associate Professor Stewart Franks, from the University’s Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, said the findings were based on known principles of physics.

“Senior climate change researchers have claimed that higher temperatures lead to higher moisture evaporation and that this is why the Murray Darling Basin has experienced such a harsh drought,” Associate Professor Franks said.

“This is incorrect and ignores the known physics of evaporation.

“During drought, when soil moisture is low, less of the sun’s radiant energy goes into evaporation and more goes into the heating of the atmosphere which causes higher temperatures.

“Most importantly, the elevated air temperatures do not increase evaporation but are actually due to the lack of evaporation and this is a natural consequence of drought.

“Therefore any statement that the drought experienced in the Murray Darling Basin is a direct result of CO2 emissions is fundamentally flawed.”

Associate Professor Franks said the findings of the study highlighted the importance of getting the science right.

“A key concern is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which advises governments around the world – has used the Murray Darling Basin and incorrect science as an example of CO2 induced climate change.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Today's Gore-bull News

4 November, 2009 by

gore_fire_breathing-1

Gore-bull warming

Al Gore has been getting way too much publicity recently, thanks to the launch of his new fictional book “Our Choice”, which follows up from his last fictional book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Al Gore, as any fule kno, won’t debate climate change with anybody, and when someone hits him with a difficult question unexpectedly at a news conference, the microphone is snatched away and they are hastily ejected (see here).

But that doesn’t stop big Al from smearing anyone who disagrees with him, or the IPCC, as evidenced by this quote:

“The United Nations organized, along with the scientific bodies of the national academies of science and their counterparts, the 3,000 best scientists in the world [not true – Ed] from all of the fields that are relevant to this issue,” he explained. “Over the last 20 years they have conducted the most exhaustive examination ever on a challenge like this. [Or more strictly “the most exhaustive ONE SIDED examination” – Ed]

“They’ve issued four reports — they’ve all been unanimous [Not true again. Dissenters were silenced and the Summary for Policymakers only selected the views that fitted the agenda – Ed], and the last one called the evidence unequivocal. Now, does that mean there are still some people who are gonna have a contrarian view? No, of course there will still be some. But, there are still some people who believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot. You know, a significant percentage as it turns out … Or that the Earth is flat. But that doesn’t lead public policy makers to take both sides of that into account.” (source)

Also, Gore is now abandoning facts [how can you abandon something you never embraced before? – Ed] and is appealing to people’s religious beliefs. We all know global warming is a religion, now even Gore agrees.

Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message – now put out by hundreds of volunteers – to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

“I’ve done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It’s probably my favourite version, but I don’t use it very often because it can come off as proselytising,” Gore tells Newsweek. (source – h/t Andrew Bolt)

Proselytising? Al Gore? Surely not.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,
«Previous Page