Monday, January 18, 2010
CLIMATE FRAUD - 2 WHEELS COME OFF THE BANDWAGON
However WattsUpWithThat has links to view it here online in 5 sections.
Section 4 contains new revelations that
Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as “THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.James Hansen, boss of NASA-GISS & probably the world's foremost alarmist has issued a denial of the sort that doesn't answer the specific questions & has not threatened to sue which, if the allegations are not wholly true, is foregoing an opportunity to seriously enrich himself.
In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government’s two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. more
The NASA-GISS centre is the US equivalent of the British CRU & this is therefore likely to be as damaging to global warming alarmism as the CRU leaked emails. GISS, the IPC & the British CRU are the 3 heads around which almost the entire warming story revolves.
And on the IPCC the Daily Mail has this:
Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation.
The revelation is a major blow to the credibility of the IPCC which was set up to provide political leaders with clear, independent advice on climate change.
It follows the 'Climategate' email row in which scientists at the University of East Anglia appeared to have manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made climate change.
Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: 'The IPCC review process has been shown on numerous occasions to lack transparency and due diligence.
'Its work is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports.
'Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following their advice - as the Copenhagen summit showed.'
The flawed claim appeared in chapter 10 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which stated: 'Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.'
Rather than being based on a peer-reviewed, published scientific study, the claim was borrowed from a 2005 report by the campaigning green charity WWF."
To give New scientist some credit when a sceptic Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Ontario, Canada, who had long been unhappy with the IPCC's finding traced the IPCC claim back to the New Scientist, Fred Pearce the journalist who wrote the original item then re-interviewed Hasnain, who confirmed that his 1999 comments had been "speculative", and published the update in the New Scientist.
New scientist have long been eager enthusiasts for warming alarmism & it takes little imagination to suspect that Pearse had phoned this little known scientist & basically put the "2035" words in his mouth. Such is journalism today. As such it is no more science than the ages of starlets, as reported by journalists, are scientifically verified. Nor did it become more factual by being repeated by the fakecharity WWF, funded by our & other governments. Even a cursory factcheck by the IPCC, who have repeatedly announced that because their findings are "peer reviewed" they are credible, would have revealed that this glacier melt story was in no way whatsoever scientifically proven. Any "peer reviewer" doing an honest job would have found it too. If they didn't know they were the source of this evidence & that it wasn't evidence at all before Graham Cogley told them they have been, at best, slapdash. That they now now feel it important not to be too openly uncritical of obviously false alarmist claims shows how the intellectual climate has changed.
This proves that the IPCC have been almost making up their "evidence" with virtually no respect for scientific principles or factchecking. As of today the IPCC are still maintaining this claim but are under pressure to admit it is untrue. Which begs the question of everything else this organisation has claimed.
The IPPC unravelling will leave the politicians who used taxpayers money to pay for this false scare story & for the "Non"-Governmental Organisation propagandists, journalists & broadcasters who sold it very exposed. As they should be.