There is only November left separating us from Copenhagen. The sudden last
minute surge of errors in climate change studies on the advent of Copenhagen is
almost like opening a Christmas calendar and finding a new present hidden
behind each peel away door of IPCC.
I could have bet a year ago that Kallio's hockey-stick of climate study defects
were soon to emerge as the climate change sceptics poured over and over again
with their magnification glasses over hundreds of studies and methods to find
defective papers on climate change. And God's mercy, there they are in the tree
rings to refute whole climate.
Surely, with hundreds and thousands of IPCC papers one could go for something
that isn't as good as the rest of studies where facts may have been overlooked
like my philosophy teacher at the university on the umpteenth year and on my
third degree who fixed a wrong grade.
Who said IPCC was an infallible entity guaranteeing error-free process as on
its entirety: when the Apollo and Saturn 5 launched to the Moon, it is said
that at any given moment at least 12 parts were found malfunctioning. Was the
mission then a failure? It wasn't. So it be with IPCC/UNEP processes. With all
practical probability, in a worl,d where even peer review or science itself is
not always perfect it is always possible to find a defect or shortcut that does
not meet the standard. Surely, more will be dug up by Copenhagen.
Isn't all this just citing those old scare-mongering bollocks who think climate
change is a great big conspiracy and sponge a half dozen largers in a bar
without worrying for the tomorrow:
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed
climate papers. The scandal has serious implications for public trust in
science. ..... This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what
happens when peer-review fails - as it did here?
--Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009
Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent
journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result.
The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it
had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there
was no chance it would question the Yamal data. Despite the fact that these
papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal
reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve
McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules
were ignored.
--Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009
The official United Nation's global warming agency, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, is a four-legged stool that is fast losing its legs. To
carry the message of man-made global warming theory to the world, the IPCC has
depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm
ground.
--Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009
Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so far. I'm not sure
whether this is because people are trying to digest what it means or whether
it's "too hot to handle". None of the global warming supporters in the
mainstream media have gone near it. The reaction of the Guardian - to delete
any mention of the affair from their comment threads - has been extraordinary.
--Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009
Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric cars and shut
down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned recession' to avoid
dangerous climate change. A new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Research says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous tipping
point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020. This would mean reducing
the size of the economy through a "planned
recession".
--Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009
Kr, Albert
_________________________________________________________________
Save time by using Hotmail to access your other email accounts.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
