From: Mario Goveia > India has formally announced it has lost all credibility with > the IPCC, which is the UN body that is a major believer and > organizer in scientific "consensus" on climate change. Jai Ho, Jairam!: > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:59:12 -0500 From: Bosco D <[email protected]> British newspapers have this habit of playing tricks on Mario. Indian prime minister backs IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri Manmohan Singh said an error did not change the facts regarding the harmful impact of greenhouse gases on the planet http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/05/indian-prime-minister-ipcc-pachauri Mario responds: Once again in his headlong desire to embarrass himself by showing me up, Bosco has caught the bull by the tail, as usual. If the Indian government had such confidence in Rajendra Pachauri as Manmohan Singh the PM is reported to have, and considered him credible, would the Environmental Minister have set up the government's own panel to independantly evaluate the complex and conflicting claims about the causes of climate change, and, more importantly, whether the comical policy prescriptions that would destroy only the western economies, make any sense? Bosco wrote: And what is this "herd" business, Mario? Mario responds: Sigh! So much education to be done, so little time! Bosco seems to be having a hard time keeping up. The "herd mentality" refers to the "consensus" being claimed for one side of the climate change issue, as if "consensus" is the gold standard of controversial scientific discovery, even when the predictions of global warming by the "herd" have failed to materialize for over a decade now. On the other hand, there are hundreds of scientists who disagree with the orthodoxy being organized and promoted by the aforesaid Rajendra Pachauri, who is a railway engineer masquerading as a climate scientist, and has joined Al Gore in enriching himself at the expensee of honest scientific discovery. With the growing reports of unethical behavior by leading scientists and administrators, the report shown below describes the effects of scientific over-reaching and hubris based on the "herd mentality, ...er, "consensus", where anyone who challenged the conventional orthodoxy was ridiculed, shunned and ostracised. This should be a lesson to all scientists that blind "consensus" is not a good thing in scientific research: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/ Excerpt: “The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics. The impetus for the Copenhagen conference was that the science makes it imperative for us to act. But even if that were true – and even if we knew what to do – a global deal was never in the cards. As Mr. Mead writes, “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” Copenhagen was never going to produce a breakthrough. It was a dead end. And now, the science scandals just keep on coming. First there was the vast cache of e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, home of a crucial research unit responsible for collecting temperature data. Although not fatal to the science, they revealed a snakepit of scheming to keep contradictory research from being published, make imperfect data look better, and withhold information from unfriendly third parties. If science is supposed to be open and transparent, these guys acted as if they had a lot to hide. Despite widespread efforts to play down the Climategate e-mails, they were very damaging. An investigation by the British newspaper The Guardian – among the most aggressive advocates for action on climate change – has found that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed, and that documents relating to them could not be produced. [end of excerpt]
