Lies, more lies and Climategate

The IPCC has admited to a big fat lie that Warm-mongers have been repeating ad nauseum about the Himalayan Glaciers. It seems the Warm-mongers just can’t stop lying from Al Goore and the IPCC down.

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″. The authors deny the claims.

Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and “a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology”.

A massive error propagated throughout the Warmenising fraternity. But where did the error come from? Two possibilities exist.

In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas 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.

Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.

It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035″.

and then from the Briffa/Mann school of making shit up there is this paper;

He said the error might also have its origins in a 1999 news report on retreating glaciers in the New Scientist magazine.

The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.

When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the “outer year” for shrinkage of glaciers.

They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.

Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.

A report for WWF, an old UNESCO document WTF? and a 1999 New Scientist news report that the “scientist” who wrote it has now disclosed that he interviewed his type-writer. Not only that, the “science is settle meme is being slayed almost everyday. This case shows yet again that the science is not only NOT settled but largely fabricated, made up, a hoax, lies if you will.

Speaking of lies, Poneke has read every single CRU email and come to the following conclusion:

This is the longest and most important article I’ve yet written for this blog and I make no apology for its 4600 words — more also than in any newspaper article. As a journalist, I believe the Climategate emails have exposed one of the most significant news stories of the decade. As the mainstream news media has so far barely gone beyond giving those who wrote them and their supporters time and space to deny their undeniable contents, I present here an extensive journalistic account of what they actually say in the context of the dates and events in which they were written, with full links to all the emails.

Having now read all the Climategate emails, I can conclusively say they demonstrate a level of scientific chicanery of the most appalling kind that deserves the widest possible public exposure.

The emails reveal that the entire global warming debate and the IPCC process is controlled by a small cabal of climate specialists in England and North America. This cabal, who call themselves “the Team,” bully and smear any critics. They control the “peer review” process for research in the field and use their power to prevent contrary research being published.

And Phil Jones, one of the cabal had this to say about warming, or lack of since 1998.

_____________________
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

John,
……
This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached
article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
_____________________

The pity is that the Minister in Charge Nick “Quota” Smith is being enabled by John Key to wreck our economy based on science that is day by day being shown to be nothing but falsehoods. Very soon having Climate Scientist on your CV will be like putting Alchemist.

  • Todd

    I'm glad to see there's still some coverage of the unraveling of climate change. These scientists are being donated huge amount of money to study climate change and people wonder what reasons they have to lie. No one will bite the hand that feeds them and scientists have found the holy grail that grants them huge resouces as long as they slightly smudge the figures.

    Hopefully this pathetic trend is ending and we can just get back to using up the earths resources like we use to,

  • pdubyah

    The thing I take objection to most is that "man" has to be the center of this, and therefore its always man-made-climate-change. It isn't.

    Sure pollution of the atmosphere is a bad thing, and it's not a bad thing if we all stop it. It's dumb to think in terms of "carbon credits" and carbon-offsets by planting trees, it's stupid to trade in carbon tonnes- er that's a commercial enterprise and not a charity , seems hard to figure out what use the money is going to be, except to those making it of course.

    Climate change is what it is, the Earth and its atmosphere and the way it works is more complex than we know or at this point can work out. The Earth has cooled before and I think I'm right in saying that we're getting back towards the temperature that it once was, and was for a long time

    Do I think there is climate change – yes. Is it man made – definitely no.

    Climate change the new religion – believe and join t he cult or be a denier and I cast you out atheist.

    • DTC 4life

      "The thing I take objection to most is that "man" has to be the center of this, and therefore its always man-made-climate-change. It isn't. "

      Of course Mann is at the center of this..

      • pdubyah

        Possible someone called Mann who is on the IPCC perhaps, but mankind, sadly no.

        Think of King Canute…

  • Anon

    The most shocking bit it this:

    "The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers.

    "They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist."

    A WWF report, a UN document and a 1999 news report! Is this really how low quality the IPCC's work is?

  • http://www.ecowho.com/ keith

    Seems to be a bit of a Man made Climate Change Fail going on atm..

    Also, most coverage seems to have missed the bigger issue with the CRU and now NASA data, see http://www.ecowho.com/articles/42/Climategate,_wh

  • Pete

    The tragedy about this is that the information has been available (for a very long time) to anyone who wanted to do the research for themselves. Unfortunately too many people are too lazy to think for themselves and are happy to take the word of a 'scientist' if it saves them some effort!
    The waste of time effort and money on this gross fraud is criminal. Wake up Nick Smith and for heavens sake and do some independent research on this. Stop relying on the same tired old NIWA hacks for your advice. For heavens sake these people are part of the problem. Pension off the government's science advisor. Once he was a man of standing, now he isn't, and he is totally out of his depth in this area.
    Government ministers owe a fiduciary responsibility to the country. This means when there are such huge financial ramifications that nothing short of a full public airing of all the issues will suffice. Repeating ill researched information and thinking that if they are repeated enough they will become facts is simply not good enough. There were enough warning signs for anyone intelligent enough to see them. Just look at the impressive array of scientists who didn't line up like sheep to join the 'gouging' of the public purse! It boils down to doing the work and not dismissing out of hand the 'climate gate scandal' as 'engaging in conspiracy theory'. What we are witnessing is literally the unravelling of the most shonky collusion of scientists, politicians, special interest groups and industry lobbyists of modern times. So much for the 'big oil' conspiracy! Now the fraud has resulted in literally billions of Euros being ripped off in fraudulent carbon trading activities. The extent of this problem is mind blowing. Government ministers should be perceptive enough to see this.
    The corruption of the base weather data is both tragic and disgraceful. These shonky scientists have done a huge disservice to their discipline and to the public confidence in the institutions they represent. Pachauri should hung out to dry as fast and as painfully as possible. The man is a disgrace. It looks as though the cracks in this dam are deep and wide. I can't see him lasting.
    Never again should we allow 'gatekeepers' to be in control of such important public information. I, for one, would like to see the data being entrusted to an entirely independent body, and not to NIWA or its international counterparts.
    I haven't read Poneke's piece but I will. If you want to read an outstanding analysis of the emails then John Costella's review is available at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/… It is terrific.
    It just goes to show you can fool most of the people all the time.
    Pete.

  • Titan-Uranus

    But if we don`t buy his carbon credits,how is Chicken Al going to heat his jacuzzi?

  • bill ramsay

    looks like this one was buggered up well and truly.

    However that said, it looks like global warming is still on the cards.

    have a look at this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc

    Kind regards y'all

    • inversesquare

      Dude!

      That guy has had his straw men deconstructed so many times it's not funny!

      Seriously…do a bit of poking round on the net….

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/billhicks billhicks

    Dr Rajendra Pachauri described as one of the top climate scientists in the world,is a former RAILWAY engineer with no formal climate science qualifications with more fingers in a pie than a curry http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/152422/T

    • inversesquare

      Dude!

      That guy has had his straw men deconstructed so many times it's not funny!

      Seriously…do a bit of poking round on the net….

      • bill ramsay

        Really.

      • inversesquare

        OOPS! reply was for bill ramsay…not bill hicks….

    • bill ramsay

      Have a look at his entry in Wkipedia, he's not a complete dunce.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

    The coffin of man made global warming is surely in splinters for all the nails that have been driven into it, yet still the phoenix of green rises from the ashes.

    As a friend said to me recently you can't argue with trees. The green left have blurred the lines between objective scientific research and the quest for sustainable living. The two are so blurred jo public cannot tell them apart, what a neat trick. Everything is about saving trees, if you oppose the view on AGW, you are anti trees. It makes me sick

  • paul

    ah, the irony of using computers to decry "science" over the internet.

    see… the great thing about science is that all of the information is there for you to create your own hypothesis, if you want to learn how to understand the data. You, too, can be a 'scientist', if you are willing to learn how to present a hypothesis and submit to relevant journals. Science is great at sharing information- that's how we have managed to build things like, y'know, computers, and the internet. You may be familiar with these two inventions science has given us.

    In regards to climate science, it follows the same scientific method. You are welcome to spend a decade learning the science involved so you can start extracting conclusions from the available data- I will happily listen to your point of view if that is the case.

    However, if your only effort at understanding this data is "reading what other people have reported about in regards to them reading small excerpts of decade-long discussions between other people who are trying to simplify complex data"… well, to put it bluntly, you don't know jack shit.

    This isn't political, either. This is scientific. Yes, the same discipline that gave you computers, silicon processors, LCD monitors, optic fibre and satellites. The same discipline that put formica on your fucking table, and makes sunscreen work… but now you choose to disbelieve what science says, just because it clashes with your overwhelming need to drive an SUV?…talk about cherrypicking.

    Anyway, continue using the tools given you by scientists to try and debunk other scientists. You won't change anyone's mind, but it's a hell of a funny show to watch.

  • another paul

    LOL, well said and totally agree with you, Paul.

  • http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com Ayrdale

    One of the main figures in Climategate and the IPCC is a Kiwi, Kevin Trenberth. As a loyal warmist, Trenberth followed the guideline expressed in 1989 by the chief propagandist Stephen Schneider…

    "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination,we have to offer up some scary scenarios,make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective,and being honest."

    However, to his credit Trenberth did at lease express his unease privately to his collegues, giving me some hope that his conscience may move him to distance himself further from the disgrace that he's mired in.

    Here's hoping.

  • Pete

    To the twin Pauls a brief comment. First you don't have to be a scientist to be able to think logically and critically. This is a simple argument from authority and you should realise that it is being universally rejected. Second, these scientists have forgotten some of the most important tenants of the scientific method. In fact too many to detail here. Finally, in case you didn't realise there is a quiet revolution in the scientific method taking place here. The failure/corruption of the peer review process has led to what one commentator calls peer to peer review. Unlike the climate scientists ( you are so quick to defend) who use peer review as a means to stifle debate and progress, the participants in sites like Climate Audit etc leave it all out there for everyone to see. There is no protection of data or code, rather everyone who can contribute is invited. In case it has escaped your noticed this is an exceedingly powerful mechanism. It brings together diverse skill sets in an instant. The combined intellectual horse power of this collaboration is arguably greater than is able to be orchestrated by the average researcher, even with the impressive financial and academic resources they are able to muster. Where is the Hockey Stick now. It passed scientific 'peer review' but it was so deeply flawed (statistically) that it just couldn't survive public scrutiny.
    So coming back to who knows 'jack shit' it is clear that some of your heroes must be at the top of that list. Most people who have dabbled in maths and stats could have told Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones what was wrong with their method. Their colossal arrogance was blinding. These people aren't an asset to science, they disgrace it.
    Pete.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

      The last sentence is the most salient, and right on the mark.

  • Pingback: Hydrocodone.

  • Pingback: Cheap viagra.