This is becoming a farce

The IPCC AR4 is fast becoming swiss cheese with the large number of holes being drilled in it. Never before have the warmists come under such scrutiny.

The latest non-peer reviewed extract is actually from an article in the NY Times.

I found this reference to the New York Times in WGII 14.4.6. Just thought it should be part of the growing record:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4-6.html

The reference reads (Wilgoren and Roane, 1999) and is the source for the following claim:

Unreliable electric power, as in minority neighbourhoods during the New York heatwave of 1999, can amplify concerns about health and environmental justice.

The AR4 reference page can be found here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-references.html

It reads:

Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999

That article can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/08/nyregion/aftermath-heat-wave-neighborhoods-cold-showers-rotting-food-then-lights-then.html?pagewanted=1

I’m not sure who peer reviewed it.

The adherents of teh Climate Change religion now have so many paragraphs from the vaunted report that are just plain wrong or unscientific they can no longer claim that robust peer reviewed science is the basis of the report. They can’t just dismiss them as a few errors. Barefoot or sandal wearing tossers like Lynne the guy with the girls name at the Standard are actually the deniers now. Their religion is in tatters.

Now even the ultra-pinko Guardian has found flaws and hidden data. Now the pinkos have found lies the race is on amongst the media to utterly destroy the liars.

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

This finally links the emails leaked by a loyal citizen to expose the corruption and an actual verified issue. This confirms the emails are real.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had “screwed up”.

The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN’s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

And stil nick “Quota” Smith keeps his job. When this all explodes in the warmists faces there are going to be tears for sure.

  • David

    And I see our own NIWA have "lost" their data and the reasons for adjusting temperatures as well as their pupported objectivity. But is OK because Jim Slazenger had a beer with Sir Ed who told him there was a bit less ice around in the Himalayas.

  • The Silent Majority

    Have you looked at the Ministry of the Environments website lately? I would have thought the least they could do is remove their references to the discredited parts of the IPCC report.
    Like this one "Other consequences include more extreme weather events, like floods, storms, cyclones and droughts, and estimated global sea-level rises of at least 18 to 59cm (refer IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). "

  • johnbt

    Do we get our 35,000 hectares back now ?

  • The Gantt Guy

    I love Wang’s comments when questioned: “I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more.”

    OK, so the dog ate his homework, but the teacher let him off.

    There are a hell of a lot of dogs eating a hell of a lot of homework in the Church of the Reverend Al Gore. One wonders if Gore or Pauchari didn’t suggest that it would be a good thing if he dog’s diet was changed to include raw data, for the good of the religion!

    Message John Key: Sack Smith NOW and give the job to Crusher or Rodney Hide. I suspect they both have the stones to tell the Watermelons to take a hike.

  • Hagues

    Yip give it to Hide, the only one in Parliament at the moment actually qualified on the subject. Actually they don't need to give anyone "the job" because really there is no job to be done. Simply announce they were duped, can the ETS, ask for forgiveness for being so stupid, and move on to fixing the economy, the crime rate, education, things governemts are meant to run.

    • Simon

      Hide… the man who said "who cares about global warming, NZ will be fine even if the rest of the world isn't." Hide ….the man who tells everyone else to tighten their belts, then losens his. Hide, the man who no one ever hears from since he was caught with his snout in the trough.

      Hardly fit to comment on anything… except dancing. Even then he dropped his partner.

      Hide knows nothing of the science, only how the whole issue will affect him personally. There goes one selfish man.

  • Bill Ramsay

    So there's holes in AR4, big deal. the underlying science by the groups that feed the information up to IPCC is correct. You guys seem to be playing politics here with this by picking on errors. For example, you keep droning on about weather records in NZ and how they are 'manipulated' to give the results that AGW advocates desire. Au contraire. Have a look at this

    http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/

    and this, just pick anything from here.

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/

    or here,

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

    these are people who delve into the 'stories', half truths and other turgid nonsense that deniers continually come up with. These take time to knock back.

    The one on Monckton is especially good, he thinks he's in the house of lords, [when he put himself up by his peers [sic] he got nil points] he also thinks he got a nobel laureate because he submitted a paper that he claims was peer reviewed, and wasn't to the IPCC.

    I trust that you are all enjoying a hot day in auckland.

    Yours aye.

    Bill

    • Hagues

      No… Monckton says that since he made a correction to IPCC AR4 he is technically included in the group that got the nobel prize, since it went to everyone that contributed. He also thinks that that is a joke.

  • Titan-Uranus

    Its the middle of summer ,its supposed to be hot,duh!

  • Alastair

    I'd have expected a website called " http://www.skepticalscience.com", ( as cited by Bill Ramsey, above), to be, er…I dunno, at least a little bit sceptical, and maybe even a bit "/SCI/ /en/ /TI/ /fic/." (Did I pronounce that correctly?)

    Yet, the very first paragraph of the link above gives us this shameless prototype of peurility; this baseless barrage of bullshit:

    "Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming."

    I'd like to read their definition of terms (esp. relating to the term, "skeptic"), details of their research methodology incl. sample size and interrogations/interviews of "skeptics. Or has the dog eaten it all?

    It's a laff, innit?

    • Bill Ramsay

      er, no.

      Skeptics in the traditional form, look to the science of the matter. Skeptics in your sense, and people who don't believe in AGW.

      Another sense where a once useful word has become corrupted.

      I think the phrase is Skeptical about AGW skeptics.

      yours aye

      bill

      ps. it's Ramsay. As in Gordon.

  • Johnboy

    Anyone know what NIWA's budget is? I'll do the job for 5million/annum using my old tea leaves and the entrails from my weekend roast chook.

    • Simon

      That would be about the level of scientific evidence (old tea leaves and the entrails from my weekend roast chook) the average sceptic would need to convince themselves there is no problem. Love this site. It is fun to watch deniers wind themselves up. Always good to know what the enemy is thinking too…. although "thinking" is probably a bit kind.

  • Titan-Uranus

    Come on JB everybody knows that chicken giblets are bogus,if you want the respect of your peers you need to sacrifice a goat, the entrails never lie.

  • old timer

    goats wont cure this it’s to much for them this requires a human sacrifice.

    • Hagues

      I suggest Al Gore

  • inversesquare

    Hey warming guys:)

    How are ya?

    It would appear that you don't like the evidence that's come to light lately:)

    Before you go any further into the arguments you're foisting on the info in this post….I thought it might be a good idea to reflect….maybe try putting those arguments in the other direction to see what you come up with.

    Can you spell Hypocrite?

    The main problem with all of your arguments:

    You believe the globe has warmed……we believe the globe has warmed
    You believe CO2 has increased……we believe CO2 has increased
    You believe CO2 causes warming……we believe CO2 causes warming
    In fact, all those statements are scientific FACT…..we ALL agree!! Ho-ray!!

    Now please follow this next bit CLOSELY:
    You believe that CO2 is causing a global catastrophe and that we are all doomed unless we head somewhere back to the late 1800's in terms of energy use….

    We believe that there is NO EVIDENCE of this link at present and probably won't turn out to be because after 30+ years of trying to pin CO2 down as the cause…..all the worlds scientists have managed to come up with is:
    1) There is more CO2
    2) The world has gotten warmer
    3) In the past, the CO2 came after the warming
    4) Proxies have not helped figure this out very well (notice the divergence problem that Mike had to use his Nature trick i.e. throw away the last 20 years of proxy data and splice it with surface temps)
    5) Computer models are not a very good indicator, but are useful as a tool to try and understand how things might interact in the climate (note that just last week a peer reviewed paper came out talking about the understatement of water forcings)
    6) It is incredibly difficult to get anything meaningful out of real data sets as a) they are chronologically to short, and b) all measurements fall within the noise margin (anyone want to put money on the bill and ben party being the next government….you'd be a mug to…..they pole within the margin of error [noise]. Oh yeah I almost forgot c) Data were 'massaged', most of the worlds stations (75%) omitted from the global average…and NO ONE can actually give information as to WHY!….the only people 'peer reviewing it' are the people in the EMAILS…(read them).

    Now add to that the number of completely ALARMIST AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT quasi 'science' illustrated in the original post….as well as many mainstream media outlets throughout the world (NZ EXCLUDED) and you can see that the case for investigation and more openness. The science was NEVER open (as PROVEN in the emails). It MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT SETTLED.

    Now People are actually READING AR4 (I doubt anyone really had before Glacier gate, although I've had about three goes at it) and are finding that it's full of STRAW MEN.

    Hows about a bit of objectivity lads….

    Just like you warmists say 'A LOT IS RIDING ON THIS' and we should try and get it right.

    It would seem now, that after 20 years of the media and politicians repeating anything that the IPCC states as 'gospel' and 'peer reviewed' people are starting to see that the emperor is in fact stark naked.

    Now…..come back will some PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE that links MMCO2 with the DRASTIC warming, sea level rise etc and I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.

    What I won't do, is listen to one more piece of BULLSHIT Pseudo propaganda dressed up as science!

    PS: to the argument that it couldn't hurt just to do this stuff anyway?
    So far AGW policies have managed to double the worlds' food prices and PEOPLE ARE STARVING TO DEATH (read about it at the UN) and under the policies being hammered out at the moment, things are going to get A LOT WORSE!

    I'm all for newer cleaner, greener energies…(who wouldn't be) but this aint the way to go about it…

    Worse, the people designing these systems KNOW IT!

    • Bill Ramsay

      i suggest that you lie down with a wet flannel on your head.

      Hot today, isn't it?

      • Axeman

        Yep it was hot yesterday. The consensus was about 26 degrees high (at the top end of a regular early Feb temperature in Auckland)

        Meanwhile over at NIWA the scientists had lost their data. Based on their previous findings they guessed the temperature was closer to 40 degrees!

        • Simon

          Try realclimate.org
          All answered there.

  • Axeman

    What happened to these people Bill? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=64734

  • Bill Ramsay

    actually it's supposed to be 32,000. and it's another crock of shit.

    There's a video on Youtube that digs holes in this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ&fe… it's by Peter Sinclair.

  • Axeman

    Bill. Spent an inordinate amount of time watching/listening to that boring crap. (BTW it wasn't '32,000 of the world's leading scientists' it was 'more than 31,000 scientists across the US') Obviously some of them weren't bona fide but they pale into insignificance compared to the biased and more disturbingly, corrupt and fraudulent climate scientists like Phil Jones. The public has now finally learned of THEIR SCAM involving discarded data, attempts to keep opposing views silent, and total political adherence to an ideology. And everything I have seen/heard from Peter Sinclair shows that he adheres to the old adage that 'Attack is the best Defence'

  • inversesquare

    Bill Ramsay · 2 hours ago
    i suggest that you lie down with a wet flannel on your head.

    Hot today, isn't it?

    I suggest you the next time you reply, that you bring some scientific evidence with you:)

    I'm waiting…..

  • inversesquare

    BTW,

    I agree that the 30,000 scientists thing is just as much a piece of propaganda as all the IPCC stuff….

    There is however, a nice list of around 8,000 kicking round and it is in fact honest and quantifiable back to actual scientists…. quite a few are actually PHD's in climatology….but then there are sooooo many in your camp… (which brings us to the IPCC's claims that turn out to be mainly bureaucrats) so yeah….both sides have extremists espousing propaganda ….it just happens that the extremists on your side wrote quite a bit of AR4……

    Can you spell Hypocrite?

    Hot day today:) very humid……you should go away and figure out what role H2O has in contributing to the greenhouse effect:) If you look, you'll find it plastered all over the internet (in credible places too!)

    Good luck!!

    • Bill Ramsay

      who's a hypocrite?

      anyway, instead of broadcasting here to your fellow travellers, why not try your act on sites that are more au fait with the actual science.

      the H2O thing is also being dealt with on the sites i mentioned above.

      anyway, so what? the basic science is there.

    • Axeman

      Yep it was hot yesterday Bill. The consensus was about 26 degrees high (at the top end of a regular early Feb temperature in Auckland)

      Meanwhile over at NIWA the scientists had lost their data. Based on their previous findings they guessed the temperature was closer to 40 degrees!

  • The Gantt Guy

    Here are the four things we need to do IMMEDIATELY about Climate Change: (1) accept that it is happening and there is nothing we can do to stop it; (2) adapt or become extinct; (3) immediately repeal the economy-destroying ETS, and (4) immediately convene a Commision of Inquiry into thise whole sordid affair, with powers to compel testimony and to recommend the laying of charges where warranted. I'd love to see Salinger and Renwick up on fraud (and, of course, treason) charges.

    The other thing we should do immediately (note this is not related to climate change) is invest in products, services and industries that reduce the amount of pollution in the environment. Simply because this will make a cleaner, more pleasant world.

    • Bill Ramsay

      hello. Your first para is nonsense. commission into which sordid affair? The amount of energy put into skeptical, and i hate to use this word, analysis of climate change?

      your second one however, makes a lot of sense.

      • Simon

        Bill… at least the guy acknowledges that things are changing.

        I too like his last paragraph, which is why as an educator I spend much of my time talking to students about renewable energy.

        Someone here made a comment about going back to the 18th century… I see quite the opposite happening. I think some of the technology we are going to see developed in the near future to reduce emmissions will be extremely clever and will extend human thinking not retrict it.

        • Bill Ramsay

          Hello Simon

          Renewable energy is fascinating. Storage for use when required seems to be the main problem. I read some intresting articles in New Scientist. One means of storage was to pump compressed air into old mines, then use that instead of the compressor in a gas powered jet engine, which in turn drives a generator.

          Also, using batteries to store energy, except that in this case, the electrolyte is pumped and stored in huge tanks, then recycled when the energy is required. Apparently there is one of these stations in Western Australia.

          • Simon

            All very clever and not the least 19th century. Really just a case of thinking about things not moaning and covering ones little pile of gold for fear of someone stealing it…. dirty leftist greens.

            I actually(despite some of the shortsighted readings you find in places like this) have faith in our (human beings) ability to find a solution to this problem. Maybe I am the only one.

          • Bill Ramsay

            Hello Simon

            you're not alone in that. Humans are very good at finding solutions to problems. In New York at the turn of the 19th century, there was deep concern on how they were going to remove all the horse shit from the streets the in 1980s.

            Also, apparently there wasn't enough copper in the world for future comms networks, until someone developed fibre optic cables. I used to be an R&D engineer with British Telecom at their Labs at Martlesham. Running alongside the fibre work, there was also a very substantial program on circular underground waveguides. Got killed overnight when the fibre stuff was shown to work.

      • The Gantt Guy

        Bill, the sordid affair to which I refer is the corruption which appears endemic in the climate science religion. Manipulation of data, "the dog ate my homework" nonsense to explain the disappearance of the raw data, the billions which the principal players stand to make as a result of their confidence trick. All of these are the "sordid affair" to which I refer. The IPCC, UEA CRA and NIWA continue to trumpet that humans are causing the climate to change. When asked to prove it, they are unable, as the dog ate their homework (the raw data). As a minimum, there must be an agreement that without China, India and the US, any action on climate change is pointless. That is, if one believes the voodoo that Co2 in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change and will bring about apocalyptic destruction. That is the sordid affair to which I refer.

        I don't suggest for a second that the climate isn't changing. It is, always has and always will. I am skeptical (note, skeptical, not denying) that it is caused by humans pumping Co2 into the air. That is the inquiry that is required.

        • Bill Ramsay

          Hello

          As with other posters in this thread, i think that you are getting two things tangled up. The identifcation of the problem, and then the possible solution.

          I think that you misread the situation by referring to 'endemic corruption'. What we are all witnessing just now, is heat. Political heat from those that are not interested in recognising that there is a problem that needs addressing. So instead of going through the 'normal' processes of review, debate etc, by people who actually know what they are talking about, the debate is being taking out on the interweb, and is being corrupted by spin, selective reading, downright lies, by the deniers.

          Science is essentially self correcting. take for example a few years back on the 'cold fusion' nonsense with Stanley Pons, et al. Science soon picked holes in that.

          There is no 'global conspiracy' either. The IPCC, whilst not everyones cup of tea, does not commission research, it presents what it is given. And so what if not all of it is peer reviewed? The anecdotal stuff of farmers in europe noticing that the crop planting season is now 11 days earlier than it used to be, or that ice climbers, have noticed that there is not so much ice anymore, are all valid.

          As for the enquirey you want, go to NASA, NOAA etc, you will find all the information that you want or need.

  • erikter

    What is the pusilanimous key and Smith are waiting to declare the ETS void and null?

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

    Don"t no if you have seen this whale but I wondered why jack tame had replaced tim wilson on breakfast on tv1.After this interview with Lord Monckton I don"t think Pippa and Tim see eye to eye…………. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV672F5bTfY

  • Alastair

    Don't worry guys!

    The wearisome burden of having X% of your country's hard-earned cash taken from you and sent directly off-shore to be "looked after" by unelected bureaucrats at the UN/IMF/World Bank, with no accountability or transparency, will not last forever.

    Global warming IS caused by CO2 released by humans
    A reduction in CO2 WILL "fix" global warming
    Carbon Tax WILL cause a reduction in CO2 levels in the atmosphere
    Therefore carbon tax WILL "fix" global warming, thereby rendering said tax redundant and:
    Carbon tax WILL be abolished and any unspent money WILL be returned to the people from whom it was taken.

    Right? …. RIGHT?

    • Bill Ramsay

      in answer to your points

      Global warming IS caused by CO2 released by humans:

      seems to be.

      A reduction in CO2 WILL "fix" global warming

      seems to be.

      Carbon Tax WILL cause a reduction in CO2 levels in the atmosphere

      possibly, i was listening today to some experts on this. The problem is coal is too cheap, it makes alternative sources of energy too expensive. by pricing coal, oil etc, upwards, it releives the pressure. In a market economy, price drives use, ergo, usage will fall, alternatives will be sought.

      Therefore carbon tax WILL "fix" global warming, thereby rendering said tax redundant and:

      bits of it will. other mechanisms will be required.

      Carbon tax WILL be abolished and any unspent money WILL be returned to the people from whom it was taken.

      Says who?

      I would suggest that you have to be careful, you are tangling two things up. The first is to agree that there is AGW, then to decide what to do about it. Is ETS the best way, dunno, maybe, are there alternatives, dunno, maybe.

      • Alastair

        Sorry for not making it clearer; I was being sarcastic. I don't believe anything I wrote…. I'm not Susan Boyle, you know.

        In the meantime, I've thought of another point I should have added:

        Apart from the stupidity of believing that buying and selling abstract, irrational entities like carbon credits, even if it does "work" and does "fix" global warming, it will NEVER be abolished because too many people will be making too much money from this "problem".

        Also, we have no way of knowing if or when the problem is "fixed":

        The stated aim is to "limit" global warming to 2(?) deg C
        The "hacked" emails show clearly how incredibly difficult it is to measure global average temperature
        The claimed difference between weather and climate makes it possible to pass off any change in global temps as mere weather

        The "science" is not "settled".

        • Bill Ramsay

          Hello Alistair,

          I've always found that irony, and it's close relative, sarcasm, don't translate well into written text. It's more of a presentational thing. If the reader misses the clues at the start, as I did, for I don't know you, it comes across as a position.

          you raise good points, ones that will require work.

          However, as for the settled part, do you mean, AGW or the cure. If it's the former, i would have to disagree with you. If the latter, then the field is wide open. Have a look at Bjorn Lomberg's book, the Skeptical Environmentalist, it offers solutions. Many that the greeenpeace types of this planet hate. That aside, he makes many good points.

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

    Former IPCC leader says they "manipulated the data"…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeEIl0-0EOA

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

    Former IPCC leader says they "manipulated the data"…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeEIl0-0EOA

    • Bill Ramsay

      More garbage, if you are relying on the 'heartland institute' for constructive input into anything then you are sadly wasting your time.

      All of the points made by these 'so called honest' scientists have been knocked into a cocked hat.

      At the end of the day, what individuals say in private emails is one thing, what they did was another, in short, they provided the information that was required of them. Go to you tube, look at the peter sinclair videos, or hot-topic and you can read this for yourself.

      • Simon

        Bill,
        While it is fun winding up deniers in my experience you are never going to change their minds. As noted by Gareth Morgan in his excellent book "Poles Apart" deniers come in two flavours. Those who genuinely try to read the facts and make an informed decision… and those who are not interested in the issue. They are determinied not to have anyone tax them. They do there best to confuse the situation so they can delay and financial burden on themselves. Have to agree with you, the Peter Sinclair videos are supurb. Easy to watch explaining very clearly many of the issues surounding this topic. "Crock of the Week" I think the series is called.

  • Bill Ramsay

    Simon, I agree, and I am aware that they will never change their minds. However, instead of them strutting their stuff here with their fellow travellers and self support groups, it would be good if they could 'test' their ideas in, ironically, less warm climes.

    Yes, Peter's videos are called 'crock of the week' and they do make for good viewing as they are well researched, and go back to the source material.