Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
01-24-2010, 10:53 PM,
Information  Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
Here are some developments that are finally making their way into more mainstream channels of reporting now. Scientists have been reporting the brunt of this story for over 5 years but it's finally getting some ink now. Well timed release with a bit of new information by the alt media to keep this scam in the public consciousnesses MTV video length attention span. This article encompasses so many frauds and focuses on corruption outside of the CRU it deserves its own thread.

Quote:Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
January 22, 2010
By Marc Sheppard

Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.

Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.

Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.

As you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering.

NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out

Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.

Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections -- some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.

And no wonder -- imagine the accuracy of campaign tracking polls were Gallup to include only the replies of Democrats in their statistics. But it gets worse.

Prior to publication, NOAA effects a number of “adjustments” to the cherry-picked stations’ data, supposedly to eliminate flagrant outliers, adjust for time of day heat variance, and “homogenize” stations with their neighbors in order to compensate for discontinuities. This last one, they state, is accomplished by essentially adjusting each to jibe closely with the mean of its five closest “neighbors.” But given the plummeting number of stations, and the likely disregard for the latitude, elevation, or UHI of such neighbors, it’s no surprise that such “homogenizing” seems to always result in warmer readings.

The chart below is from Willis Eschenbach’s WUWT essay, “The smoking gun at Darwin Zero,” and it plots GHCN Raw versus homogeneity-adjusted temperature data at Darwin International Airport in Australia. The “adjustments” actually reversed the 20th-century trend from temperatures falling at 0.7°C per century to temperatures rising at 1.2°C per century. Eschenbach isolated a single station and found that it was adjusted to the positive by 6.0°C per century, and with no apparent reason, as all five stations at the airport more or less aligned for each period. His conclusion was that he had uncovered “indisputable evidence that the ‘homogenized’ data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.”


WUWT’s editor, Anthony Watts, has calculated the overall U.S. homogeneity bias to be 0.5°F to the positive, which alone accounts for almost one half of the 1.2°F warming over the last century. Add Smith’s selection bias to the mix and poof – actual warming completely disappears!

Yet believe it or not, the manipulation does not stop there.

GISS – Garbage In / Globaloney Out

The scientists at NASA’s GISS are widely considered to be the world’s leading researchers into atmospheric and climate changes. And their Surface Temperature (GISTemp) analysis system is undoubtedly the premiere source for global surface temperature anomaly reports.

In creating its widely disseminated maps and charts, the program merges station readings collected from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) with GHCN and USHCN data from NOAA.

It then puts the merged data through a few “adjustments” of its own.

First, it further “homogenizes” stations, supposedly adjusting for UHI by (according to NASA) changing “the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations.” Of course, the reduced number of stations will have the same effect on GISS’s UHI correction as it did on NOAA’s discontinuity homogenization – the creation of artificial warming.

Furthermore, in his communications with me, Smith cited boatloads of problems and errors he found in the Fortran code written to accomplish this task, ranging from hot airport stations being mismarked as “rural” to the “correction” having the wrong sign (+/-) and therefore increasing when it meant to decrease or vice-versa.

And according to NASA, “If no such neighbors exist or the overlap of the rural combination and the non-rural record is less than 20 years, the station is completely dropped; if the rural records are shorter, part of the non-rural record is dropped.”

However, Smith points out that a dropped record may be “from a location that has existed for 100 years.” For instance, if an aging piece of equipment gets swapped out, thereby changing its identification number, the time horizon reinitializes to zero years. Even having a large enough temporal gap (e.g., during a world war) might cause the data to “just get tossed out.”

But the real chicanery begins in the next phase, wherein the planet is flattened and stretched onto an 8,000-box grid, into which the time series are converted to a series of anomalies (degree variances from the baseline). Now, you might wonder just how one manages to fill 8,000 boxes using 1,500 stations.

Here’s NASA’s solution:

For each grid box, the stations within that grid box and also any station within 1200km of the center of that box are combined using the reference station method.

Even on paper, the design flaws inherent in such a process should be glaringly obvious.

So it’s no surprise that Smith found many examples of problems surfacing in actual practice. He offered me Hawaii for starters. It seems that all of the Aloha State’s surviving stations reside in major airports. Nonetheless, this unrepresentative hot data is what’s used to “infill” the surrounding “empty” Grid Boxes up to 1200 km out to sea. So in effect, you have “jet airport tarmacs ‘standing in’ for temperature over water 1200 km closer to the North Pole.”

An isolated problem? Hardly, reports Smith.

From KUSI’s Global Warming: The Other Side:

“There’s a wonderful baseline for Bolivia -- a very high mountainous country -- right up until 1990 when the data ends. And if you look on the [GISS] November 2009 anomaly map, you’ll see a very red rosy hot Bolivia [boxed in blue]. But how do you get a hot Bolivia when you haven’t measured the temperature for 20 years?”


Of course, you already know the answer: GISS simply fills in the missing numbers – originally cool, as Bolivia contains proportionately more land above 10,000 feet than any other country in the world – with hot ones available in neighboring stations on a beach in Peru or somewhere in the Amazon jungle.

Remember that single station north of 65° latitude which they located in a warm section of northern Canada? Joe D’Aleo explained its purpose: “To estimate temperatures in the Northwest Territory [boxed in green above], they either have to rely on that location or look further south.”

Pretty slick, huh?

And those are but a few examples. In fact, throughout the entire grid, cooler station data are dropped and “filled in” by temperatures extrapolated from warmer stations in a manner obviously designed to overestimate warming...

...And convince you that it’s your fault.

Government and Intergovernmental Agencies -- Globaloney In / Green Gospel Out

Smith attributes up to 3°F (more in some places) of added “warming trend” between NOAA’s data adjustment and GIStemp processing.

That’s over twice last century’s reported warming.

And yet, not only are NOAA’s bogus data accepted as green gospel, but so are its equally bogus hysterical claims, like this one from the 2006 annual State of the Climate in 2005 [PDF]: “Globally averaged mean annual air temperature in 2005 slightly exceeded the previous record heat of 1998, making 2005 the warmest year on record.”

And as D’Aleo points out in the preliminary report, the recent NOAA proclamation that June 2009 was the second-warmest June in 130 years will go down in the history books, despite multiple satellite assessments ranking it as the 15th-coldest in 31 years.

Even when our own National Weather Service (NWS) makes its frequent announcements that a certain month or year was the hottest ever, or that five of the warmest years on record occurred last decade, they’re basing such hyperbole entirely on NOAA’s warm-biased data.

And how can anyone possibly read GISS chief James Hansen’s Sunday claim that 2009 was tied with 2007 for second-warmest year overall, and the Southern Hemisphere’s absolute warmest in 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, without laughing hysterically? It's especially laughable when one considers that NOAA had just released a statement claiming that very same year (2009) to be tied with 2006 for the fifth-warmest year on record.

So how do alarmists reconcile one government center reporting 2009 as tied for second while another had it tied for fifth? If you’re WaPo’s Andrew Freedman, you simply chalk it up to “different data analysis methods” before adjudicating both NASA and NOAA innocent of any impropriety based solely on their pointless assertions that they didn’t do it.

Earth to Andrew: “Different data analysis methods”? Try replacing “analysis” with “manipulation,” and ye shall find enlightenment. More importantly, does the explicit fact that since the drastically divergent results of both “methods” can’t be right, both are immediately suspect somehow elude you?

But by far the most significant impact of this data fraud is that it ultimately bubbles up to the pages of the climate alarmists’ bible: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report.

And wrong data begets wrong reports, which – particularly in this case – begets dreadfully wrong policy.

It’s High Time We Investigated the Investigators

The final report will be made public shortly, and it will be available at the websites of both report-supporter Science and Public Policy Institute and Joe D’Aleo’s own ICECAP. As they’ve both been tremendously helpful over the past few days, I’ll trust in the opinions I’ve received from the report’s architects to sum up.

This from the meteorologist:

The biggest gaps and greatest uncertainties are in high latitude areas where the data centers say they 'find' the greatest warming (and thus which contribute the most to their global anomalies). Add to that no adjustment for urban growth and land use changes (even as the world's population increased from 1.5 to 6.7 billion people) [in the NOAA data] and questionable methodology for computing the historical record that very often cools off the early record and you have surface based data sets so seriously flawed, they can no longer be trusted for climate trend or model forecast assessment or decision making by the administration, congress or the EPA.

Roger Pielke Sr. has suggested: “...that we move forward with an inclusive assessment of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC. We need to focus on the science issues. This necessarily should involve all research investigators who are working on this topic, with formal assessments chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.” I endorse that suggestion.

Certainly, all rational thinkers agree. Perhaps even the mainstream media, most of whom have hitherto mistakenly dismissed Climategate as a uniquely British problem, will now wake up and demand such an investigation.

And this from the computer expert:

That the bias exists is not denied. That the data are too sparse and with too many holes over time in not denied. Temperature series programs, like NASA GISS GIStemp try, but fail, to fix the holes and the bias. What is claimed is that "the anomaly will fix it." But it cannot. Comparison of a cold baseline set to a hot present set must create a biased anomaly. It is simply overwhelmed by the task of taking out that much bias. And yet there is more. A whole zoo of adjustments are made to the data. These might be valid in some cases, but the end result is to put in a warming trend of up to several degrees. We are supposed to panic over a 1/10 degree change of "anomaly" but accept 3 degrees of "adjustment" with no worries at all. To accept that GISTemp is "a perfect filter". That is, simply, "nuts". It was a good enough answer at Bastogne, and applies here too.

Smith, who had a family member attached to the 101st Airborne at the time, refers to the famous line from the 101st commander, U.S. Army General Anthony Clement McAuliffe, who replied to a German ultimatum to surrender the December, 1944 Battle of Bastogne, Belgium with a single word: “Nuts.”

And that’s exactly what we’d be were we to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts to duplicitous zealots before checking and double-checking the work of the prophets predicting our doom should we refuse.

Marc Sheppard is environment editor of American Thinker and editor of the forthcoming Environment Thinker.

Also check out the comments section related to this piece some good stuff in there on confirmed satellite data and a instant classic one-liner that states:

"Their corruption is so obvious, it makes Pro Wrestling seem nuanced."
There are no others, there is only us.
01-24-2010, 11:26 PM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA GISS & NOAA evidence mounts
For years and years people have been looking at me like I was nuts when I would tell them we are actually heading into a cooling trend. When I would tell them that global warming is a lie. When I would tell them that it is a tool to implement a global taxation system to fund a new global government. Going back all the way to the beginning of the 90s. I've been called a tinfoil hat, a retard, a moron etc etc...

People don't call me names anymore. Now they listen.
Knower of the unknown.
01-25-2010, 06:19 AM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA GISS & NOAA evidence mounts
There is some vindication in getting recognized and that serves to give us more credibility. Just 6 months ago I'd get dugg down and attacked for mentioning anything on the AGW hoax. It shows that alternative media can make a difference to bring these scams to see the light of day.

I'll follow with yet another article released today that shows there was no scientific consensus even before the climategate emails and source were released and how it was construed by the agenda pushers in governance, world and federal, towards their manufactured conclusions.

Quote:Climategate: Just Sign on the Dotted Line
January 24, 2010
By Dexter Wright

The mainstream media were convinced of global warming theory's legitimacy by the warnings supposedly signed by large numbers of the world's climate scientists. The propagandists in this effort were led by the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones of Britain and former Vice President Al Gore.

Several of the recently leaked Climategate e-mails reveal backstage manipulations to produce a propaganda tool, the Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate, intended to be unveiled at the Kyoto Climate Conference. Members of the Jones Gang from East Anglia University organized efforts to get just about anyone to sign this statement to push up the numbers. In an e-mail dated 9 October 1997, Dr. Joseph Alcamo admonishes other members of the Jones Gang to forget credentials and just get signatures.

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Alcamo clearly has no respect for the media, implying that they are either lazy or stupid. Operating under this premise, Dr. Alcamo goes on by saying the following:

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!

Is he suggesting that his gang members go to skid row and have homeless winos sign this document? Maybe he was suggesting that they go to a Chicago cemetery for names? "Get those names!"

Simultaneously, the folks at Greenpeace were also working to get signatures on a document of their own to manipulate the media. Their formula is tried and true: Don't read the fine print -- just sign. To showcase this subterfuge, Greenpeace was organizing a media event ahead of the Kyoto meeting to display the document signed by concerned "scientists." The Jones Gang wanted to make sure that maximum media manipulation was accomplished by coordinating media events as is detailed from the same e-mail:

3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions

Different directions? Maybe he meant something like left and far left. I hope he never helps a little old lady across the street.

But one of the Jones Gang was looking the other way before he crossed the street, and that was Professor Richard Tol. In an e-mail dated 12 of November 1997, Prof. Tol pointed out the dirty little secret: There is not a consensus among scientists.

I am always worried about this sort of things. Even if you have 1000 signatures, and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked did not sign?

But why was so much energy put into a propaganda campaign for the media to see that there was a "consensus" among the scientific community? The answer dates back to 1992, when the Jones Gang was caught by surprise right before the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At that time, a group of notable and respected scientists began circulating a document known as the Heidelberg Appeal for signatures. By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. This document stated that the science of climate change was uncertain and that the theory of carbon dioxide (CO2)-induced global warming was an unproven theory. The document appealed to policy makers to avoid making policy based on uncertain science. The document explicitly stated the following:

We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and non-relevant data.

The original Heidelberg Appeal document was presented at the Rio conference, but it was largely ignored by the media and a pseudoscientific community that was more interested in seeking grant funding than seeking the truth. To date, more than four thousand scientists and intellectuals from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, have signed it.

The Jones Gang knew that this would likely happen again before the 1997 Kyoto Climate Conference. If they were right, they were hopeful that they could deliver a counter-document to lend credence to their cause and steal the spotlight.

Another document urging caution was circulated among reputable scientists in the wake of the Kyoto Climate Conference. This document is known as the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. The document expressly states the following:

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that -- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes (i.e. weather balloons) show no current warming whatsoever -- in direct contradiction to computer model results.

Among the signatories of this declaration are scientists from NASA, the Max Planck Institute, one of the former Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, and many members of the American Meteorological Society. These people are not lightweights in the field of science. Clearly the so-called "consensus of scientists" so often referred to by Mr. Gore is not a consensus at all.

In addition to these two powerful and well-considered public statements calling for restraint, there is also the Oregon Petition. To date, over 31,000 American scientists have signed this document. The petition explicitly states the following:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of Carbon Dioxide, Methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Unlike the uncovered e-mails from the Jones Gang, these statements of caution are in the public domain and have been for years. By contrast, the Jones Gang engaged in an effort to misinform nations by hiding the facts and overstating the "consensus" -- but then, secrecy is essential for propaganda to be effective and ensure that the checks continue to be signed.

The signatories of the Oregon Appeal are detailed here:
There are no others, there is only us.
01-26-2010, 01:08 AM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA GISS & NOAA evidence mounts
Now if we could get these results published widely in Alberta maybe we could stop the billions of dollars they, (Alberta government), are giving away for carbon capture scams.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
01-26-2010, 02:37 AM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA GISS & NOAA evidence mounts
I've written to them (The Alberta Government) personally their canned answer is as follows:

Quote:The Government of Alberta believes the potential risks of climate change to our environment and economy are significant enough to warrant progressive, immediate action. As such, Alberta's 2008 Climate Change Strategy was developed to ensure the province is well prepared to adapt to a changing climate. We would be remiss as a government if we did not prepare for possible changes to water supplies and infrastructure.

Regardless of the resulting impacts of climate change, our climate change strategy is designed to have multiple benefits. For example, the reduction of air emissions will help improve air quality in the province. By becoming more efficient, Alberta industries become more competitive in an increasingly challenging global marketplace. Efficiency and conservation help conserve natural resources and lower costs for consumers and industry. The development of technology to reduce emissions is increasingly sought throughout the world and Alberta companies are poised to take advantage of these opportunities.

The Government of Alberta will continue to take prudent action to support the sustainable development of resources and do what makes sense for our province. As part of this prudent action, we will consider relevant science when creating and implementing our policies and programs. We will continue to ensure our efforts are practical, achievable and allow for continued economic prosperity in the province.

They are going to give the oil companies money because they are representing the oil companies, those who need energy both foreign and domestic. Have you read the docket of issues they discuss, the laws the pass - it is self evident as to who their masters are. They have already signed away our future to interests down south and overseas and we are given a paltry royalty for getting our lands raped and polluted.

They put on a face that they are doing this CCS pipeline and coal gasification project ($3.6 BILLION for start-up costs alone) for the environment -- but then they turn around and cut back the $1.2 million budget on water law enforcement across the entire province (which is more or less twice the size of Texas) to less than $300K. On top of that they changed the definition of 'water pollution', 'dumping' and 'lake' so industry can dump whatever they want, wherever they want and they won't have another embarrassing PR experience like the dead ducks in the tailing ponds which are really a massive freshwater lakes you could put 100+ boats and a few dozen jet skis on quite comfortably.

Since in 1971 the PCs ended Social Credit's 36-year hold on power and have had a majority government ever since. PCs have been given a mandate and they have gotten cocky about it thinking they can't lose and even approved a sell off of a good part of the oilsands to PetroChina for pennies on the dollar.

Any time there is a problem they throw money at it. They gave every home owner a $500 gas rebate a few years ago right before the election to buy another majority. I was renting at the time so my apartment management company got my share and everyone else's but still doubled rent over the next five years citing rising energy costs.

Collectively Alberta people are a blissful bunch. Despite its share of low income earners and citizens at the bottom of the pyramid doing all the heavy lifting under the poverty line. If you could take the average wage of an Albertan and called Alberta a country you'd have the 2nd richest country in the world right behind Luxembourg. The Vatican doesn't report earnings since they don't earn anything they just live off of their past plunder, investments and donations.

So Albertans are fat and happy even while being robbed blind and don't see a reason to change the government for the most part as long as there is food on the table. Not that they could since the other parties are a joke and rural votes assure that disproportional representation is in full force along with the other usual mechanisms to rig an election and fix a selection.

The only way we could get through to these types is if they were hurting and they're far from it. Best to educate the youth in the province and hope the next generation are better independent thinkers that see without the blinders on. A few of my oldest boys friends (newly minted teens) are ConCen members actually just from talking to my son. I go to universities and talk to those that will listen over a game of hackey sack or on the bus (captive audience) and even those that won't - just to plant a seed for later. It fun to infiltrate zeitgeist groups too, since they're hearts are in the right place for the most part.

whoah - thread drift.
There are no others, there is only us.
01-26-2010, 07:37 PM,
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - WWF evidence mounts
Exhibit 2007IPCCAR4: The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF)

I really hate to go on about this*, especially in this forum but it remains high on the list of agendas. I see people are still talking about 9/11, I feel this is on par in false flag significance and we are at a critical juncture as to how the public consciousness will perceive this events and history will record it. I will continue to investigate this and spread the word as long as it takes. Feel free to cite anything pass it on to others that's a big reason of why I post it up here to disseminate this information through you people. People that actually give a shit about where this world is headed

Quote:The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers
24 01 2010

All the years I’ve been in TV news, I’ve observed that every story has a tipping point. In news, we know when it has reached that point when we say it “has legs” and the story takes on a life of its own. The story may have been ignored or glossed over for weeks, months, or years until some new piece of information is posted and starts to galvanize people. The IPCC glacier melt scandal was the one that galvanized the collective voice that has been saying that the IPCC report was seriously flawed and represented a political rather than scientific view. Now people are seriously looking at AR4 with a critical eye and finding things everywhere.

Remember our friends at World Wildlife Fund? Those schlockmeisters that produced the video of planes flying into New York with explicit comparisons to 9/11 {see below for more on that}?

Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.

A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.

Here’s an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report:

* Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07:]
* Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.
* Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
* Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp.
* Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as "Allianz" above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]
* Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
* Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at

* Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.
* index.cfm
* Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal
* Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.
* Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf

* WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004.
* WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
* WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.

* Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland

Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:

* Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
* Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76

Not only should Pachauri resign, the Nobel committee should be deluged by world citizenry demanding they revoke the Nobel prize granted to the body that produced this document.

They keep moving the goalposts so they can say later that the models predicted such and such. I can make dozens of predictions and just need to be right once and claim ‘forecast skill’. I cite the following:

Want more:
.. it just goes on and on and on. Sort of like the 'peer reviewed science' that was being parroted in magazines, videos, science journals, all over the internet, in newspapers and by government officials - who still won't listen to rational thought because they are, in reality, co-opted agents. True colours are certainly shining through, and brightly. Some will pretend to care, then ultimately brush you off - those are the worst IMO.

For those of you who haven’t seen the offensive WWF 9/11 video, which the WWF has tried to suppress:

Here’s WWF’s admission and apology:

I need to echo this from a bishop hill comment re Dr Murari Lal:

Quote:From the WWF web site:

Climate Witness Science Advisory Panel (SAP)

Prof. Dr Murari Lal, specialises in global and regional climate variability, scenario development, regional environmental change, sectoral vulnerability assessment (water, biodiversity and agriculture), landscape ecology, biophysical remote sensing – GIS applications, ecosystem modeling, regional adaptation & mitigation potential, water resource management; Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India

About Prof. Murari Lal
Lead or Co-ordinating Author on several chapters of IPCC Assessment Reports

About Halcrow Consulting:

“Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India”

Carbon Trading is part of the Environment Division, now that is a surprise.

From the CRU website we see the WWF funds the CRU. I wonder where a charity gets the money to fund climate research?

The WWF funds the CRU

Murari Lal->WWF->CRU

Murari Lal-> Halcrow Consulting->Carbon Trading

How about we skip the middle man:

Carbon Trading-> Halcrow Consulting-> WWF->CRU->IPCC

And simplify.

Carbon Trading->WWF->CRU->IPCC
Carbon Trading->CRU->IPCC
Carbon Trading->IPCC

Carbon Trading->IPCC->Carbon Trading

I found this post a jones (not the one that first comes to mind ;}) to be quite inspiring. So for those of us that feel a tad overwhelmed or powerless, please direct your attention to the following impassioned statement.

Quote:As I observed elsewhere this is a great scientific, financial and political fraud. And as with all frauds once the dominoes start to topple the collapse accelerates with terrifying speed.

So fast that I at least can hardly keep up.

And although there is immense inertia in those who have invested so heavily in the fraud, from the political activists to the Meeja to the politicians themselves once there is sufficient impetus in the avalanche they have to give way. The politicians will say they were deceived but acted in good faith, the Meeja never apologises for anything, and the activists will say they were only trying to get a point across, see WWF announcement over glaciers.

Yet possibly for the first time we are seeing what t’internet and the WWW can really do.

The Indian press is hot on the story, something we would have never known even a few years ago.

Isn’t modern technology a wonderful thing?

And if you want to commit an old style worldwide fraud like this then you are a little late, today the world talks instantly around the globe: and a very good thing too.

Because in the end this fraud was exposed by small toilers in the vineyards around the world slowly but surely putting the pieces together. Via the WWW. Lots of pieces but lots and lots of toilers. Some greater than others, some less, some mistaken, some misguided and some with only a small contribution to make.

No matter, that is the way of the world, and they gradually built their case, brick by brick, into a formidable body of knowledge that confounds the fraudsters, forgers, charlatans and mountebanks and the financiers, scoundrels and politicians who sought to profit from it.

Now these corrupt creatures are learning they are not the masters of the universe anymore. Nor since it has seen the writing on the wall for many years is the Meeja.

Science, natural philosophy, is a wonderful thing, and not the exclusive province of so called experts however highly paid.

So it is a brave new world my friends and I hope a better one.

But I am afraid like original sin fraud, forgery, and self serving politicians will always be with us and no doubt they will change their tune too. Adaptation or evolution do you think? We can debate that in due course.

For the moment let us rejoice in the confusion of those charlatans and mountebanks who not only deceived the world but are now found out.

Or good riddance to bad rubbish as gran’mere used to say.

Kindest Regards

This is not going away and they won't let go now that their apples are in their cart and the endgame in their proverbial rifle sites. Despite the fact that Greenpeace has admitted they made up the Greenland glacier scandal. Despite the fact that Mount Kilimanjaro glacier recession is conclusively a product of deforestation. This is a huge huge fraud and they are looking for any reason to implement their global tax/ governance. This is built on three pillars: world financial crisis to bring about a world central banking system (manipulated), world health pandemics such as swine flu , bird flu, SARS and mad cow (manufactured) the global warming (made up) religion / tax.

Be wary of the next hoax in health or environment it is meant to manufacture a need to depend on a globalist system under their control, not ours. Try to get off the tit of banking we really don't need them and we can establish our own system without their (government, corporations, central banks) 'help'. They may go as far as to manufacture another war to send us to the beggars table but there will be no war if there is no one to fight it. They are proven liars time and time again, don't believe and support the lies (by your dollars, your votes or your apathy) you are being fed or you are part of the problem.

Oh and rather than clog our tracker server resources, get a copy of the actual WWF reports before they take them down, they've already taken down a few - but they are a tad disorganized. These are my favorites but the rest are linked via the article posted above.

Climate change impacts in the Mediterranean resulting from a 2oC global temperature rise

Climate Change & the Financial Sector: An Agenda for Action

Limited Edition! Get it before they do a search + replace with 'CO2' for 'Nitrous Oxide', 'Methane' or 'Declining Nitrogen Levels'.

There are no others, there is only us.
01-27-2010, 12:54 AM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA GISS & NOAA evidence mounts (WWF Update!)
Thanks FastT.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
08-17-2010, 02:34 PM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA GISS & NOAA evidence mounts (WWF Update!)
More fraud this time by NOAA ..

Quote:Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful
Written by John O'Sullivan, special to Climate Change Fraud
11 August 2010

US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.

The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).

Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true.

However, NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to state how long the fault might have gone undetected. Nor would the shaken spokesman engage in speculation as to the damage done to the credibility of a decade’s worth of temperature readings taken from the problematic ‘NOAA-16’ satellite.

‘NOAA-16’ was launched in September 2000, and is currently operational, in a sun-synchronous orbit, 849 km above the Earth, orbiting every 102 minutes providing automated data feed of surface temperatures which are fed into climate computer models.

NOAA has reported a succession of record warm temperatures in recent years based on such satellite readings but these may now all be undermined.

World-renowned Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball, after casting his expert eye over the shocking findings concluded, “At best the entire incident indicates gross incompetence, at worst it indicates a deliberate attempt to create a temperature record that suits the political message of the day.”

Great Lakes Sees Unphysical Wild Temperature Fluctuations

Great Lakes users of the satellite service were the first to blow the whistle on the wildly distorted readings that showed a multitude of impossibly high temperatures. NOAA admits that the machine-generated readings are not continuously monitored so that absurdly high false temperatures could have become hidden amidst the bulk of automated readings.

In one example swiftly taken down by NOAA after my first article, readings for June and July 2010 for Lake Michigan showed crazy temperatures off the scale ranging in the low to mid hundreds - with some parts of the Wisconsin area apparently reaching 612 F. With an increasing number of further errors now coming to light the discredited NOAA removed the entire set from public view. But just removing them from sight is not the same as addressing the implications of this gross statistical debacle.

NOAA Whitewash Fails in One Day

NOAA’s Chuck Pistis went into whitewash mode on first hearing the story about the worst affected location, Egg Harbor, set by his instruments onto fast boil. On Tuesday morning Pistis loftily declared, “I looked in the archives and I find no image with that time stamp. Also we don't typically post completely cloudy images at all, let alone with temperatures. This image appears to be manufactured for someone's entertainment.”

But later that day Chuck and his calamitous colleagues now with egg on their faces, threw in the towel and owned up to the almighty gaffe. Pistis conceded,

“I just relooked and (sic) the image again AND IT IS in my archive. I do not know why the temperatures were so inaccurate (sic). It appears to have been a malfunction in the satellite. WE have posted thousands if (sic) images since the inauguration of our Coatwatch (sic) service in 1994. I have never seen one like this.”

But the spokesman for the Michigan Sea Grant Extension, a ‘Coastwatch’ partner with NOAA screening the offending data, then confessed that its hastily hidden web pages had, indeed, showed dozens of temperature recordings three or four times higher than seasonal norms. NOAA declined to make any comment as to whether such a glitch could have ramped up the averages for the entire northeastern United States by an average of 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit by going undetected over a longer time scale.

Somewhat more contritely NOAA's Pistis later went into damage limitation mode to offer his excuses,

“We need to do a better job screening what is placed in the archive or posted. Coastwatch is completely automated so you can see how something like this could slip through.”

In his statement Pistis agreed NOAA’s satellite readings were “degraded” and the administration will have to “look more into this.” Indeed, visitors to the Michigan Sea Grant site now see the following official message:

"NOTICE: Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. “Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive.”

Blame the Clouds, not us says NOAA

NOAA further explained that cloud cover could affect the satellite data making the readings prone to error. But Pistis failed to explain how much cloud is significant or at what point the readings become unusable for climatic modeling purposes.

As one disgruntled observer noted,

“What about hazy days? What about days with light cloud cover? What about days with partial cloud cover? Even on hot clear days, evaporation leads to a substantial amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, particularly above a body of water. How can this satellite data be even slightly useful if it cannot "see" through clouds?”

Top Climatologist Condemns Lack of Due Diligence

The serious implications of these findings was not lost on Dr. Ball who responded that such government numbers with unusually high or low ranges have been exploited for political purposes and are already in the record and have been used in stories across the mainstream media, which is a widely recognized goal.

The climatologist who advises the military on climate matters lamented such faulty data sets,

“invariably remain unadjusted. The failure to provide evidence of how often cloud top temperatures "very nearly" are the same as the water temperatures, is unacceptable. If the accuracy of the data is questionable it should not be used. I would suggest it is rare given my knowledge of inversions, especially over water.“

How Many other Weather Satellites Are Also ‘Degraded’?

A key issue the government administration declined to address was how many other satellites may also be degrading. ‘NOAA-16’ is not an old satellite - so why does it take a member of the public to uncover such gross failings?

Climate professor, Tim Ball, pointed out that he’s seen these systemic failures before and warns that the public should not expect to see any retraction or an end to the doom-saying climate forecasts:

“when McIntyre caught Hansen and NASA GISS with the wrong data in the US I never saw any adjustments to the world data that changes to the US record would create. The US record dominates the record, especially of the critical middle latitudes, and to change it so that it goes from having nine of the warmest years in the 1990s to four of them being in the 1930s, is a very significant change and must influence global averages.”

Each day that passes sees fresh discoveries of gross errors and omissions. One astute commenter on noted, “it is generally understood that water heats up more slowly than land, and cools off more slowly. However, within the NOAA numbers we have identified at least two sets of data that run contrary to this known physical effect.

The canny commenter added, “two data points in question are at Charlevoix, where the temperature is listed at 43.5 degrees - while temperature nearby (+/- 30 miles) is 59.2 degrees; and in the bay on the east side of the peninsula from Leland is listed at 37.2 degrees. These are supposedly taken at 18:38 EDT (19:38 Central, or 7:38PM). These are both taken in areas that appear to be breaks in the cloud cover.

With NOAA’s failure to make further concise public statements on this sensational story it is left to public speculation and ‘citizen scientists’ to ascertain whether ten years or more of temperature data sets from satellites such as NOAA-16 are unreliable and worthless.
There are no others, there is only us.
08-18-2010, 01:35 AM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA GISS & NOAA evidence mounts (WWF Update!)
Thanks FT, more examples of the corruption epidemic.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
10-12-2010, 12:12 PM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA GISS & NOAA evidence mounts (WWF Update!)
Quote:Satellitegate US Agency Faces Courtroom Climate Showdown
By John O'Sullivan Wednesday
October 6, 2010

The controversy over ‘Satellitegate’ heats up as NOAA faces a court appearance for refusing to release evidence that would show whether one or more US satellites exaggerated global warming temperatures.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal agency focused on reporting the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere. When the story first broke NOAA bizarrely announced it would withdraw satellite ‘images’ from its archives, but failed to state whether reams of cooked data had also been withdrawn.

An official US Government statement last July confirmed that the NOAA-16 earth orbiting satellite used to measure surface temperatures suffered failure due to a “degraded” sensor system. But skeptics now fear that because government climate scientists won’t answer any more questions or reveal the discredited data archives, they may be guilty of fraudulently cooking the books to show super boiling temperatures.

The story broke after an anonymous member of the public contacted a skeptic blog when he stumbled across thousands of alarming readings on a government website. The website showed thousands of surface temperatures of over 400 degrees fahrenheit. Dubbed Satellitegate, the shocking revelations proved that all such bogus data had been fed automatically into data banks that the US Government then sold all over the world.

As proprietary temperature data products, the junk numbers were used by domestic and international weather and climate researchers. Fears are growing that the junk data may have contaminated scores of climate models worldwide and artificially increased average global warming records by several degrees.

In the three months since the story hit the news, NOAA still hasn’t come clean as to the true extent of the data contamination. Now it may be necessary for lawyers to file an official Freedom of Information request (FOIA) to compel the government, under federal legislation, to stop the cover up and reveal the truth.
US Government Has History of Breaking Law over Satellite Failures

This won’t the first time NOAA has cynically broken the law to hide embarrassing satellite problems. In 2008 became embroiled in a similar FOIA confrontation- see ‘NOAA Stonewalls on DCSOVR Documents.’ It is believed that the DCSOVR satellite costing over $100 million may be cannabalized to destroy incriminating evidence that NOAA and NASA were conspiring to prevent the launch of that satellite because it would prove the numbers from other such sources were fake.

As reports, “DSCOVR is designed to view the planet from the unique vantage point of one million miles distant, and according to leading researchers would immediately settle any remaining debate on the origins or seriousness of global warming.”

Degraded Climate Data Knowingly Sold for Over Five Years

Among the questions NOAA still hasn’t answered are: (1.) how long did NOAA knowingly sell to its network of international customers (mostly government weather and climate researchers) ‘degraded’ data and, (2.) why was no action taken until the story caused a public outcry five years after prominent climate researchers first made the faults known?

Sadly, some commentators on this issue omit to consider that it is common practice in corruption cases for conspirators to shroud their malevolence in the cloak of incompetence. To be fair to the commentator in question he has since publicly conceded, “But, I don’t know the full story.”

How the Law Addresses Corruption

Too often, those with little or no legal experience fail to address whether the alleged perpetrators have the means, motive and opportunity to engage in such conspiratorial acts. Willful ignorance of the facts and/or the law are recurrent themes in government corruption cases on which I’ve worked in both the UK and New York.

Courts must look for the mens rea (guilty mind) component of the wrongful act in conjunction with the actus reus (the rotten deed itself) otherwise, quite rightly, they will never convict.

Lawyers defending the indefensible will often resort to that hoary old chestnut of applying the “merely negligent” gambit to get government workers off serious charges. I have heard endlessly over the years from defense attorneys that we should “never presume malice where simple incompetence will do.” To the raw, untrained eye it often works.

Indeed, there is no prerequisite to doubt such an affirmative defense when there is the absence of any pattern of “error” because it is that pattern of repeated errors that leads to the guilty. What becomes apparent in good fraud cases is that the evidence always displays a pattern- a predictable sequence- of “errors” that go way beyond mere chance.

The Question that NOAA Still Won’t Answer

What makes the Satellitegate controversy so intriguing are three simple questions:

1. Why do the thousands of high temperature “errors” favor the alarmist (thus government) case?
2. Why were such “errors” only acknowledged by the US government when the story became big news?
3. Why won’t NOAA answer my follow on questions and release all the facts?

Invariably, apologists for science fraud often refer to systemic “errors” as nothing more serious than simple laboratory “selection bias” - and it sure is! Those involved only see what suits them. However, as we have seen in correspondingly substantial frauds (e.g. multi-billion dollar Madoff scandal and sub-prime mortgages) such “error” bias profits the individual or the organisation that crunched the numbers.

When that link between conscious act and subsequent gain becomes clear then it constitutes criminal fraud. Often when such cases are proved you’ll hear those same sanctimonious words uttered by apologists, “lessons will be learned” and they sure are - particularly lessons as to how best to mitigate being caught in the future!

How Self-preservation instinct leads to Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

As I have seen in courtrooms, many middle ranking officers, those loyal lieutenants, often rally behind the misdeeds of their superiors because they are clearly motivated by misplaced self-preservation in a process of ‘CYA.’ You “cover your #####” and concomitantly, by such a survival strategy you also cover the behinds of colleagues by wagon circling as a group. You know full well that your undoubted strength in numbers increases your own personal chances of avoiding censure/prosecution.

So how do anti-corruption specialists prove malfeasance/fraud under the civil burden of “the preponderance of the evidence?” Well, ultimately we need to demonstrate a good probability that X , Y or Z are unlikely to be merely incompetent time after time when their repeated errors favor only one outcome as opposed to a random one. When it becomes statistically improbable that such “errors” could be down to chance alone, that’s when a jury convicts.

What those without legal training also often fail to grasp are two key concepts that courts must address that may be fatal for those implicated parties:

1. Omission-conscious failure to positively remedy a known error is malfeasance and may thus constitute conspiracy to commit fraud;
2. Loss or destruction of evidence by any party subject to an FOIA constitutes evidence abuse which is dealt with by the spoliation doctrine (i.e. the offending party is sanctioned under law because the law states that a party shall be punished when it ought to anticipate legal proceedings-thus securing conviction by default judgment).[1.]

The worst evidence of hyper-inflated global warming data that I found was on a web page entitled, ‘Michigan State University Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services.’ When I contacted NOAA for further information, I was denied by their lawyers. Is this necessary if we are talking about a non-problem over trivial errors of data no one uses? Does that smell of negligence or more of fraud? Taxpayers have a right to know what evidence has now become conveniently “lost” or destroyed.

NOAA and MSU have effectively blocked further access to all associated data preventing my associates and me from analyzing it to identify if there is any case to answer. We merely want NOAA to address the following:

1. Since removing ‘images’ from their archives has NOAA or its Sea Watch partners taken steps to also remove infected ‘data’ from their archives?
2. When did NOAA/Sea Watch Partners first know of this problem?
3. Has NOAA and/or Sea Watch partners ascertained the scope and extent of this data error and what action (i) has been (ii) will be taken to avoid any further recurrence?
4. Has NOAA/Sea Watch partners identified whether satellite data temperature anomalies impact other data sets and findings including global climate models?
5. Why has NOAA sinisterly removed all entries for the NOAA-16 subsystem log about the satellite’s health and performance from 2005 onwards when such entries were clearly displayed online up to the date of my first ‘Satellitegate’ article?
6. Were there errors also made in the NOAA-16 subsystem log that is a totally unconnected process to that of the degraded sensor?
7. Will NOAA preserve/provide my investigators and me with the details of all the aforementioned data no longer displayed online, plus all associated data that may be relevant to investigations into the ‘Satellitegate’ controversy?
8. Does NOAA continue to feed automated ‘degraded’ satellite data into its proprietary products that are bought by weather and climate researchers around the world?
9. Why has NOAA not given any official notifications to (i) it’s paying customers and (ii) the public via its website/publications of the NOAA-16 faults despite Drs. Roy Spencer and John Curry making it known since 2005 that data was no longer reliable?

What Are the Public Left to Think Now?

As any competent government corruption attorney will tell you, repeated errors constitute malfeasance when a continuous and unrelenting omission to address a known sequence of data ‘degradations’ can be judged to be nothing short of a conscious and willful act.

Moreover, when there is also the intentional failure to divulge the evidence that would prove conscious intent not to correct a fault in your favor then that is also proof of fraud. Thus, a group of those who knew of the errors and collectively and consciously failed to act are as guilty of conspiracy to defraud as those who perpetrated the original wrong. Bankers have been jailed for less, why aren’t climate scientists?

[1.] Koesel, MM; Turnbull, TL; Gourash, DF; ‘Spoliation of evidence: sanctions and remedies for destruction of evidence,’(2006), American Bar Association.

I hadn't mentioned the Kiwigate Scandal (NIWA Climategate Clone) yet - here's the verdict...

Quote:Guilty: Legal Defeat for NIWA for Climate Data Fraud in NZ Kiwigate Scandal
By John O'Sullivan
Last Updated Oct 9, 2010, Published Oct 6, 2010

In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate,New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.

New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction. The story is also covered on web news aggregator site,

NIWA’s statement of defense claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR).The climb down is seen as a legal triumph for skeptics of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) who had initiated their challenge last August when petitioning the high court of New Zealand to invalidate the weather service’s reconstruction of antipodean temperatures. The NZCSC Petition may be read here.

According to the August official statement of the claim from NZCSC, climate scientists cooked the books by using the same alleged ‘trick’ employed by British and American scientists. This involves subtly imposing a warming bias during what is known as the ‘homogenisation’ process that occurs when climate data needs to be adjusted.

The specific charge brought against the Kiwi government was that its climate scientists had taken the raw temperature records of the country and then adjusted them artificially with the result that a steeper warming trend was created than would otherwise exist by examination of the raw data alone.

Indeed, the original Kiwi records show no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared.

New Zealand Government Abandons ‘Official’ Climate Record

The NZCSC story reports that the NZ authorities, “formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence.”

NIWA now denies there was any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although there was an official acronym for it (NZTR). However, the position now taken by the NZ government is that all such records are now to be deemed as unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes.

The article urges that if the government will not affirm that their temperature reconstruction is official then, “Nobody else should rely on it.”

Researcher from Climategate University Implicated in Data Fraud

As reported in a Suite101 article by the same writer of April 2010 'Kiwigate is a Carbon Copy of Climategate' it was shown that the scientist who made the controversial “bold adjustments” is none other than Jim Salinger who is also a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Because very few temperature records exist for the Pacific Ocean, the NIWA record is given extra weight by the UN’s IPCC for determining multi-decadal trends in global average temperatures.

Salinger was dismissed by NIWA earlier this year for speaking without authorization to the media. The researcher originally worked at Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the institution at the center of the Climategate scandal.

Salinger was also among the inner circle of climate scientists whose leaked emails precipitated the original climate controversy in November 2009. In an email (August 4, 2003) to fellow American climate professor, Michael Mann, Salinger stated he was “extremely concerned about academic standards” among climate skeptics.

Data Destroyed Before it Could be Independently Verified

In circumstances strangely similar to those witnessed in the Climategate controversy, Kiwigate appears to match Climategate in three key facets. First, climate scientists declined to submit their data for independent analysis. Second, when backed into a corner the scientists claimed their adjustments had been ‘lost’. Third, the raw data itself proves no warming trend.

Downloadable pdf files of letters between Coalition chairman and barrister Barry Brill and NIWA chairman Chris Mace may be read here.


Dunleavy MBE, T.,'High Court asked to invalidate NIWA’s official NZ temperature record,' (August 13,2010);, (accessed online: October 6, 2010)

Atkins, Holm, Joseph & Majurey., [Solicitors],’Statement of Defence on Behalf of the Defendant,’ [On behalf of NIWA], (September 14, 2010)

Costa, A.C. and A. Soares, ‘Homogenization of Climate Data: Review and New Perspectives Using Geostatistics,’ Mathematical Geoscience, Volume 41, Number 3 / April, 2009.

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, ‘NIWA Challenged to Show Why and How Temperature Records Were Adjusted’ (February 7, 2010), accessed online April 26, 2010.

NZCSC & Climate Science Conversation Group; Press Statement of December 18, 2009; accessed online ( April 26, 2010).

Salinger, J. Climategate email Filename: 1060002347.txt. (August 4, 2003).

This particular letter presented in the case had some good recommendations for which to outline future climate studies on (PDF excerpt):

Quote:The Coalition believes that the best interests of the scientific fraternity will be served if the NIWA Board now takes prompt action to assure New Zealanders the Institute is committed to the following principles:

• Routine disclosure of data and methodologies in sufficient detail to allow replication;
• Full compliance with the letter and spirit of the Official Information Act;
• Maintenance of full and accurate records, with adequate documentation;
• Observance of scientific best practice to minimize the influence of bias;
• Strict separation between the Institute’s scientific and political/PR objectives;
• Development of a culture that values transparency and openness
There are no others, there is only us.
10-12-2010, 02:31 PM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
Here's the net result of the difference; 233% - +0.3C -> +1.0C per century.
There are no others, there is only us.
06-18-2011, 10:56 AM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
Good sound journalism to highlight the underlying cherry-picking, fabrication and manipulation of the IPCC AR4 Report for Policy Makers in which governments, education and entire national energy predictions to shape policy, pass draconian Agenda 21 laws and make subsidies to multinational corporations because of the urgent global warming threat were based upon.

Quote:New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace
15 June 2011

STOP PRESS – See 17 June update: ‘Questions the IPCC must urgently answer‘…

The headlines were unequivocal when the IPCC renewables report came out a few weeks ago. Here’s the first line of the BBC News piece:

Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world’s energy needs by mid-century, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The Guardian led with the same conclusion:

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world’s energy supply within four decades – but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

And so on. But what you weren’t told was that the actual report had not yet been released – the headlines were based on a ‘Summary for Policymakers (PDF)’ which referenced statistics and scenarios which journalists would not be able to check until the entire full report was released a month or so later.

That release of the full report happened yesterday. And a close reading of it shows that the IPCC has made an error much more serious than the so-called Himalayagate and associated non-scandals last year – it has allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO. Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time. Yet this time McIntyre has got it right.

Here’s what happened. The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Even worse, Teske is a lead author of the IPCC report also – in effect meaning that this campaigner for Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but was in effect allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work under the cover of the authoritative and trustworthy IPCC. A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be imagined.

The ER-2010 study would count for me as ‘grey literature’, despite being published in a minor journal called Energy Efficiency (PDF). This is because it was initially written as a propaganda report by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (PDF) – the latter are are of course enthusiasts for renewable energy’s prospects because they make money from selling wind turbines and solar panels, so hardly count as an unbiased source. It is sadly ironic that the original ‘Himalayagate’ IPCC error was the result of an uncritical reliance on exactly this kind of campaigning ‘grey literature’. Then, however, the mistake was deeply buried in the report. This time, it was used to headline the entire thing – and the source was not obvious to media at the time because the full report was not even released. So the ’80% by 2050′ headlines were repeated far and wide with no-one realising their original true source.

So what to conclude? My view is that the IPCC renewables report has told us nothing – except that Greenpeace thinks we can solve the climate change problem entirely with renewable energy, which of course we already knew. But whilst I still hold the hard-science Working Group 1 of the IPCC in very high regard, I have lost a lot of confidence in Working Group 3. That it allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO is an extraordinary failure, and one which cannot simply be forgotten.

The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course have been screaming blue murder.

Additionally, the Greenpeace/renewables industry report is so flawed that it should not have been considered by the IPCC at all. Whilst the journal-published version looks like proper science, the propaganda version on the Greenpeace website has all the hallmarks of a piece of work which started with some conclusions and then set about justifying them. There is a whole section dedicated to ‘dirty, dangerous nuclear power’, and the scenario includes a complete phase-out of new nuclear globally, with no stations built after 2008.

How is this achieved whilst also reducing carbon emissions at the same time, which is after all the supposed point of the whole exercise? By assuming a totally unrealistic global consumption of energy, with total primary energy use in 2050 actually *less* than the baseline of 2007. The magic trick of getting rid of nuclear whilst generating 80% of the world’s energy from renewables is performed by making an absurd assumption that primary energy use will fall (from 469 exajoules today to 407 in 2050) even as population rises from 7 to 9 billion and GDP per capita more than doubles. I doubt this is even thermodynamically possible, let alone the basis for good policy.

One last thing: McIntyre points out that the Greenpace propaganda report which has regrettably destroyed the credibility of the IPCC’s effort on renewables contains a preface – written by none other than R. K. Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC itself. I have great respect for Dr Pachauri, as for the IPCC as an institution. I only wish he – and it – would be more careful.


The IPCC of course has a conflict of interest policy, and is in the process – so far as I can tell – of updating it. This document (PDF), adopted at the recent session in Abu Dhabi, states:

The individual and the IPCC should not be placed in a situation that could lead a reasonable person to question, and perhaps discount or dismiss, the work of the IPCC simply because of the existence of a conflict of interest.

I don’t know if I count as a ‘reasonable person’ or not, but that is precisely what I have done in the above post. Having looked into this issue in a bit more depth, it appears that Working Group 3 in particular – but not exclusively – is riddled with NGO people (hat tip Donna Laframboise here and here). This really has got to stop. No campaigners or industry people (those with either an ideological or financial interest) should surely ever be allowed to be IPCC lead authors. Why has this situation been allowed to develop at all?

Later update – and clarification

The story has now been picked up by the Independent, and seems to be snowballing in the blogosphere. I should say for the record, since I seem to be the sceptics’ new best friend (courtesy Watts Up With That), that this in no way undermines my commitment to phasing out fossil fuels in order to urgently tackle global warming. Indeed, my upcoming book argues for a ‘planetary boundary’ of 350ppm – which is going further than most green groups would. It is precisely because I am concerned to protect the integrity of the IPCC and climate science in particular that I worry about any involvement of vested interests from any side – whether from campaigning NGOs or industry – in what should be an unimpeachably neutral body.

Yet another update, 11.20 GMT, 16 June

Following an email discussion started by Andy Revkin over at Dot Earth, I have sent the following four questions to the IPCC renewables report lead author Dr Ottmar Edenhofer:

1. what was the process for writing the press release, and who decided whether it faithfully represented the main conclusions of the SPM/main report?
2. why was the SPM released more than a month before the full report?
3. was Sven Teske in any way involved in the decision to highlight Teske et al, 2010 as one of the four ‘illustrative scenarios’ explored in greater depth as per Section 10.3.1?
4. what is the IPCC conflict of interest policy with regard to lead authors reviewing their own work, and having affiliations to non-academic institutions, whether campaign groups or companies?

I am indebted to Garry in the comments below for spotting the fact that Greenpeace did make some play of the fact that ‘their’ scenario had been highlighted by the IPCC – despite the claim by many that the fact Teske et al, 2010 was published in a peer-reviewed journal meant it was no longer anything to do with Greenpeace. Here’s the press release from 9 May:

Abu Dhabi, 9th May 2011: Just 2.5% of viable renewable energy sources could provide up to 80% of world energy demand by 2050 with currently available technologies, according to a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Sven Teske, Renewable Energy Director from Greenpeace International, and one of the lead authors of the report said: “This is an invitation to governments to initiate a radical overhaul of their policies and place renewable energy centre stage. On the run up to the next major climate conference, COP17 in South Africa in December, the onus is clearly on governments to step up to the mark.”

The Energy [R]evolution scenario – a joint project of Greenpeace International, the European Renewable Energy Councile (EREC) and the German Space Agency (DLR) was chosen as one of the lead scenarios of the report. Since the first edition was launched in 2005, Greenpeace has published the Energy [R]evolution in over 40 countries and developed national scenarios, as well as three editions of its global version.
There are no others, there is only us.
06-18-2011, 04:18 PM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA GISS & NOAA evidence mounts
(01-24-2010, 11:26 PM)EvilMaster Wrote: For years and years people have been looking at me like I was nuts when I would tell them we are actually heading into a cooling trend. When I would tell them that global warming is a lie. When I would tell them that it is a tool to implement a global taxation system to fund a new global government. Going back all the way to the beginning of the 90s. I've been called a tinfoil hat, a retard, a moron etc etc...

People don't call me names anymore. Now they listen.

Haha, sounds like David Icke's favourite opening line, the one about putting out 8 chairs and no bugger sat in them only to put them back - now look at it - referring to the audience.
06-18-2011, 05:12 PM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
IPCC Sabotages an Interacademy Recommendation

By Steve McIntyre

Jun 18, 2011 – 8:38 AM

In the wake of Climategate, IPCC was more or less forced to establish a review of its procedures, carried out by the Interacademy Panel. One of its key recommendations was on conflict of interest – more on this later. A related recommendation called for the formation of an Executive Committee, with at least 3 members not being IPCC insiders:

The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-Chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.

A pretty sensible and long overdue recommendation. Independent board members are commonplace in far less prominent organizations.

In researching the conflict of interest policy, I noticed that even this mild recommendation was sabotaged by the IPCC. Here is the resolution on governance passed at the recent 33rd session in Abu Dhabi:

2.3.3 The Composition of the Executive Committee will be as follows:
a. Members:
IPCC Chair (who will chair the Executive Committee)
IPCC Co-Chairs of Working Groups I, II and III and of the Task Force on Inventories
IPCC Vice Chairs

b. Advisory Members:
Head of Secretariat
The four Heads of the Technical Support Units

No independent members on the Executive Committee. Instead of independent members, including ones not from the climate community, staff members will serve as ‘advisory members’.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
06-19-2011, 01:30 AM,
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts

by Steve McIntyre

June 18, 2011
Yesterday, IPCC chairman Pachauri told Oliver Morton of The Economist at an IPCC event in Brussels that conflict of interest policies would not not apply to AR5 authors. IPCC thereby sabotaged recommendations from the Interacademy Council and announced its plans to evade the conflict of interest policies passed at the 33rd IPCC plenary only a month ago.

The Pachauri Interview
Here’s what Pachauri said in response to Oliver Morton – see Morton’s interesting blog article here:

B: Are you happy with the IPCC’s new conflict-of-interest policy? [adopted at the panel’s recent plenary]

RP: Absolutely. I must say that was a very heartening piece of work. People put in a lot of effort to come up with what I think is a very robust policy in terms of conflict of interest.

B: At what point should it start to apply?

RP: It’s applicable right away. Of course if you look at conflict of interest with respect to authors who are there in the 5th Assessment Report we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.

All sorts of editorial responses spring to mind (one of which is that, in transcription, Pachauri sure sounds like Acton of East Anglia.) But first let’s follow some backstory – through the IAC Report and the COI policy adopted at the 33rd IPCC plenary.

IAC Report
Last summer, the Interacademy Panel (in rather sharp terms) recommended that IPCC adopt a Conflict of Interest policy, first noting that many institutions had conflict of interest policies and reporting on the IPCC situation as follows:

The IPCC does not have a conflict-of-interest or disclosure policy for its
senior leadership (i.e., IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), Working Group
Co-chairs and authors, or the staff of the Technical Support Units. The
professional staff members of the IPCC Secretariat are employees of
WMO and/or UNEP and are subject to their disclosure and ethics policies.
In particular, all IPCC Secretariat staff in Geneva, except for the Deputy
Secretary, are WMO employees and therefore are required to follow the
WMO code of ethics; the IPCC Deputy Secretary follows UN staff regulations;
and the IPCC Secretary must comply with the rules for both UN and
WMO staff because the Secretary is seconded from UNEP and WMO.

The lack of a conflict-of-interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders
and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who
were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input. Questions
about potential conflicts of interest, for example, have been raised about
the IPCC Chair’s service as an adviser to, and board member of, for-profit
energy companies (Pielke, 2010b), and about the practice of scientists
responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The
Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond
the mandate of this review. However, the Committee believes that the
nature of the IPCC’s task (i.e., in presenting a series of expert judgments
on issues of great societal relevance) demands that the IPCC pay special
attention to issues of independence and bias to maintain the integrity of,
and public confidence in, its results.

Note that the IAC drew specific attention to the problem of authors assessing their own work – one of the issues involved with the current Greenpeace situation and obviously not dealt with yet. In response, the IPCC said that they would discuss it at the next Plenary session – the 32nd session last October:

The IPCC Secretariat informed the Committee that the Panel will be
discussing options for conflict-of-interest and disclosure policies for the
various actors in the IPCC process (e.g., members of the Bureau, non-UN
staff, non-WMO staff, and authors) at its next Plenary session.

IPCC Conflict of Interest Policy
I haven’t yet parsed the minutes of the 32nd session, but the minutes of the 33rd session(May 2011 in Abu Dhabi) indicate that they formed a Task Group on Conflict of Interest Policy, which reported prior to the 33rd session at which a conflict of interest policy was adopted. Conflict of interest is defined in the policy passed in May 2011 as follows:

11. A “conflict of interest” refers to any current professional, financial or other interest which could: i) significantly impair the individual’s objectivity in carrying out his or her duties and responsibilities for the IPCC, or ii) create an unfair advantage for any person or organization. For the purposes of this policy, circumstances that could lead a reasonable person to question an individual’s objectivity, or whether an unfair advantage has been created, constitute a potential conflict of interest. These potential conflicts are subject to disclosure.

The policy distinguished between conflict of interest and bias, an important distinction. In respect to bias, the new policy requires;

Those involved in selecting authors will need to strive for an author team composition that reflects a balance of expertise and perspectives, such that IPCC products are comprehensive, objective, and neutral with respect to policy. In selecting these individuals, care must be taken to ensure that biases can be balanced where they

While our attention to WG3 has been attracted by conflict of interest, WG3′s ability to function as a source of trustworthy information is arguably prejudiced even more greatly by its failure to comply with bias policies – a point neatly put by Morton as follows (see original post for more discussion)

The real problem for the IPCC is not that Greenpeace infiltrated it; it is that when it comes to the world of renewables Greenpeace didn’t really need to.

The opening sections of the IPCC policy on conflict of interest state the purpose of the policy very clearly:

2. The role of the IPCC demands that it pay special attention to issues of independence and bias in order to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, its products and processes. It is essential that the work of IPCC is not compromised by any conflict of interest for those who execute it….

4. The IPCC Conflict of Interest Policy is designed to ensure that conflicts of interest are identified, communicated to the relevant parties, and managed to avoid any adverse impact on IPCC balance, products and processes, thereby protecting the individual, the IPCC, and the public interest. The individual and the IPCC should not be placed in a situation that could lead a reasonable person to question, and perhaps discount or dismiss, the work of the IPCC simply because of the existence of a conflict of interest.

Quite so. This states about as clearly as possible why the policy recommended by IAC and adopted by the 33rd Plenary should apply immediately to AR5. But instead, Pachauri says that these limited and sensible policies will not apply to AR5 because application of these sensible policies would not be ‘fair’ to the conflicted authors.

What isn’t ‘fair’ – either to the non-conflicted authors and, more importantly, to policy-makers and the public – is the refusal of Pachauri and other IPCC plenipotentiaries to forthwith implement the policy – not just on conflict of interest, but on bias.

Had IPCC not sabotaged the IAC recommendation for independent members of the Executive Committee, it would have been possible to notify them of the problem. However, as noted earlier today, IPCC sabotaged that IAC recommendation as well.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Horrific New Evidence Of China Organ Harvesting Revealed Ognir 3 1,147 03-05-2014, 12:35 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Video The IPCC Exposed drummer 5 1,081 09-29-2013, 04:03 PM
Last Post: Frank2
  NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere Defendfreedom 2 1,243 04-03-2013, 08:14 PM
Last Post: Watchdog
  GMO Researchers Attacked, Evidence Denied, and a Population at Risk h3rm35 3 2,255 09-20-2012, 10:22 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist TriWooOx 9 2,420 08-02-2012, 04:24 PM
Last Post: nwo2012
  Four fatal pieces of evidence icosaface 0 1,158 09-21-2011, 02:13 PM
Last Post: icosaface
  Forensic evidence emerges that e.coli superbug was bioengineered to produce fataliti TriWooOx 1 1,219 06-15-2011, 04:53 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Atmospheric Aerosols: Another Major IPCC Omission FastTadpole 4 2,566 05-25-2011, 07:29 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” TriWooOx 1 1,201 11-25-2010, 01:46 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Information Strong New Evidence H1N1 Vaccine Shows a Direct Link with Fetal Death FastTadpole 0 863 09-21-2010, 11:44 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)