Tag Archives: Climategate

Virgin Amazon? Think again

Rainforest

Yesterday I put up a post titled “Alarmist Whackjobism Continues?” where I chastised a recent alarmist report making claims the rainforests of the world are disappearing,which will increase CO2. I countered with a) the report only covers the period between 1980 and 2000, which seems a very dated and short time period, not to mention a seemingly convenient cutoff date, and b) because there is legitimate data showing that the regrowth ratio of the world’s rainforests is 50: 1, i.e., for every acre cut down, 50 acres are growing.

To pile some more fuel on the global warming isn’t anthropogenic fire, a friend tweeted me a URL this morning that leads to an article on Sott.net titled “Amazon was home to a large civilization, scientist says.” It is about a researcher who shows that much of the Amazon has been settled before by significant numbers of people. This means that a) much of it isn’t the “virgin” forest as the warmers and greens like to claim, and b) the jungle does reclaim what it had after man leaves.

This appears to be yet more evidence that condemns the claims in the study from Stanford University’s Holly Gibbs. More information to lead us in the direction that her study may just be last-minute alarmism and that perhaps the rainforests aren’t having the big problems the “warmer” crowd would like the public to believe.

Per the article you can see that Nigel Smith and others have discovered things long-buried in the jungle that seem to refute the claims that the rainforests are endangered. (Please note that this article originated from the Washington Post, which appears to be on the “warmer” side of the fence, which to me reinforces in my mind that the article isn’t just some “skeptic” BS).

To the untrained eye, all evidence here in the heart of the Amazon signals virgin forest, untouched by man for time immemorial – from the ubiquitous fruit palms to the cry of howler monkeys, from the air thick with mosquitoes to the unruly tangle of jungle vines.

Archaeologists, many of them Americans, say the opposite is true: This patch of forest, and many others across the Amazon, was instead home to an advanced, even spectacular civilization that managed the forest and enriched infertile soil to feed thousands.

What has been discovered is interesting. To make a long story short.

  • Man made indian mounts containing ceramic pieces and man-enrichened earth
  • huge swaths of terra preta, so-called Indian dark earth, land made fertile by mixing charcoal, human waste and other organic matter with soil
  • vast orchards of semi-domesticated fruit trees
  • moats, causeways, canals, the networks of a stratified civilization

Nigel Smith

It would seem to me that this research is another cog in the mounting evidence that is proving the global warming crowd is getting very over-heated about nothing. It appears to me that they’re on the defense after Climategate, and appear to be taking some great liberties with the way good science is done, as evidenced by some of the alarmist reports and articles we see. Lest you think not, you can go here and see a huge list of all the claims made by the “warmers,” many which appear contradictory.

They also appear rife to admit that perhaps Mother Nature takes care of herself and that what appears to be global warming to them is just part of a natural cycle, just like the rainforests rejuvenating themselves.

It appears to me that we have another nail in the CO2 Insanity coffin. I’d highly recommend you read the article from Sott.

Source: Sott.net

Advertisements

Comments Off on Virgin Amazon? Think again

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Science

IAC REPORT ON IPCC: Finally skeptics exonerated

Finally we get a report from the UN IAC (Inter Academy Council) regarding their investigation of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Here’s my take on it.

While this seems a possible case of the proverbial fox guarding the hen-house, in my opinion the  IAC appears to be VERY AWARE of the shenanigans surrounding the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) that was published in 2007, and moreover, what’s been going on since. There have been many questions about this report and the data surrounding it (Climategate for example), with little or no response other than obfuscation, stonewalling or just plain old-fashioned BS. It seems this is a good report that addresses the problems.

By their own response the IAC appears to me to exonerate the “skeptics” who have questioned how they came to their conclusions by citing errors the IPCC made regarding things such as the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, use of non-peer reviewed items, use of things such as magazine articles, the peer-review process, estimates of probability and many other items. This is tantamount to an admission that the IPCC AR4 is riddled with errors, omissions, possibly even fraud, and that the people who have been questioning what has been going on at the IPCC have been correct in their assessments of “unprecedented” problems with the report and the people responsible for it.

I am glad to see that they have made what appear to be some solid recommendations about how future IPCC reports will be handled, which hopefully won’t only provide a more realistic report, but will have ways for non-participants to be able to review the old who-what-where-when-and why based upon what’s contained in the report without having to ask a lot of questions with no answers received. In other words the next report should contain just about everything anyone would want to know about the data, the process, the scientist involved, how decisions were made, etc.

It also appears based upon their recommendation to elect an Executive Director and limit his or her term that they’re less than happy with Rajendra Pachauri who throughout this process seems to have, to be polite, done an lees than stellar job.  They also want people in charge in between reports so there can be valid responses to valid questions after the next report is issued.

If this document isn’t ignored it will be a good thing.  But, there’s always the possibility that we’ll end up with it only producing new ways for some of the participants to provide another faux report with faux information, provided by faux science in an effort to keep the pressure on that anthropogenic global warming is real. That remains to be seen.

Per their Executive Summary found here (PDF), we get the following recommendations.

  • Recommendation: 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.
  • Recommendation: The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
  • Recommendation: The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.
  • Recommendation: All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.
  • Recommendation: Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).
  • Recommendation: The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.

From Fox News we get quotes from Harold Shapiro, Chair of the IAC investigation:

It appears that editors “didn’t follow through carefully enough on what review editors commented,” said Shapiro.

“We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up — one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment.”

And quotes from Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University:

“The IPCC report is filled with statements of ‘90% certainty’ without even saying 90% of what or providing any basis for such statements. Yet those pronouncements of certainty were used over and over as though that had been scientifically proven somehow,” he told FoxNews.com.

It seems Pachauri doesn’t get the message:

“The IPCC has yet to review the IAC’s findings, so I am not able to comment on its findings,” said longstanding chair Rajendra Pachauri in a press conference following the presentation. But he did note that none of the seven reviews of the IPCC to date had found flaws in the U.N. group.

Hopefully he will get it, in the end (pun intended).

The main report found here (PDF), will provide you with more details about the IPCC’s failures and what direction the IAC wants them to go in, which seems to be in the direction of real science, and that’s a good thing.

Perhaps the CO2 Insanity is beginning to subside.

Source: IAC

Source: Fox News

Comments Off on IAC REPORT ON IPCC: Finally skeptics exonerated

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IAC, IPCC, United Nations

Pachauri cleared of financial wrongdoing….really?

Today we have George Monbiot (referred to as “Moonbat” by some of his “friends”) yelling like Tarzan after getting a nice sloppy kiss from Jane, about how Rajendra Pacuauri, Chairman of the IPCC, has been cleared of financial wrongdoing by KPMG, found here.

To read Mr. Monbiot’s blog one would think that this entailed a complete financial audit and that it is 100% proof positive of no wrongdoing by Pachauri. It would be nice if that was true, if it were I’d accept it. But after reading the report I have to say that while it sounds like “exoneration” on the face of it, I find some things surrounding this “exoneration” that I feel would lead a reasonable person to question the veracity of the report.

First: To analyze this, lets first remember that there’s absolutely zip, nada, nothing in the KPMG report regarding any of the actual science surrounding the last IPCC report.  If you remember it is the one that had the glaciers in the Himalayas melting by 2035. This is not reporting about anything other than anything other than Mr. Pachauri’s finances. KPMG is financial accounting company, not Science-R-Us.

Second: Lets go over the report and see what we find inside it.

  1. Note it’s only a “review” and isn’t a complete audit.
  2. It’s been done by KPMG, which while I’m sure is a good organization still has had its pecadellos over the years such as:

a) A 2003 scandal in which KPMG admitted setting up phony tax-shelters: “KPMG admitted to setting up fake tax shelters for it’s wealthiest clients, which helped them evade paying $2.5 Billion in tax dollars throughout the 1990’s. If that wasn’t enough, KMPG was accused with the obstruction of justice as investigators tried to piece together the facts of the accounting scandal.”

b) The 2020 Hontex Scandal in China where evidently KPMG

i) Slipped up when providing statements for the Hontex IPO in 2009, which raised $129 million USD.

ii) Which caused the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission to go to court to freeze the assets of Hontex.

iii) “The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) charged KPMG senior manager Leung Sze-chit, 32, of offering a bribe of HK$100,000 (US$12,900) in February to his subordinate, Lau Shuk-ting, “as a reward for preparing the accountant’s report in the prospectus for the global offering of Hontex.”

(Again, I am can’t and won’t say that KPMG did anything regarding this review that was improper, you can read up on them and judge for yourself. I do think the aforementioned “problems” would at least cause a reasonable person to wonder if perhaps anything “off-color” went on with this “review.” Don’t blame me, blame KPMG’s past performance, I’m only making you aware of it, you can judge for yourself.)

3. At the end of this “review” in Section 6.1, please note the following statements:

6.1 Limitations

6.1.1 This report is based on information provided to us by TERI, Dr. Pachauri and his tax counsel,Mr. Ashok Khurana (M/s A.K. Khurana & Associates, Chartered Accountants). Work done by us was as considered necessary at the given point in time. Third party evidence has not been verified. We have relied on both oral and documentary evidence.

6.1.2 In accordance with its policy, KPMG advises that neither it nor any Partners or employee undertakes responsibility arising in any way whatsoever, to any person other than our client in respect of the matters dealt in this report, including any errors or omission therein, arising through negligence or otherwise, however caused.

6.1.3 Our work constituted limited review, and the scope of our work was significantly different from that of an audit and cannot therefore be relied upon to provide the same level of assurance as an audit.

4. Date of Report

a). Please note per the shot of the cover above that the report only covers for the dates between April 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.

b) The IPCC 4th Assessment report was completed and published in February, 2007.  This is  an amazingly long time before the review starts covering Pachauri’s finances in 2008.

c) One should also note that Dr. Pachauri was hired as Chairman of the IPCC in July, 2001. This leaves almost 6 years of no financial data having been provided or reviewed while he was Chairman of the IPCC.

5. Future Compensation

a) There is no mention of any future compensation that may or may not have been promised to Dr. Pachauri by TERI, or anyone else.

(I know it’s not anything that KPMG could put a finger on, but face it, it is entirely possible that Pachauri could end up with a nice fat seat on the Board of Directors at someplace after he’s done being Chairman of the IPCC as a reward for being a good boy. I guess one could pick anyone who will profit from global warming and the resulting carbon trading as a potential benefactor. Speculation indeed, but it’s a valid question.  Whether it has a valid answer or not is another story.)

SUMMARY

Here we have a “review” based upon information provided by the people being investigated that has not been verified. We also have KPMG playing CYA by basically stating they’re not going to be responsible if there was any hanky-panky or if TERI, Pachauri or his tax counsel “conveniently” forgot to provide them with anything, or if anything they provided wasn’t 100% accurate. (To simplify things it means this could perhaps be a case of bullshit in and bullshit out.)

Then they close by saying it’s not an audit and shouldn’t be taken as an audit because of all the aforementioned reasons. If it were an audit the information would have been verified, but it wasn’t. Sorry, but this really sounds just like the computer “models” used by certain “warmer” orientated scientist to “prove” their global warming theories.  They plug-in whatever “conveniently” arrives at the conclusion that we have CO2 induced global warming.

Perhaps the information provided in this “review” was of the same order. Instead of feeding in scary things like hot temperatures, we may have a case of feeding in nice financial things that prove everyone is “above-board” and totally honest.

You can decide for yourself.  Do you think this really is an exoneration of Dr. Pachauri’s financial dealings? Or, is it a case of  CO2 Insanity? Sorry but I can’t feel satisfied that this is an exoneration.

Source: The Guardian

The KPMG Review in its entirety is here

Comments Off on Pachauri cleared of financial wrongdoing….really?

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Legal, Science

Satellitegate: Scientists Speak

GOES-8 Satellite that will be missing 14 sensors it should have to see if we have global warming or not

From John O’Sullivan, via Canada Free Press, we get further information on Satellitegate. Satellitegate refers to problems that have been discovered with old satellites, satellite data, and even problems with satellites that have yet to be launched. This evidently has caused lots of action about this at NASA, NOAA, GISS and elsewhere.

In his article titled “Top Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal” you can read about how this being exposed has affected things and some opinions of some scientists. It appears that one satellite has been shuttered and datasets may be disappearing.

US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” – temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.

In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.

Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down.

If you want to read about the whole big and getting bigger all the time scandal here are the links to the other articles and posts about Satellitegate.

  • You can read the whole article at Canada Free Press here.
  • This link is to my post about John O’Sullivan’s article on thr 10-15 degree warming added by NOAA-16.
  • This link is to my first post about the article titled “Dimmer View of Earth” in the Contra Costa Times, by Susan Bohan.
  • This link is to John O’Sullivan’s original article at Climate Change Fraud.
  • This link is to my post about John O’Sullivan’s article about the 600+ degree city of Egg Harbor, Wisconsin.

Sources: John O’Sullivan, Canada Free Press, Climate Change Fraud

6 Comments

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, GISS, John O'Sullivan, NASA, NOAA, Sattelitegate, Science

Legitmate Earth Day News Straight from NASA?

Here is an oxymoron for you….”Here is some legitimate Earth Day news straight from NASA.  Ummmmmm…hmmmmmm. More CO2 Insanity.

Here’s your link to it.

Comments Off on Legitmate Earth Day News Straight from NASA?

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Editor, Stranger than Truth

Munchausen by Proxy and Global Warming

Here you can read the definition of Munchausen by Proxy…I made some changes to reflect what I’m talking about with respect to global warming fraud, but the basics are there.

Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) is a relatively uncommon condition that involves the exaggeration or fabrication of climate illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker (scientist). One of the most harmful forms of science abuse, MBPS was named after Baron von Munchausen, an 18th-century German dignitary known for telling outlandish stories.


Sound familiar?  See the the similarities?  Read on.

In MBPS, an individual — usually a scientist or warmer — deliberately “makes” the planet appear sick or convinces others that the planet is sick. The scientist or warmer misleads others into thinking that the planet has climate problems by lying and reporting fictitious data. He or she may exaggerate, fabricate, or induce symptoms. As a result, scientists usually order tests, suggest different types of solutions (like carbon taxes and other asinine ideas), and may even hospitalize the planet or perform surgery like drilling ice cores to determine the cause.

Sound like some warmers  and scientists we know?  Sure does to me.

Typically, the perpetrator feels satisfied by gaining the attention and sympathy of warmers, greentards, and others who come into contact with him or her and the planet. Some experts believe that it isn’t just the attention that’s gained from the “illness” of the planet that drives this behavior, but also the satisfaction in being able to deceive individuals that they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves. (Like Obama, Gordon Brown, etc).

Because the scientist or warmer appears to be so caring and attentive, often no one suspects any wrongdoing. A perplexing aspect of the syndrome is the ability of the scientist or warmer to fool and manipulate other scientists and the public. Frequently, the perpetrator is familiar with the science profession and is very good at fooling the scientists and warmers. Even the most experienced scientists can miss the meaning of the inconsistencies in the Earth’s symptoms. It’s common for scientists to overlook the possibility of MBPS because it goes against the belief that a scientist or warmer would never deliberately hurt his or her Earth or fellow human beings.

Diagnosis is very difficult, but would involve some of the following:

  • a planet that has multiple climate problems that don’t respond to treatment or that follow a persistent and puzzling course
  • physical or laboratory findings that are highly unusual, don’t correspond with the planet’s climate history, or are physically or scientifically impossible
  • a scientist or warmer who isn’t reassured by “good news” when test results find no climate problems exists, but continues to believe that the Earth is ill.

Other theories say that Munchausen by proxy syndrome is a cry for help on the part of the scientist or warmer, who may be experiencing anxiety or depression or have feelings of inadequacy. Some may feel a sense of acknowledgement when the false science confirms their skills. Or, the scientist or warmer may just enjoy the attention that the sick planet— and, therefore, he or she — gets.

The things that go on with climate “alarmist” “believers” “warmers” and scientist who continue to advocate anthropogenic global warming, or now “climate change” is amazingly similar to Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome.

How can it be stopped.  Well here’s some suggestions.

Most often, Munchausen by proxy syndrome cases are resolved in one of three ways:

  1. the perpetrator is apprehended (Michael Mann vs. The State of Virginia announced today sounds fittingly correct).
  2. the perpetrator moves on to a new crisis when the original crisis gets old or the original crisis gets busted (like we have things popping up on the radar now such as ocean acidification a new problem so they can “save” us – not to mention control us, get their 15 minute of fame, plenty of grant money to continue perpetuating the fraud, and tax the snot our of us).
  3. the crisis “dies” because scientist and warmers finally realize their BS isn’t making and they cease to try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.

Perhaps we’re wrong by making all the efforts to bust the science by showing everyone the
“tricks”, data manipulation, missing data, unfounded science, data from magazines, peer-reviewed papers that are only peer-reviewed by fellow “warmer” scientists or non-scientists who happen to agree with their position.

I’d suggest we’d be better off getting the men in the white coats to grab these guys, put them in straight-jackets, and let the psychiatrists work on them until they admit their problems and get therapy.

Think about it.  What is going on with climategate is eerily similar.

Source: Me

6 Comments

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Stranger than Truth

CRU Whitewash-An Offer He Couldn’t Refuse

"Never tell anyone outside of the warmer family what you're thinking!"

Think Phil Jones was really exonerated?  Think again! From Watts Up With That? We have this very recent post about Lord Oxburgh and his ties to renewable energy companies and his possible ties to the mob. If you don’t know he was the chair of the “investigation.”

Sounds like the Godfather got to him. Sounds like anyone who feels Phil Jones was “exonerated” is nuts.

More CO2 Insanity.

Source: Watts Up With That?

Comments Off on CRU Whitewash-An Offer He Couldn’t Refuse

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Editor