UN Charters ‘Independent’ Panel to Put Lipstick on Climate Change Monkey

March 10, 2010
By John

Rough Truths is pleased to confirm that the UN Secretary General has chartered an ‘independent’ committee to try and restore the destroyed reputation of its Nobel Prize winning IPCC (Independent Panel on Climate Change) – the ‘recognized authority’ on anthropogenic global climate change fear mongering.  In making the announcement today, UN Secretary General Ban asserted that the ‘consensus’ for human caused warming is unshaken, and the urgency for action is unabated.  He comfortingly added “Regrettably, there were a very small number of errors (in the ‘authoritative’ 2007 report)… I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of that report. The threat posed by climate change is real.”

Translation:  They caught us lying.  Time to pay a bunch of bureaucratic dupes to clean up the mess, and get us back on track to world domination, errr, government, errr, I mean, uhh, saving the planet.

Hurricane Blowing IPCC Away

No credible evidence?  It’s hard to prove a negative – i.e., that humans have no impact on climate.  And you cannot say that CO2 levels haven’t risen a few parts per million, or that the world has (on average) been warming since the 1850’s or even since the last ice age.  However, when the evidence cited as proof that Anthropogenic Global Warming (‘AGW’) is an ‘unequivocal fact’ is itself flawed, in error and even pulled from ‘grey literature’ (i.e., hiking magazines and blogs) – after billions of dollars of advocacy research has been conducted to prove the case – it is an outrage to claim there is no credible evidence’ that the AGW crowd is wrong.

So what’s wrong with their data?  The well publicized frauds include:

  • The Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt by 2035, as claimed.  They are in fact stable.
  • The Amazon jungles are not endangered by global warming, and the decimation they forecast has nothing to do with AGW.  The jungles are at risk because of over-logging.
  • A loss of a hundred or more years of original temperature data, and retention only of ‘badly organized’, ‘normalized’ data by East Anglia University’s Climate Unit is a fundamental violation of good scientific and statistical practice.  And the string of ‘suppression’ emails that disclosed its members’ complicity in a prove-AGW-at-any cost conspiracy suggests they were either corrupt, or bought, or both.  And that they are afraid of how a snowballing scandal would likely to destroy them.
  • The (until recently) head of East Anglia’s climate unit, Phil Jones, conceded the medieval warming period may have been warmer than today – which blows apart the claims of ‘unprecedented’ warming in the current period.

And there are plenty more factual contradictions to the claims of the IPCC.  For example:

  • The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are not shrinking – although there are areas of both growth and retreat in both areas.  The net result is that the ice sheets are growing in both locations.
  • The Arctic summer ice levels are returning to normal (as they did in the 30’s, the last time this happened) – and have seen a 27% return to ‘normal’ since 2007.  So much for a northern passage emerging.
  • There is little evidence that Sea levels are rising at a faster-than-normal rate, and some that normal sea level increases (around 2mm/year since the ice age ended) have stopped altogether.  Ooops.  Aren’t we supposed to drown soon?
  • We are not seeing ‘the end of snow’ in our lifetime, as many had forecast.  Nor are we seeing more/more intense hurricanes/monsoons/blizzards than we have seen in prior weather cycles.
  • There is not a single species whose extinction can be factually attributed to warming.  Not one (despite the Gorbian claim that millions are or will soon be lost).  Indeed, those cuddly polar bears are not drowning and their growing population is fast becoming a serious nuisance to Arctic Circle human populations.
  • Temperatures have been flat for a decade or more, despite continued increases inCO2 concentration from both manmade and natural (dominant) sources.  And we appear to be well within cyclical temperature norms of the last few millenia.  And we’re talking about only a 100-150ppm increase since 1850.
  • Professor Mann, inventor of the AGW ‘hockey stick’, is under investigation by Penn State.  He has yet to release the data or the analysis used to create the oft-cited stick, and his credibility is shot.

I won’t try to debate the science of carbon forcing and the earth’s cooling/heating system today – it is contentious, complex and highly charged among climate experts.  And I concede it is quite possible that human activity has had some impact on climate and/or temperature.  But the case for natural cycles and affects being the primary drivers of climate has considerable merit – and little contradictory evidence - and hence appears overwhelming.  Furthermore, there are a couple of basic rules in statistical analysis and forecasting that undermine the AGW claims of certitude (and I am qualified to comment on these) – and they must force the rational person to step back from the hysterical claims ‘believers’:

  • The models should accurately predict history. Indeed, if the observed data contradicts the prediction of the model (going forward or backward), the model is wrong.   And the models predicting tipping points, near-term doom, and the like – have been wrong.
  • Models should account for all major, known variables.  But if these models are constructed as reported, they do not account for what we know to be the largest variables impacting climate:  solar activity/energy and atmospheric water/cloud content.   That is analogous to forecasting the adult height of a two year old child using only a photograph and a fingerprint.  Common sense and statistical robustness suggests it would help to a lot more to know the height of the parents and the child’s health/diet/nationality/gender.  Otherwise, it’s just a guess.

Stooges Hired to Distract Attention from Climate Corruption

This new review panel is in effect the UN reviewing its own work using administrative ‘scientists’ from around the world who have almost certainly benefitted from the largesse of the IPCC (or other government-sponsored climate advocacy groups).  Indeed, its charter appears to be more like checking the water pressure in the fire houses at the WTC on 9/11 than figuring out how to get out of the way of a collapsing building.  Robbert Dijkgraaf, the head of the InterAcademy Council that will appoint members of the commission said the committee will review include: the IPCC’s quality control over data; its guidelines for using non-peer-reviewed literature in assembling its climate-science reports, its efforts to take into account a “full range of scientific views” on matters of climate science; and its procedures to correct any errors in its reports once errors are detected.   He also said the review group will “look at the management of the IPCC”.  

But I guess they won’t investigate what the meaning of the word ‘consensus’ is, or how claims to having achieved it are validated.

Feeling better now?  I didn’t think so.

Reference articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/science/earth/11climate.html

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-10/climate-panel-review-set-after-skeptics-flag-errors-update1-.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100310-711889.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

Tags: , , ,

3 Responses to “ UN Charters ‘Independent’ Panel to Put Lipstick on Climate Change Monkey ”

  1. Bill Reeves on March 10, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    And here I thought it was a pig. Maybe it looks like a monkey but it’s really a pig’s butt. Actually Algore’s front looks like a pigs back.

    What is the Goracle going to do with his time. What horror will he market now.

    It is fun to watch the idols topple and burn!

  2. momof3 on March 11, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    You know, I have told my kids, don’t lie and try and cover it up. The lie only gets bigger and harder to dress up (like a pig or a monkey). The fact is there is just too much money involved for these folks and industries to say, “Yah we lied.” They are watching thier own income stream go up in smoke and want to try and preserve that income stream for as long as they can. Shame on the UN for teching kids it OK to lie.

  3. JoJoTo4 on March 11, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Hey; Al has lots of friends and their all wearing lipstick right now! They need a lot more then lipstick to cover up those black eyes! Maybe we should buy stock in makeup! It makes us laugh but it’s not funny, the money spent could go where it needs to be! Let’s get back the Oscar, hey wait is that academy Oscar, or Mayer wiener! Let’s melt it down and feed people! Then the money for the Nobel peace prize and feed more, yeah he can actually do some good in this world, well it’s nice to dream because it would never happen he’s way to arrogant. About the time that happens, the pig would be flying and dropping democratic bombs on my house and the monkey would be flying out of my butt! Guess I’d better be careful what I wish for. Till next time Love your work!

Leave a Reply

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
ga.js