Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[a_majoor]

"Green Power" is very marginal at best, being low density, intermittent and high cost. I'm sure Ontario voters will be sending a very strong message about energy pricing in October, and I can see the expensive subsidies being tossed (as well as a lot of other things: Its the Spending, stupid!) in order to bring the budget under control.

As noted in the "No Oil" thread, North America is sitting on a cornucopia of hydrocarbon reserves, and technology has advanced to the point even previously "impossible" energy sources like shale oil are within reach, and other technologies like variations of the F-T process to convert gasses into liquid fuels have also reached technological and financial maturity.

To put things in perspective, here are a few items from that thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-1029784.html#msg1029784 (comparing the energy density of electrical storage to hydrocarbons)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-1050383.html#msg1050383 (we are at the beginning of a hydrocarbon age, not the end)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-1050548.html#msg1050548 (The maturity of F-T technology)

From another perspective, the availability of inexpensive energy is key to economic growth, both here and in the developing world. Energy usage is a fairly reliable guide to how wealthy a society is; more energy=more wealth. This is the simple explanation as to why the various hair brained Green energy schemes have been so soundly rejected by the public, people know that the more they pay for energy the lower their standards of living will be. This might not stop corrupt politicians and their crony capitalist handmaidens from blowing $500 million on a failed solar energy plant (rinse and repeat for virtually all of the other green energy schemes promoted and subsidized throughout the world), but the public isn't buying.

 

[a_majoor]

More for those who would claim the science is "settled" (although by this point it is like arguing with a religious zelot; regardless of whatever factual information is being brought to the table it will be dismissed out of hand. See the reaction to the Climategate emails, which participents spelled out the scam in their own hands.):

Lawrence Solomon: Warmed right over
   
Lawrence Solomon  Sep 16, 2011 – 9:21 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 16, 2011 10:07 PM ET

Nobel-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, who resigned as a fellow from the American Physical Society this week over its endorsement of warming.
The global-warming theory is nearing its end as evidence against it mounts

Why do a majority of Canadians — 52% according to the latest Angus Reid poll — still hold the belief that humans are mainly responsible for global warming?

I think I know, based on the feedback I’ve received from literally thousands of Canadians who have commented in recent years on my articles dealing with global warming. Most of that 52% have so often been told that the science is settled on global warming, and so rarely that there is any credible dissent, that they have not yet twigged to straightforward information, such as the rejection by most top scientists of the global-warming dogma.

Just this week, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned as a fellow from the American Physical Society, saying he could not live with its nonsensical endorsement of global-warming alarmism. Dr. Giaever joins a host of other eminent scientists who have dismissed concerns over global warming, including Freeman Dyson, a Princeton physicist and America’s best known scientist, Antonino Zichichi, the president of the World Federation of Scientists and Italy’s best known scientist, Claude Allegre, a former socialist Minister of National Education, Research and Technology and France’s best-known scientist, and America’s Reid Bryson, known as the “father of scientific climatology” and judged “the world’s most cited climatologist” by the journal of the Institute of British Geographers.

In contrast to this Who’s Who of the scientific world, the list of top global-warming scientists falls far short. No scientist has been awarded a Nobel Prize in a science field for his work on global warming because no piece of science in the field has achieved a major scientific breakthrough. This despite the global-warming issue’s dominance of the scientific world for more than two decades, garnering the lion’s share of scientific funding and an inordinate amount of coverage in scientific publications. The only Nobel Prize conferred on global-warming advocates came from the political wing of the Nobel Prize establishment, which awarded them a prize for peace in consolation for their failure to merit a prize for science.

The most celebrated global-warming scientist by far has been NASA’s James Hansen, whose 1988 testimony in the U.S. Senate first brought the climate change issue to the popular press. Hansen presented projections, based on his computer models, showing dangerously high temperatures in the decades between then and now. Had those projections been borne out, he would today have a Nobel Prize in science. Unfortunately for him, his models proved to be duds. And aside from his global-warming work, he has precious few scientific accomplishments.

The next most celebrated global-warming scientist is Michael Mann, developer of the infamous hockey stick model that showed temperatures on Earth to have shot up dramatically in the last century, after 900 relatively stable years. That model, Mann’s sole claim to fame, also proved to be a dud. Once the icon of the global-warming movement, Mann’s hockey stick is now the subject of court proceedings and an icon for deceit.

What about all the thousands of scientists associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who are said to endorse the IPCC’s global-warming theory? Do the global-warming proponents make up in quantity of scientists what they lack in quality? No. Those thousands of scientists never endorsed the IPCC position, or any position. They were merely peer reviewers of the IPCC reports, and they often disagreed with the material they reviewed.

Some Canadians blame humans for global warming because they’ve been told that Antarctica is melting in unprecedented ways, the “proof” being spectacular film footage of huge chunks of ice breaking off into the Antarctic Ocean. They don’t yet know that Antarctic ice has always broken off, that satellites show Antarctica to be gaining ice overall, and that Antarctica has been getting colder, not warmer, over the last half century.

Other Canadians think the Arctic ice is in danger of disappearing, unaware that several times over the last century the Arctic Ocean was actually navigable — ­today’s Arctic is no different from before.

What about all the hurricanes predicted to ravage our shores because of global warming? They never happened, and for good reason: As the IPCC’s own hurricane expert said in resigning from that organization, there is no evidence that global warming will cause an increase in hurricanes.

The submerged islands in the Pacific? That, too, never happened. Yes, the oceans have been rising, as they have been for centuries, but not because of recent carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, the recent evidence shows the oceans’ rate of rise has been slowing.

The correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming? In the last century, there has been none. While carbon-dioxide emissions have steadily increased, the temperature has gone up and down like a yo-yo. The down period in the 1970s was so severe that many scientists at the time thought we were heading for a period of global cooling, as many do again, now that the planet has again stopped warming.

There is, in fact, not one important claim made by the global-warming alarmists that has stood up to scrutiny. The chief reason why so much of the Canadian public remains misinformed is that the Canadian press has failed to provide the scrutiny, or even to report the news — unlike the U.S. and European press, for example, no mainstream Canadian news outlet has yet reported Ivar Giaever’s resignation earlier this week — this column is likely the first you’ve heard of it.

Despite the media’s general reluctance to report dissenting views of global warming, Canadian are slowly becoming informed. Two years ago, 63% of Canadians told Angus Reid that they blamed humans for global warming; last year 60% did so and last week, 52%. Next year, as Canadians continue to better inform themselves, the percentage should be in the 40s. We will then join the civilized peoples of the world in having a healthy skepticism of those selling us pet theories on global warming as if they were established fact.

Financial Post
[email protected]
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers.

To see Ivar Giaever’s suffer-no-fools letter of resignation, click here.  For the American Physical Society endorsement of global warming that led to Ivar Giaever’s resignation, click here.

To see the Angus Reid poll, click here.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This is just too funny............even if it's not getting warmer it's still getting warmer. :nod:


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2011/09/19/18708941.html

'Missing' global heat may hide in deep oceans


The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported.
Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly.


More at link.

 

[HavokFour]

This is just too funny............even if it's not getting warmer it's still getting warmer. :nod:


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2011/09/19/18708941.html

'Missing' global heat may hide in deep oceans


The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported.
Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly.


More at link.

:facepalm:

 

[GAP]

they need to make up their minds.....

Cold causing record Ozone loss over Arctic: scientists
Article Link
The Canadian Press

Date: Sunday Oct. 2, 2011 6:43 PM ET

WASHINGTON — Scientists say an unprecedented ozone "hole" opened up above the Arctic last year, caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures.

A NASA-led study says the amount of ozone destroyed was comparable to that seen in some years in the Antarctic, where an ozone "hole" has formed each spring since the mid 1980s.

Scientists from 19 institutions in nine countries, including Canada and the United States, were involved in the research.

They found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss.

This year's ozone loss occurred over an area considerably smaller than that of the Antarctic ozone holes.

That's because the Arctic polar vortex, a persistent large-scale cyclone within which the ozone loss takes place, was about 40 per cent smaller than a typical Antarctic vortex.
end

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think this (hole in the Arctic ozone layer) is consistent with established science.

 

[a_majoor]

The inconsistency has to do with the hole being caused by extreme cold, even though we are constantly told that the arctic is being subject to unprecedented warming.....

 

[Kirkhill]

I think this (hole in the Arctic ozone layer) is consistent with established science.

Interesting that CFCs and aerosols were banned in 1978 due to their impact on Ozone and causing great holes above the arctic and antarctic.

Ban the hairsprays.  Holes magically disappear (from the headlines).

Now the holes are back (in the headlines).  What virgin is to be sacrificed next?

In 1978 the magazines were also full of headlines about "The coming ice-age" - caused by man's inherent vileness.

 

[Haletown]

Ahhh Wiki Leaks  . . .  so beloved by the leftoid progressives and eco hysterics, swings both ways.

http://tinyurl.com/6zpojte


Harper was and is right, the entire Global Warming-Kyoto-Carbon Credit-Clean Development is a corrupt scam.

Wonder what good could have happened if the $trillions of dollars flushed down the greenie toilet pursuing Eco-Fairies, fdemonizing Carbon Dioxide and pining for the various Enviro Nirvana Pipe Dreams had instead been spent on medical research or other useful social improvement  programs?

Because there is always an opportunity cost, especially for stupid stuff.

 

[Haletown]

Love him or hate him, Conrad has an eloquent handle on using the English Language . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/conrad-black/global-warming-science_b_1007166.html

In the Huff & Blow no less . . .  Adriana has been kissing green buttocks since whenever so to let this heresy appear in anything she is associated with speaks volumes.

 

[a_majoor]

The same people who brought you Climategate demonstrate their committment to transparency and open communication:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/breaking-an-ipcc-backchannel-cloud-was-apparently-established-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/

BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA./b]Posted on October 17, 2011 by Anthony Watts
UPDATE: (9:20 PST 10-17) the FOI request has been released, a copy of which is now linked below.

CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official  correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

By Christopher Horner, CEI.org for WUWT

Although this is seedy and unlawful at any time, it also goes in the ‘bad timing’ file. Or it’s good timing, depending on one’s perspective.

Just as a brand new book further exposes the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(which scam I dissected here, and in more disturbing detail here), and on the heels of the weekend surprise of a 2005 memo showing President Obama’s cooling/warming/population zealot of a ‘science czar’ John Holdren is the kind of guy Mitt Romney turns to to develop his ‘environmental’ policies, we’ve exposed the Obama administration and IPCC have cooperated to subvert U.S. transparency laws, run domestically out of Holdren’s White House office.

With this morning’s Freedom of Information Act request, the explaining they have to do must begin by providing the taxpayer certain records regarding — including but not limited to user name and password — for a backchannel ‘cloud’ established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

The IPCC, you will recall, is Al Gore’s co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. And the host over the years of numerous scandals involving fudged and twisted data, cut-and-pastes from student theses, popular magazine articles and green-group press releases and of course the infamous “hide the decline” in temperatures. This is not just one more scandal, however.

Until the FOI request is posted at CEI.org (later today), here is a snapshot:

CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official  correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

As our FOIA request details, the UN informed participants that it was motivated by embarrassing releases of earlier discussions (“ClimateGate” key among them), and to circumvent the problem that national government transparency laws were posing the group.

CEI reminds OSTP that this practice was described as “creat[ing] non-governmental accounts for official business”, “using the nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications”, in a recent analogous situation involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff. CEI expects similar congressional and media outrage at this similar practice to evade the applicable record-keeping laws.

This effort has apparently been conducted with participation — thereby direct assistance and enabling — by the Obama White House which, shortly after taking office, seized for Holdren’s office the lead role on IPCC work from the Department of Commerce. The plan to secretly create a FOIA-free zone was then implemented.

This represents politically assisting the IPCC to enable UN, EU and U.S. bureaucrats and political appointees avoid official email channels for specific official work of high public interest, performed on official time and using government computers, away from the prying eyes of increasingly skeptical taxpayers.

CEI also reminds OSTP of a similar, ongoing effort by the administration to claim that records on U.S. government computers belong to the UN IPCC, refusing to produce them under FOIA. This practice was affirmed in a report by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General earlier this year.

As talks resume next month to forge a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, CEI looks forward to OSTP ceasing this unlawful activity, and providing prompt access to the requested records so the taxpayer can know what they, and the IPCC, are up to.

So this morning we requested all relevant records under FOIA, including all records sitting on that server, as they all were provided to U.S. government employees for official purposes. This was filed with OSTP run by controversial ‘science czar” and, we now know, former Mitt Romney ‘climate’ advisor John Holdren. The taxpayer deserves to know about this coordinated effort between OSTP and the IPCC to subvert U.S. law.

Possibly one Republican candidate will call in the next debate for ending US funding of the IPCC, now shown to be actively working (with the Obama White House) to subvert US law. Enough is enough is enough. Possibly Gov. Romney could defend Holdren and the IPCC.

In the meantime, we look for Rep. Henry Waxman’s outrage over Abramoff to prove it was also not political, and come down hard on the practice he so aggressively condemned and pursued, demanding preservation of records, threatening subpoenas, the whole works. With our request, that’s essentially what we’ve done, and we’d appreciate the company. You too, NPR.

Of course, it may not be of interest to the media because it only uncovers unlawful dealings to hide an effort impacting our entire economy, the premise for that “fundamental transformation” of America, with the sleazy lobbying operation being the UN. We’ll wait on OSTP’s response and hope for the best from the Hill and Republican candidates.

 

[Redeye]

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/10/climate-skepticism-takes-another-hit

Kevin Drum
→ Climate Change, Science, Top Stories
Climate Skeptics Take Another Hit
—By Kevin Drum
| Fri Oct. 21, 2011 3:00 AM PDTPhysicists are notorious for believing that other scientists are mathematically incompetent. And University of California-Berkeley physicist Richard Muller is notorious for believing that conventional wisdom is often wrong. For example, the conventional wisdom about climate change. Muller has criticized Al Gore in the past as an "exaggerator," has spoken warmly of climate skeptic Anthony Watts, and has said that Steve McIntyre's famous takedown of the "hockey stick" climate graph made him "uncomfortable" with the paper the hockey stick was originally based on.

So in 2010 he started up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) to show the world how to do climate analysis right. Who better, after all? "Muller's views on climate have made him a darling of skeptics," said Scientific American, "and newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives, who invited him to testify to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology about his preliminary results." The Koch Foundation, founded by the billionaire oil brothers who have been major funders of the climate-denial machine, gave BEST a $150,000 grant.

But Muller's congressional testimony last March didn't go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Yesterday, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures. (Ocean studies will come later.) Using a novel statistical methodology that incorporates more data than other climate models and requires less human judgment about how to handle it (summarized by the Economist here), the BEST team drew several conclusions:

The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is "on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions."
The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century.
Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century.
The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked "okay" and stations ranked "poor" is very small.
The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small.
In the press release announcing the results, Muller said, "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK." In other words, climate scientists know what they're doing after all.

The BEST report is purely an estimate of planetary warming, and it makes no estimate of how much this warming is due to human activity. So in one sense, its impact is limited since the smarter skeptics have already abandoned the idea that warming is a hoax and now focus their fire solely on the contention that it's man-made. (And the even smarter ones have given up on that, too, and now merely argue that it's economically pointless to try to stop it.) Still, the fact that climate scientists turned out to be careful and thorough in their basic estimates of temperature rise surely enhances their credibility in general. Climategate was always a ridiculous sideshow, and this is just one more nail in its coffin. Climate scientists got the basic data right, and they've almost certainly gotten the human causes right too.

Front page image: ClimateSafety/Flickr

 

[Haletown]

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

"The BEST report is purely an estimate of planetary warming"

Yup . . the real world of Climate Scientology  . . .

Makes me want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a global jihad on carbon dioxide. 

There will be even more mirth when the BEST paper is actually released and people can read it . . . .  rather than just a pre-review marketing stuff.

 

[Haletown]

speaking of the real world . . .  Donna Laframboise rips the IPCC to shreds in her new book. 

The world's best scientists . . .  NOT

Totally transparent . . .  NOT, NOT

All Peer Reviewed Science . . .  NOT, NOT, NOT

Staffed by Greenpeace & WWF agitators  . . .  YES, YES, YES




Excellent way to spend  $5 bucks. . .  kindle or download the .pdf

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/13/a-book-is-born/

 

[a_majoor]

Climate alarmists and their supporters have a real issue with evidence, and react negatively to scientific observations, released documents, emails, etc. which goes against their world view.

As noted early on in this thread, the temperatures of Mars go up and down in synchronization with the Earth's, and people in Scotland could grow grapes and make wine in the age of the Vikings, two very simple factual observations which demolish the entire AGW hypothesis. Watching the alarmists attempt to manipulate data, bully the peer reveiwers, marginalize scientists who examine the data, supress the results of experiments that demonstrate alternative modes of climactic change (the recent CERN experiements which prove that cosmic radiation from deep space govern cloud formation were very enlightening, even more so was the attempt by CERN bureaucrats to prevent the release of these results...).

This thread alone should be required reading for anyone who is looking for facts to debate the issue (there are 64 pages of posts), sadly, alarmists are not interested in debate or the facts. Still, this information will be useful in the future after the global warming scam has run its course, both as a historical document and to prepare for the next scam.

 

[a_majoor]

The IPCC in full, living colour:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/

Peter Foster: A thoroughly political body

Peter Foster  Oct 21, 2011 – 9:36 PM ET | Last Updated: Oct 21, 2011 9:40 PM ET

‘The Delinquent Teenager’  shows IPCC far from objective science

Despite the collapse of the Kyoto process and the decline in public concern, professional environmental alarmists and eco-activists — who are now concentrating their venom on stopping the Keystone XL pipeline — continue to thunder that climate science is “settled.” Their authority for this claim is the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. Anybody wishing to gauge the reliability of such science, or the true nature of the IPCC, should read Donna Laframboise’s compelling, indeed at times jaw-dropping, The Delinquent Teenager Who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.

In a meticulously referenced and deservedly praised page-turner, Ms. Laframboise, an accomplished journalist who turned to the skeptical blogosphere, demonstrates how the IPCC is a thoroughly political organization. Far from objectively weighing the best available science, it cherry-picks egregiously to support its main objective: to serve its government masters. Its lead authors are not the world’s leading scientists but frequently wet-behind-the-ears graduates, and/or ardent activists. They are also selected on the basis of gender and country “diversity” rather than expertise. The organization, Ms. Laframboise demonstrates, has also been thoroughly infiltrated by environmental NGOs, in particular the World Wildlife Fund.

The book elucidates how the panel’s much-vaunted “peer review” amounts to a “circular, incestuous process. Scientists make decisions as journal editors about what qualifies as peer-reviewed literature. They then cite the same papers they themselves played midwife to while serving as IPCC authors.” IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri’s claim that all the “Climate Bible’s” science is peer reviewed is, in any case, bunk. With a body of volunteers, Ms. Laframboise went through the 2007 report and found that more than 5,000 references — over a third — were from less-than-reliable sources. The most egregious such “grey” reference led to the claim that the Himalayan glaciers were to disappear by 2035. This terrifying assertion was traced back to the top of a non-expert’s head.

After the embarrassment of “Glaciergate,” which came on top of the much more serious “Climategate,” the InterAcademy Council (IAC), which represents international academies of science, was tasked with examining the IPCC process. One of Ms. Laframboise’s greatest coups was to gain access to at least some of the responses to a questionnaire the IAC sent to ­IPCC authors. Far from “consensus,” those responses — which she cites in detail — indicate widespread concern, confusion and distrust.

She introduces us to numerous well-credentialled skeptics, including Jason Johnston, an expert in environmental law, who set out to verify whether the ­IPCC reports in fact “conformed with the peer-reviewed climate science literature.” His conclusion: “on virtually every major issue in climate change science,” IPCC reports “systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties.”

The Delinquent Teenager reveals how inconvenient science has been buried and sums up: “The IPCC ignores the consensus among hurricane experts that there is no discernable link to global warning. It ignores the consensus among those who study natural disasters that there is no relationship between human greenhouse gas emissions and the rising cost of these disasters. It ignores the consensus among bona fide malaria experts that global warming has not caused malaria to spread. In each case the IPCC substitutes its own version of reality. In each case that version of reality makes global warming appear more frightening than genuine experts believe the available evidence indicates.”

Meanwhile the authors of the “Climate Bible” can always find space for post-deadline alarmism. The U.K. government’s Stern Review was castigated by experts for its wild alarmism and ludicrous assumptions. However, Ms. Laframboise points out, “26 references to the Stern Review were added to 12 different IPCC chapters after the work of the expert reviewers had already been completed.” (The Stern Review, incidentally, wasn’t peer reviewed, although Sir Nicholas Stern was given a peerage for writing it.) Like Lord Stern, many of the IPCC’s leaders firmly believe it is their job to “steer” society away from carbon and consumerism, which, as Ms. Laframboise forcefully points out, is no part of science.

One of the many disturbing issues arising from the book is the sheer vitriol unleashed against Mr. Laframboise for daring to ask questions. “It is peculiar, indeed,” she writes, “that people who see things differently try to link my climate views to racists, Holocaust deniers, child murderers, mental illness and the tobacco industry.… It is bizarre that prime ministers and other officials think it remotely appropriate to publicly denounce climate skeptics as cowards, saboteurs and anti-science Flat-Earthers… Whatever happened to tolerance and mutual respect?”

Her conclusion is that the IPCC process is irretrievably compromised and should be scrapped. However, the IAC review is among those documents now buried as this corrupt organization continues under the same conflicted leadership. The Delinquent Teenager should be required reading for all those who, like something out of Animal Farm, bleat or oink that “the debate is over.” Ms. Laframboise leaves us in no doubt that a ­debate has never even taken place.

 

[a_majoor]

Somewhat long post and vid, but an outstanding refutation of another bit of AGW propaganda. Your kids can do this as a science fair experiment:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/

 

[Haletown]

The IPCC in full, living colour:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/

I just finished reading it.
Beyond devastating.

Canada should table the book at the UN and demand the entire corrupt pile of crap called the IPCC be disbanded and criminal charges for fraud and theft be laid against hundreds of the senior officials who have been running the scam for so many years.

I'll wait with baited breath for the  CBC to do a story on this book.  Maybe get Dr. Fruit Fly to do the interview.

 

[Haletown]

comprehensive review of DL's book

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/

"In a meticulously referenced and deservedly praised page-turner, Ms. Laframboise, an accomplished journalist who turned to the skeptical blogosphere, demonstrates how the IPCC is a thoroughly political organization. Far from objectively weighing the best available science, it cherry-picks egregiously to support its main objective: to serve its government masters. Its lead authors are not the world’s leading scientists but frequently wet-behind-the-ears graduates, and/or ardent activists. They are also selected on the basis of gender and country “diversity” rather than expertise. The organization, Ms. Laframboise demonstrates, has also been thoroughly infiltrated by environmental NGOs, in particular the World Wildlife Fund."


read excerpts here

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/book-excerpt-conspiracy-of-silence/

 

[Haletown]

excellent interview . . .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-ipcc-delinquent-teenager-gets-air-time/#more-49926

Like the rest of the UN . . .  the IPCC is a corrupt mess.