[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Open and transparent? works for climate assessment reports as well as it does for Congress Kirtland Griffin Dr. Pachuari, head of the UN's International Panel on Climate Change says, from CCNET 5/2010, "Every stage of the drafting of our report is peer reviewed, and whatever comments we get from the peer review process are posted on the website of the IPCC, and the reasons why we accept or reject those comments are clearly specified. Where we accept a comment we say, "Yes. Accepted." Where we don't, we have to adduce very clear reasons why the authors don't agree with the comment. So it's a very transparent process." The statement was made in response to questions regarding the unsubstantiated claim Tibetan glaciers would melt by 2035. Dr. Pachuari, I am afraid that either you are totally ignorant of the workings of your committee or you are adverse to the true story. That is as kind as I can be. Any skeptic worth his salt has a list of false claims that have been made by the IPCC in the past. In the paper that appeared in E&E by Dr. Oliver Manuel in March '09 he stated: "So, do politicians affect the IPCC process outcome? The UN's IPCC falsely implies that 2500 scientists endorse the full AR4 report [53] when only a small percentage of the reviewers made comment on multiple chapters and a majority (58.1%) of negative comments on the critical Chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change," were rejected [54]. The Independent Summary for Policy Makers (ISPM) [55] derived from the second draft of the AR4 Working Group 1 [53], before its final modification, came to a quite different conclusion. Some of the contributors to ISPM [55] were among the 2500 official IPCC reviewers." Yes, 58.1% of the negative comments of Chapter 9, the Scientific Basis, of the IPCC report were rejected, not for cause as Dr. Pachauri suggests but out of hand with no reason given in most all cases. And no, they were not posted on the IPCC web site. This is just part of the open and transparent way the IPCC conducts its business. This did not occur in just the last two months. Yesterday I tried to find my reference to the 2035 date that the Tibetan glaciers were supposed to disappear. That is, of course, if you believe a 33,000 sq km glacial system could actually shrink from 500,000 sq km to 100,000sq km and call that disappearing. I recalled reading that in some of my early research the date had been switched from 2350 to 2035 but I couldn't find it. I needn't look further because the man responsible for the chapter recalls that the errant fact was put in for purely political reasons to get governments to act. So here is the acknowledgment that the statement was an unadulterated lie. (CCnet 5/2010) I think there needs to be little more said on this issue, except that Dr. Pachuari is still sharing in a $500,000 grant where the 2035 melting date was used in the application for the grant. Can we spell fraud? A co-conspirator and sharing in the grant, Dr. Hasnain, previously acknowledged his knowledge of the incorrect statement since before the IPCC 2007 report was published. I hope they choke on their ill-gotten booty. As a report in the Hindustan Times commented "There are 9575 glaciers in the Indian part of the Himalayas and "we have 100 year study from 1906 onwards (intermittently) of only 40 glaciers." What this tells us is that we know precious little about glaciers in this area or, for that matter, glaciers worldwide. They are a hostile environment and inaccessible. Those who are investigating them are often biased, like the IPCC but there are many dedicated individuals that risk their lives for the data that is being misused by some real scoundrels. The end story here is that we need to get closer to the science and leave out the middle men that are mucking up the works. I cannot tell you all the names of the IPCC reviewers who I have heard or read that complained that their comments were ignored. Most of the presenters at the 2008 and 2009 International Climate conferences who were IPCC reviewers started off their presentations, or so it seemed, with a comment that they were ignored or that they were a recipient of the Nobel prize except their comments were not accepted. The one sided nature of the IPCC reports is well known. The Panel, as well as its reports, is totally political. It is not scientific. But that is not the case with the report prior to being reviewed for the 2nd time. The ISPM, mentioned in the quote from Manuel's paper and a worthwhile read, was done on the report after the 1st review and it was a fairly scientific report. There is not much to disagree with. Honest!! It is after, the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers and the final review where anything in the science after the 1st review that disagrees with the SPM, written by policymakers, is removed or altered. This is where the science parts company and the politics takes over. I should take a few hours and go over the IPCC AR4 and see what else is likely to be divulged as a singular unrelated issue of facts gone wrong. What is good to see is that the world is finally seeing what many sceptics, scientists and individuals like myself, have seen for several years. The entire Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is a scam and nothing more. It is however one of the biggest scams the world has ever seen and I can't wait for the trials to begin. There must be something out of all this that rises to the level of a crime. John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, believes that and so do many others in the know about the claims of the UN, CRU and others like Al Gore and Maurice Strong. I hope they get their day in court. "Open and Transparent" seems to have the same meaning at the IPCC as it does in the US Congress. It appears that both are trying to put something over on us. In both cases it will cost us money and our freedom. Don't let either of them, take either.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
(Edited)
The problems of and about these non-regulatory bodies producing objective data to support an opinion [as opposed to objective data to support the TRUTH] do not diminish that there are indeed great changes occurring around the world. America is blessed with few changes, comparatively speaking with Australia and other Pacific rim nations. And I just touched the tip of the iceberg.
“I used to think, when I was younger and didn't know any better, that surely whoever was elected the next time would be better than the current president. But I learned a long time ago that it gets worse every (s)election, not better.” -- James Deffenbach, circa Jan. 2010
Don't worry. According to you it will melt soon.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||