Bill Introduced to end Support of IPCC with Taxpayer Dollars

[westwall]

It's nice to see some consequences being discussed for defrauding the taxpeyers of the US.



The following information was released by the office of Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer:

U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) today reintroduced legislation that would save taxpayers millions of dollars by prohibiting the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.

The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation and regulations for small businesses and farmers, Luetkemeyer said. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.


http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/wire-news-display/1357883185.html

 

[skookerasbil]

Amen.........one of the most corrupt oprganizations in the hsitory of the world. Just check out what resigning members of the IPCC have said about the level of bogus..........

 

[Trakar]

Amen.........one of the most corrupt oprganizations in the hsitory of the world. Just check out what resigning members of the IPCC have said about the level of bogus..........

got link? preferrably to some legitimate, unbiased source of verifiable information.

 

[westwall]

Amen.........one of the most corrupt oprganizations in the hsitory of the world. Just check out what resigning members of the IPCC have said about the level of bogus..........

got link? preferrably to some legitimate, unbiased source of verifiable information.

Sure, just do a google search on the IPCC. You will find plenty of stories where they admit they did not use peer reviewed studies to reach their conclusions but rather they used op ed pieces from various environmental groups. Also you will find plenty of times where IPCC scientists admit they fibbed about environmental issues to make the situation sound worse to generate governmental controls that they desired.

You're just a tad late to the ball here friend. There is plenty of evidence from all over the world, you just have to take your blinders off.

 

[Trakar]

got link? preferrably to some legitimate, unbiased source of verifiable information.

Sure, just do a google search on the IPCC. You will find plenty of stories where they admit they did not use peer reviewed studies to reach their conclusions but rather they used op ed pieces from various environmental groups. Also you will find plenty of times where IPCC scientists admit they fibbed about environmental issues to make the situation sound worse to generate governmental controls that they desired.

You're just a tad late to the ball here friend. There is plenty of evidence from all over the world, you just have to take your blinders off.

Any reference or cite that you could provide from legitimate, unbiased sources of verifiable information that support the assertion: "...one of the most corrupt oprganizations in the hsitory of the world. Just check out what resigning members of the IPCC have said about the level of bogus..." would be greatly appreciated.

People should be able to support their assertions and claims, but if others wish to step into their stead, I have no objections, but please make sure that you are providing support for what has been asserted.

 

[westwall]

got link? preferrably to some legitimate, unbiased source of verifiable information.

Sure, just do a google search on the IPCC. You will find plenty of stories where they admit they did not use peer reviewed studies to reach their conclusions but rather they used op ed pieces from various environmental groups. Also you will find plenty of times where IPCC scientists admit they fibbed about environmental issues to make the situation sound worse to generate governmental controls that they desired.

You're just a tad late to the ball here friend. There is plenty of evidence from all over the world, you just have to take your blinders off.

Any reference or cite that you could provide from legitimate, unbiased sources of verifiable information that support the assertion: "...one of the most corrupt oprganizations in the hsitory of the world. Just check out what resigning members of the IPCC have said about the level of bogus..." would be greatly appreciated.

People should be able to support their assertions and claims, but if others wish to step into their stead, I have no objections, but please make sure that you are providing support for what has been asserted.

Here are a few from various magazines and newspapers. Peer reviewed Jornals in general (I did however find a couple) don't ever engage in reports like this so if you were hoping for those you will be sorely dissapointed as that is not their function (nor do they wish it to be so).

Dr. Gray was a IPCC scientist and is one of the many legitimate scientists who is disgusted with the clearly political advocacy bias that the IPCC process has become.

"Climate Fraud By Dr. Vincent Gray
Thursday, September 23rd 2010, 9:33 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin) This issue I will answer an Email from Barry for a comment on a paper by Peterson on the First Difference Method.

I would like to put this in the perspective of my 20 years of intensive study.

It all began when many people became convinced that the “planet” was being “destroyed” by human greenhouse gas emissions and the every measure must be used to “save” the “planet” from this impending disaster.

It was evident from the beginning that the regular scientific techniques could not be used. The quality of the data and the extent of our knowledge of the climate were inadequate. Many honest scientists (for example W G Hessell) and even prominent warmists in their lucid moments (for example Jim Hansen) admitted that this was so. I have summarized this impossibility in a recent paper (here). This paper has been rejected by “Energy and Environment” It seems that even they dare not be publicly associated with what everyone knows is true.

Since the end (saving the planet) justifies any means, they had no alternative but fraud.

It consists of a large number of fraudulent devices.


Article continues below this advert:

*Doublespeak and Spin.

This is the use of ambiguous and emotive language to conceal the absence of content. See my recent update of “Doublespeak” here.

* Deliberately fraudulent scientific papers

I have listed some of these in my “Global Scam” paper here.

The “hockey stick”, the downplaying of solar and ocean events, Himalayan glaciers, Hide the Decline, are others.

*Suppression of evidence

Original temperature observations are suppressed or lost, Undesired gas concentration measurements are suppressed as “noise” (i.e. unwelcome data") All evidence of variability has to be eliminated.

*Organized Guesswork

The apparent recommendations of the IPCC are the “Carefully considered opinions” of “Experts”. all of them being indoctrinated supporters, programmed to provide the guesses required for the demands of the warmers. The procedure is described by the IPCC (see my “Spin” paper here).

*Abandonment of fundamental statistical principles

All the opinions of the “experts “ have no statistical significance according to basic requirements of mathematical statistics. Samples are never representative. Averages are never validly derived. Uncertainties are usually absent or are themselves “expert” guesses. Temperature “anomalies” are treated as if they were constants and subjected to “homogenization’ and various pseudo statistical treatments like the ‘First Difference Method” and “Bayesian statistics” with the sole object of enhancing any “trend”. Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have documented a whole army of similar fraudulent “correction”: techniques, all designed to correct upwards here.

*Distortion of climate news events

All climate events are distorted to fit a “climate change” model through control of all news media. In some ways this is their most effective technique as most of us have been so overwhelmed with this constant and unrelenting propaganda that we end up beginning to think that maybe there might be something in it after all; and perhaps a little bit of the “precautionary principle” might be acceptable.

*Attacks on Opponents

“Deniers” are prevented from publication in learned Journals controlled by the warmists with control of the peer review process. We are lackeys of Big Oil, without a career, only retired people can survive

*All honourable men (and a few women)

How could so many respectable prestigious and decorated people be parties to such a comprehensive deception. We know so many of them. They are Nobel prizewinners, Australians and Wellingtonians of the year, we cannot insult them with such a thing as truth, can we?"

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com

nzclimatescience.net - DR VINCENT GRAY UPDATES 'GLOBAL WARMING SCAM' PAPER

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THETRIUMPHOFDOUBLESPEAK.pdf

nzclimatescience.net - HOW IPCC REPORT PROCESS SPINS THE CLIMATE

BusinessDay - End

And to finish up this post I present a Los Alamos Physicists open letter to the climate research community.


"Petr Chylek: Open Letter to the Climate Research Community
Saturday, 05 December 2009 21:48 Petr Chylek .I am sure that most of you are aware of the incident that took place recently at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The identity of the whistle-blower or hacker is still not known.

The selected release of emails contains correspondence between CRU scientists and scientists at other climate research institutions. My own purely technical exchange of emails with CRU director Professor Phil Jones is, as far as I know, not included.

I published my first climate-related paper in 1974 (Chylek and Coakley, Aerosol and Climate, Science 183, 75-77). I was privileged to supervise Ph. D. theses of some exceptional scientists - people like J. Kiehl, V.Ramaswamy and J. Li among others. I have published well over 100 peer-reviewed papers, and I am a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Within the last few years I was also honored to be included in Wikipedia’s blacklist of “climate skeptics”.

For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name afew. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.

Climate research made significant advancements during the last few decades, thanks to your diligent work. This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations. Thus, the first of the three pillars supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming seems to be solid. However, the two other pillars are much more controversial.

To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails.

Some people were soeager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity.The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

The fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds,and ocean circulation?), even though we can all agree that part of theobserved post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions. Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide.

Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public’s trust and move forward.

Regards,

Petr Chylek

Laboratory Fellow, Remote Sensing Team Leader, ISR-2 MS-B244

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA"

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, just do a google search on the IPCC. You will find plenty of stories where they admit they did not use peer reviewed studies to reach their conclusions but rather they used op ed pieces from various environmental groups. Also you will find plenty of times where IPCC scientists admit they fibbed about environmental issues to make the situation sound worse to generate governmental controls that they desired.

You're just a tad late to the ball here friend. There is plenty of evidence from all over the world, you just have to take your blinders off.

Any reference or cite that you could provide from legitimate, unbiased sources of verifiable information that support the assertion: "...one of the most corrupt oprganizations in the hsitory of the world. Just check out what resigning members of the IPCC have said about the level of bogus..." would be greatly appreciated.

People should be able to support their assertions and claims, but if others wish to step into their stead, I have no objections, but please make sure that you are providing support for what has been asserted.

Here are a few from various magazines and newspapers. Peer reviewed Jornals in general (I did however find a couple) don't ever engage in reports like this so if you were hoping for those you will be sorely dissapointed as that is not their function (nor do they wish it to be so).

Dr. Gray was a IPCC scientist and is one of the many legitimate scientists who is disgusted with the clearly political advocacy bias that the IPCC process has become.

"Climate Fraud By Dr. Vincent Gray
Thursday, September 23rd 2010, 9:33 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin) This issue I will answer an Email from Barry for a comment on a paper by Peterson on the First Difference Method.

I would like to put this in the perspective of my 20 years of intensive study.

It all began when many people became convinced that the “planet” was being “destroyed” by human greenhouse gas emissions and the every measure must be used to “save” the “planet” from this impending disaster.

It was evident from the beginning that the regular scientific techniques could not be used. The quality of the data and the extent of our knowledge of the climate were inadequate. Many honest scientists (for example W G Hessell) and even prominent warmists in their lucid moments (for example Jim Hansen) admitted that this was so. I have summarized this impossibility in a recent paper (here). This paper has been rejected by “Energy and Environment” It seems that even they dare not be publicly associated with what everyone knows is true.

Since the end (saving the planet) justifies any means, they had no alternative but fraud.

It consists of a large number of fraudulent devices.


Article continues below this advert:

*Doublespeak and Spin.

This is the use of ambiguous and emotive language to conceal the absence of content. See my recent update of “Doublespeak” here.

* Deliberately fraudulent scientific papers

I have listed some of these in my “Global Scam” paper here.

The “hockey stick”, the downplaying of solar and ocean events, Himalayan glaciers, Hide the Decline, are others.

*Suppression of evidence

Original temperature observations are suppressed or lost, Undesired gas concentration measurements are suppressed as “noise” (i.e. unwelcome data") All evidence of variability has to be eliminated.

*Organized Guesswork

The apparent recommendations of the IPCC are the “Carefully considered opinions” of “Experts”. all of them being indoctrinated supporters, programmed to provide the guesses required for the demands of the warmers. The procedure is described by the IPCC (see my “Spin” paper here).

*Abandonment of fundamental statistical principles

All the opinions of the “experts “ have no statistical significance according to basic requirements of mathematical statistics. Samples are never representative. Averages are never validly derived. Uncertainties are usually absent or are themselves “expert” guesses. Temperature “anomalies” are treated as if they were constants and subjected to “homogenization’ and various pseudo statistical treatments like the ‘First Difference Method” and “Bayesian statistics” with the sole object of enhancing any “trend”. Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have documented a whole army of similar fraudulent “correction”: techniques, all designed to correct upwards here.

*Distortion of climate news events

All climate events are distorted to fit a “climate change” model through control of all news media. In some ways this is their most effective technique as most of us have been so overwhelmed with this constant and unrelenting propaganda that we end up beginning to think that maybe there might be something in it after all; and perhaps a little bit of the “precautionary principle” might be acceptable.

*Attacks on Opponents

“Deniers” are prevented from publication in learned Journals controlled by the warmists with control of the peer review process. We are lackeys of Big Oil, without a career, only retired people can survive

*All honourable men (and a few women)

How could so many respectable prestigious and decorated people be parties to such a comprehensive deception. We know so many of them. They are Nobel prizewinners, Australians and Wellingtonians of the year, we cannot insult them with such a thing as truth, can we?"

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com

nzclimatescience.net - DR VINCENT GRAY UPDATES 'GLOBAL WARMING SCAM' PAPER

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THETRIUMPHOFDOUBLESPEAK.pdf

nzclimatescience.net - HOW IPCC REPORT PROCESS SPINS THE CLIMATE

BusinessDay - End

And to finish up this post I present a Los Alamos Physicists open letter to the climate research community.


"Petr Chylek: Open Letter to the Climate Research Community
Saturday, 05 December 2009 21:48 Petr Chylek .I am sure that most of you are aware of the incident that took place recently at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The identity of the whistle-blower or hacker is still not known.

The selected release of emails contains correspondence between CRU scientists and scientists at other climate research institutions. My own purely technical exchange of emails with CRU director Professor Phil Jones is, as far as I know, not included.

I published my first climate-related paper in 1974 (Chylek and Coakley, Aerosol and Climate, Science 183, 75-77). I was privileged to supervise Ph. D. theses of some exceptional scientists - people like J. Kiehl, V.Ramaswamy and J. Li among others. I have published well over 100 peer-reviewed papers, and I am a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Within the last few years I was also honored to be included in Wikipedia’s blacklist of “climate skeptics”.

For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name afew. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.

Climate research made significant advancements during the last few decades, thanks to your diligent work. This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations. Thus, the first of the three pillars supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming seems to be solid. However, the two other pillars are much more controversial.
To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails.

Some people were soeager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity.The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

The fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds,and ocean circulation?), even though we can all agree that part of theobserved post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions. Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide.

Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public’s trust and move forward.

Regards,

Petr Chylek

Laboratory Fellow, Remote Sensing Team Leader, ISR-2 MS-B244

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA"

So what he is saying is that the data by these agencies is correct, that we are seeing a major increase in temperature. But he feels that the GHGs are yet proven to be the cause. And that the parameters of natural variability have not yet been shown to be less than the observed rise in temperatures. Most other scientists disagree with him, but that is fine. Investigate and see if he can come up with evidence for his hypothesis.

As for Gray, the man is a dingbat.

 

[westwall]

Any reference or cite that you could provide from legitimate, unbiased sources of verifiable information that support the assertion: "...one of the most corrupt oprganizations in the hsitory of the world. Just check out what resigning members of the IPCC have said about the level of bogus..." would be greatly appreciated.

People should be able to support their assertions and claims, but if others wish to step into their stead, I have no objections, but please make sure that you are providing support for what has been asserted.

Here are a few from various magazines and newspapers. Peer reviewed Jornals in general (I did however find a couple) don't ever engage in reports like this so if you were hoping for those you will be sorely dissapointed as that is not their function (nor do they wish it to be so).

Dr. Gray was a IPCC scientist and is one of the many legitimate scientists who is disgusted with the clearly political advocacy bias that the IPCC process has become.

"Climate Fraud By Dr. Vincent Gray
Thursday, September 23rd 2010, 9:33 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin) This issue I will answer an Email from Barry for a comment on a paper by Peterson on the First Difference Method.

I would like to put this in the perspective of my 20 years of intensive study.

It all began when many people became convinced that the “planet” was being “destroyed” by human greenhouse gas emissions and the every measure must be used to “save” the “planet” from this impending disaster.

It was evident from the beginning that the regular scientific techniques could not be used. The quality of the data and the extent of our knowledge of the climate were inadequate. Many honest scientists (for example W G Hessell) and even prominent warmists in their lucid moments (for example Jim Hansen) admitted that this was so. I have summarized this impossibility in a recent paper (here). This paper has been rejected by “Energy and Environment” It seems that even they dare not be publicly associated with what everyone knows is true.

Since the end (saving the planet) justifies any means, they had no alternative but fraud.

It consists of a large number of fraudulent devices.


Article continues below this advert:

*Doublespeak and Spin.

This is the use of ambiguous and emotive language to conceal the absence of content. See my recent update of “Doublespeak” here.

* Deliberately fraudulent scientific papers

I have listed some of these in my “Global Scam” paper here.

The “hockey stick”, the downplaying of solar and ocean events, Himalayan glaciers, Hide the Decline, are others.

*Suppression of evidence

Original temperature observations are suppressed or lost, Undesired gas concentration measurements are suppressed as “noise” (i.e. unwelcome data") All evidence of variability has to be eliminated.

*Organized Guesswork

The apparent recommendations of the IPCC are the “Carefully considered opinions” of “Experts”. all of them being indoctrinated supporters, programmed to provide the guesses required for the demands of the warmers. The procedure is described by the IPCC (see my “Spin” paper here).

*Abandonment of fundamental statistical principles

All the opinions of the “experts “ have no statistical significance according to basic requirements of mathematical statistics. Samples are never representative. Averages are never validly derived. Uncertainties are usually absent or are themselves “expert” guesses. Temperature “anomalies” are treated as if they were constants and subjected to “homogenization’ and various pseudo statistical treatments like the ‘First Difference Method” and “Bayesian statistics” with the sole object of enhancing any “trend”. Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have documented a whole army of similar fraudulent “correction”: techniques, all designed to correct upwards here.

*Distortion of climate news events

All climate events are distorted to fit a “climate change” model through control of all news media. In some ways this is their most effective technique as most of us have been so overwhelmed with this constant and unrelenting propaganda that we end up beginning to think that maybe there might be something in it after all; and perhaps a little bit of the “precautionary principle” might be acceptable.

*Attacks on Opponents

“Deniers” are prevented from publication in learned Journals controlled by the warmists with control of the peer review process. We are lackeys of Big Oil, without a career, only retired people can survive

*All honourable men (and a few women)

How could so many respectable prestigious and decorated people be parties to such a comprehensive deception. We know so many of them. They are Nobel prizewinners, Australians and Wellingtonians of the year, we cannot insult them with such a thing as truth, can we?"

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com

nzclimatescience.net - DR VINCENT GRAY UPDATES 'GLOBAL WARMING SCAM' PAPER

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THETRIUMPHOFDOUBLESPEAK.pdf

nzclimatescience.net - HOW IPCC REPORT PROCESS SPINS THE CLIMATE

BusinessDay - End

And to finish up this post I present a Los Alamos Physicists open letter to the climate research community.


"Petr Chylek: Open Letter to the Climate Research Community
Saturday, 05 December 2009 21:48 Petr Chylek .I am sure that most of you are aware of the incident that took place recently at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The identity of the whistle-blower or hacker is still not known.

The selected release of emails contains correspondence between CRU scientists and scientists at other climate research institutions. My own purely technical exchange of emails with CRU director Professor Phil Jones is, as far as I know, not included.

I published my first climate-related paper in 1974 (Chylek and Coakley, Aerosol and Climate, Science 183, 75-77). I was privileged to supervise Ph. D. theses of some exceptional scientists - people like J. Kiehl, V.Ramaswamy and J. Li among others. I have published well over 100 peer-reviewed papers, and I am a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Within the last few years I was also honored to be included in Wikipedia’s blacklist of “climate skeptics”.

For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name afew. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.

Climate research made significant advancements during the last few decades, thanks to your diligent work. This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations. Thus, the first of the three pillars supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming seems to be solid. However, the two other pillars are much more controversial.
To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails.

Some people were soeager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity.The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

The fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds,and ocean circulation?), even though we can all agree that part of theobserved post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions. Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide.

Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public’s trust and move forward.

Regards,

Petr Chylek

Laboratory Fellow, Remote Sensing Team Leader, ISR-2 MS-B244

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA"

So what he is saying is that the data by these agencies is correct, that we are seeing a major increase in temperature. But he feels that the GHGs are yet proven to be the cause. And that the parameters of natural variability have not yet been shown to be less than the observed rise in temperatures. Most other scientists disagree with him, but that is fine. Investigate and see if he can come up with evidence for his hypothesis.

As for Gray, the man is a dingbat.

Yes, any scientist with a PhD who doesn't agree with the climate mafia is almost allways classified as a dingbat. Just like Wegener was way back when.

 

[Old Rocks]

As acknowledged in most pre-tectonic theory textbooks that I have read, Wegener had evidence, but no known mechanism. It took tectonic theory to vindicate Wegener's observations. Until that theoy was developed, that was what they had to remain, observations. You cannot drift continetal sediments and granites through ocean basalts.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks- I think you need to go way, way back in time and revisit your education on significant figures. you often conflate certainties from one area to other areas you want to be true. temps have gone up, no one denies that although we are much more certain of american temps that have a large amount of actual measurements than we are of the poles which are sparsely measured and full of estimated guesses. once we leave the physically measured arena and delve into areas that need computer modelling to project what is going on we also leave certainty behind. even if we knew 90 percent of what CO2 does but only 50 percent of the mechanics of H2O then the models will wildly diverge unless we constantly adjust the parameters. the next level is making predictions about the effects on climate from the model projections. any sensible person can see that the inherent uncertainties quickly multiply up into nonsense. I am not saying that modelling is not useful for pointing us in directions for further studies, just that they should not be put in front of the public as 'likely' scenarios. you are an example of how even intelligent and reasonably well informed laymen can come away with an inflated sense of belief in alarmism on very weak evidence.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, you need to read what the most respected modelers state about their own work. Today, the problem is not that the models are predicting effect not seen, but that the effects that we are now seeing far exceed what the models say should be occuring.

 

[IanC]

Ian, you need to read what the most respected modelers state about their own work. Today, the problem is not that the models are predicting effect not seen, but that the effects that we are now seeing far exceed what the models say should be occuring.

do you really believe that Old Rocks? they havent panned out for temps, sea levels or even a basic description of atmospheric patterns.

the problem with models is that there are a lot of them, and over a range of subjects. often two models studying the same thing will have opposite results. every few years the models that appear to be diverging from reality get pruned and disappear down the 'memory hole'. the ones that track more closely to reality get cloned and are set up with slightly different parameters. the models with some success are proudly held up to the public but the utter failures arent counted against the record.

there is a scam in the stock market world where an 'advisor' gives away a free market tip to thousands of investors but the trick is that half are told the stock will rise and the other half are told it will drop. the next free tip is only given to the half that got the correct prediction. and so on. after 'proving' their track record they then sell their advice to investors that have been impressed with their predictions. climate science has been operating on a modified version of this scam. the public forgets all the botched earlier attemps and believes the the first year of a new 100 year projection but the trick is that the model is always new and alwways in the first few years.

 

[westwall]

As acknowledged in most pre-tectonic theory textbooks that I have read, Wegener had evidence, but no known mechanism. It took tectonic theory to vindicate Wegener's observations. Until that theoy was developed, that was what they had to remain, observations. You cannot drift continetal sediments and granites through ocean basalts.

You are correct, they didn't know how the Earth moved, however, he had incontrovertible evidence that the Earth WAS MOVING. The scientific "consensus" of the time said that that was impossible. Freeman Dyson said in a recent interview that he was taught about Continental Drift as postulated by Wegener as fact, the idiotic geologists of that time, your so called "real scientists" were wrong. Just like your climatologists are today. Ignore Uniformitarianism at your peril.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bretz Floods.

 

[westwall]

Bretz Floods.

Rather cryptic. How do they pertain to the discussion?

 

[Trakar]

You are correct, they didn't know how the Earth moved, however, he had incontrovertible evidence that the Earth WAS MOVING. The scientific "consensus" of the time said that that was impossible. Freeman Dyson said in a recent interview that he was taught about Continental Drift as postulated by Wegener as fact, the idiotic geologists of that time, your so called "real scientists" were wrong. Just like your climatologists are today.

So demonstrate your understanding of science history, how did the theory of plate tectonics move from dismissed hypothesis to concensus theory?

(Hint: exactly the same way AGW has)

There were denialists who rejected plate tectonics until they died, they are remembered as the Lindzens, Singers, and Dysons of their day.

 

[Trakar]

Sure, just do a google search on the IPCC. You will find plenty of stories where they admit they did not use peer reviewed studies to reach their conclusions but rather they used op ed pieces from various environmental groups. Also you will find plenty of times where IPCC scientists admit they fibbed about environmental issues to make the situation sound worse to generate governmental controls that they desired.

You're just a tad late to the ball here friend. There is plenty of evidence from all over the world, you just have to take your blinders off.

Any reference or cite that you could provide from legitimate, unbiased sources of verifiable information that support the assertion: "...one of the most corrupt oprganizations in the hsitory of the world. Just check out what resigning members of the IPCC have said about the level of bogus..." would be greatly appreciated.

People should be able to support their assertions and claims, but if others wish to step into their stead, I have no objections, but please make sure that you are providing support for what has been asserted.

Here are a few from various magazines and newspapers...

When you can support your assertions from legitimate, unbiased sources of verifiable information (government or academic investigation/study) I will be eagerly awaiting its presentation.

 

[Trakar]

...climate science has been operating on a modified version of this scam. the public forgets all the botched earlier attemps and believes the the first year of a new 100 year projection but the trick is that the model is always new and alwways in the first few years.

can you support this assertion with compelling, verifiable information?

 

[IanC]

...climate science has been operating on a modified version of this scam. the public forgets all the botched earlier attemps and believes the the first year of a new 100 year projection but the trick is that the model is always new and alwways in the first few years.

can you support this assertion with compelling, verifiable information?

can you direct me to printouts of the 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 versions of the GISS general circulation model for their 100 year forecast? the same for the MET model? the canadian model? what projections come out of today's modern versions of the models if you load them up with parameters from 75 years ago and run them up to the present? will they be close to todays reality? will they be close to each other?

 

[westwall]

You are correct, they didn't know how the Earth moved, however, he had incontrovertible evidence that the Earth WAS MOVING. The scientific "consensus" of the time said that that was impossible. Freeman Dyson said in a recent interview that he was taught about Continental Drift as postulated by Wegener as fact, the idiotic geologists of that time, your so called "real scientists" were wrong. Just like your climatologists are today.

So demonstrate your understanding of science history, how did the theory of plate tectonics move from dismissed hypothesis to concensus theory?

(Hint: exactly the same way AGW has)

There were denialists who rejected plate tectonics until they died, they are remembered as the Lindzens, Singers, and Dysons of their day.

OK old fraud, as you say though I usually get paid for my expertise but this time I'll let you have it for free

So this is a brief tour of the history of Plate Tectonics (this is the difference between an internet warrior and a true scientist BTW so pay attention). You are partially correct when you state that Plate Tectonics was the result of many decades of research. However,
there was no concerted effort until....well you'll find out when we get there.

The first inkling of Plate Tectonics was published by Alfred Russel Wallace (of whom the now famous Wallace Line first delineated by Wallace in a Linnean Society meeting way back in 1859 is named) in his paper "On the Physical Geography of the Malay Archipelago" which was read at the Royal Geographical Society meeting of 8 June 1863, wherein he explains the theory of zoogeographical division and touches on the mechanism by which it occurs. He was never able to make the leap to subduction zones and the fact that the very island he was living on was moving, but he came close.

The next big jump was of course Alfred Lothar Wegener who attained his PhD in astronomy from the University of Berlin in 1908, but was a true polymath who made great advances in meteorology (he is memorialised in the names of two rare ice crystal halo arcs and by the eponym of the Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen procedure. Which is the mechanism that creates the shapes of raindrops, which he helped to discover. He and his brother also held the World hot air balloon endurance record of 56 hours for quite a while) and of course geology with his 1915 publication "The Origin of Continents and Oceans", where he uses the term die Verschiebung der kontainente, which translates as continental displacement. However by the time of his English language translation it had morphed into continental drift, the term still in use today.

He was of course laughed out of the room by the geological community (a pox on the old school geological scientific community for that attrocity, and the fact he wasn't a geologist was one of the main complaints against him...sound familiar? Oh just admit it you old fraud you!) but he continued to study the effects till his tragic and untimely death at the age of 51 while once again working in Greenland.

He was intrigued by the fit of Africa and South America on a simple Mercator Projection map and his first mention of it is in a letter to his fiance (sorry but I just can't remember the date on that one), however he was far from the first to note the fit of the continents, I believe the first written observation of the apparent connection dates back the great philosopher Francis Bacon in 1620 or so. Then the French Naturalist the Comte de Buffon who included it in his 36 volume Natural History published back in 1778 or 1779. Then in 1858 the noted Catastrophist Antonio Snider-Pellagrini proposed that a single continent had once existed and then broke apart. The Supercontinent of Gondwanaland was first posited by the Austrian Eduard Seuss in 1885 but his oceans were created by sinking and not by creeping, and finally in 1908 an American geologist named Frank Taylor wrote about the possibility of the continents inching towards the equator.

The next piece of the puzzle was provided by the Dutchman Felix Vening Meinasz while employed by the Delft Technical University. He wanted to make the most accurate measurements possible of the Earths gravity and to do so he used two Dutch submarines Her Majesty K II and Her Majesty K XIII made a series of dives around the seas of Java between 1923 and 1927 and he was the first to observe the correlation between the lowering of gravity and the deep Java Trench.

Upon hearing of the results of the gravimetric experiments Harry Hess invited Meinesz to Princeton. Hess, Meinesz and two other rising stars of the time Maurice Ewing and Edward Bullard used a boat, called I believe the Barracuda if memory serves, to see if the gravitational anomaly was present in other trench systems. They found that yes indeed it was and Hess and Meinesz actually speculated about the possibility of the trenches being a rift in the crust that allowed the crust to plunge down into the mantle, this was in the mid 1930's. Finally Hess wrote a paper in 1939 that predicted exactly that mechanism.

Now we get to Vine and Matthews or more accurately Keith Runcorn (tragically murdered in 1995 in San Diego I think it was) who was the first to study remenant magnatism. He began his studies in the 1950's
using a whole host of devices (including one sphere made out of 37 pounds of pure gold which he had borrowed from the Royal Mint) and they published their paper in 1954.

Then we have Ron Mason, who was on sabbatical at Caltech, who was aware (how we don't know as it was classified) of a US Navy study of underwater magnatism and over morning coffee asked if he could join Project Magnet (as it was officially known) as a supernumery and tow a magnetometer behind the ship as it was proceeding on its mission. Happily the project director agreed and Mason was able to use a ASQ-3A fluxgate magnetometer (modified from a MAD boom that would normally be mounted in a P3 Orion submarine hunting aircraft) that was dragged behind the US Coast Guard vessel Pioneer. It was this project that gifted the world with the magnetic stripes that showed once and for all that yes indeed there had been magnetic reversals over time. This confirmed observations that had been made by a Frenchman named Jean Brunhes and a Japanese geophysicist named Motohari or Motonari (can't remember which, sorry) Matuyama in the 1920's when he demonstrated that
there had been a pole reversal in the Pleistocene. After a few years of work it was figured that in the last 76 million years there have been 76 pole reversals, give or take a couple.

OK, NOW we get to Fred Vine and Drummond Matthews, and don't forget their collegue, Lawrence Morley ("internet experts" ALLWAYS seem to forget him!) and their paper in 1963 that placed everything into context. But there were still many problems. The geophysicists had a good theory but they could'nt figure out the actual mechanics of how it all worked. They had the framework but they didn't have the roof up yet.

That was left to the man many consider to be the "father" of plate tectonics and that would be J. Tuzo Wilson (yet another of the masterful scientists the "internet experts" never seem to know about) and his July 24 1965 paper in Nature in which he stated this stunning assertion

"Many geologists have maintained that movements of the Earth's Crust are concentrated in mobile belts, which may take the form of mountains, mid-ocean ridges of major faults...this article suggests that these features are not isolated, that few come to dead ends, but that they are connected into a continuous network of mobile belts about the Earth which divide the surface into several large rigid plates."

His paper then went on to prove his assertions and in doing so described the system of transform faults and how they worked which allowed the plates to move about. I will leave that part out however as it would take a minor book to do so. Wilsons theory was confirmed in short order thanks to the US Navy once again who had placed seismographs around the world to listen for Russian and Chinese nuclear detonations, but which were very easilly modified to detect the slippage of the proposed transform faults and in 1967 they did just that from a lab at Columbia University.

So as you can see the theory of plate tectonics was from the beginning a series of inter-related and inter-disciplinary studies that all came together over a period of about 30 years of actual research..most of which was free or nearly so as the studies were piggybacked on existing projects at little cost.