Bill Introduced to end Support of IPCC with Taxpayer Dollars

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,972
    Thanks Received:
    7,975
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,721
    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
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,217
    Thanks Received:
    2,913
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,221
    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..........
     
  3. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    got link? preferrably to some legitimate, unbiased source of verifiable information.
     
  4. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,972
    Thanks Received:
    7,975
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,721



    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.
     
  5. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    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.
     
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,972
    Thanks Received:
    7,975
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,721


    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"
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    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.
     
  8. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,972
    Thanks Received:
    7,975
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,721



    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.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    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.
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,196
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,446
    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.
     

Share This Page