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 publicÂ’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"
