Green Goofs have willingly let California farmers famish while preserving water for an obscure variety of fish. No big surprise, it was their ridiculous movement to rid the world of DDT after Rachel Carson's spurious and untruthful book, "Silent Spring" that is largely responsible for the deaths of millions of poor African natives from malaria because of mosquitoes which could have been controlled and largely eradicated by DDT. Mosquito nets are a poor substitute. On top of that, environmentalists have fought to prevent third world countries from building up a modern culture by blocking the building of power plants and thereby keeping third world countries from advancing their civilizations. The UN is the primary culprit here.
The Obama Administration let that oil spill linger in the Gulf and was shocked when nature did much of the cleanup in spite of Federal inaction and outright blocking of methods and means that could have been effective. Still, the President's refusal to let the spill be dealt with swiftly and his blocking of oil drilling and harvesting now has brought poverty to the Gulf regions. In addition, the EPA is responsible for the flooding that is wiping out all or parts of neighborhoods and towns because of floods that should have and could have been stopped by dams that had originally been designed to save riverside communities from disaster. I intend to present to you evidence that:
- The world is cooling, not warming
- The scientific community is not in agreement with the alarmists but quite the opposite
- Radical environmentalists are harmful to our economy and to the quality of human life all over the planet
- The Sun is the primary factor in the climate machinery of Earth and certainly not man
“Between 2001 and 2010 global average temperature decreased by 0.05 degrees, over the same time that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 5 per cent. Ergo, carbon dioxide emissions are not driving dangerous warming.” - Australian scientist Bob Carter
climate depot pic
Founder and National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance
June 21, 2011
Enter Energygate—the latest scandal destroying the credibility of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
November, 2009, brought Climategate—the release of thousands of emails, computer programs, and other documents showing that climate scientists in control of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had fabricated, exaggerated, suppressed, and corrupted data to support belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and had intimidated dissenting scientists and journal editors who would publish their work, corrupted the peer review process, and flouted canons of scientific transparency as well as American and British freedom of information laws.
The first few months of 2010 brought Himalayagate, Amazongate, and a variety of other revelations that IPCC’s vaunted AR4 (Fourth Assessment Report) had incorporated non-peer reviewed articles, indeed sometimes outright propaganda pieces produced by environmental advocacy organizations, as sources of some of its most alarming predictions.
Later in 2010 came recommendations from the InterAcademy Council (IAC) Committee to Review the IPCC for steps that must be taken to improve IPCC’s function and credibility. Among the most important was adoption and implementation of a clear conflict of interest policy that would, among other things, prevent much of what was revealed in Climategate, Himalayagate, etc.
On May 9, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed in a press release that a forthcoming report “showed” that “80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewable by mid-century” even if all nuclear energy production ceased.
On June 14 IPCC at last released the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRRES) and the reality falls more than a little short of the claim.
First, the SRRES shows no such thing. It claims it, but it provides no evidence for it.
Second, the part of the report misrepresented as showing it depended on a paper by a Greenpeace renewable energy advocate, Sven Teske, who was also a lead author of the report—and the article itself depended on an advocacy piece by Teske previously written for Greenpeace.
Third, the “research” for the paper was sponsored by the European Renewable Energy Council, an industry consortium.
Both “second” and “third” involve conflict of interest and bias and strip the paper and its claim of scientific credibility.
But there’s more.
Fourth, the “close to 80 percent” figure was cherry-picked from the most extreme outlier of 164 scenarios referenced in the report—a scenario that assumes the extremely unlikely, and extremely optimistic, coupling of sharp reductions in global energy demand over the next 40 years, on the one hand, with strong economic growth and 28 percent population growth, on the other. Aside from the intellectual dishonesty involved, there’s also the problem that to be of any real value to decision makers, planning must be based not on the most optimistic scenarios but on the most realistic.
Fifth, it turns out that the whole report is, as Christopher Booker puts it, “astonishingly one-sided” and “reads less like a scientific document and more like a propaganda puff for the world’s renewable industries.”
In an interview June 17, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri—whose ownership interests in businesses with a stake in renewable energy create his own serious conflicts of interest—said at a meeting in Brussels June 16, reported by Oliver Morton of The Economist, that since authors for AR5 have already been selected, “it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.”
IPCC does indeed have a conflict of interest policy—and a policy against bias. Both were adopted at its 33rd Session, in May, in Abu Dhabi. According to the IPCC’s own policies:
A “conflict of interest” refers to any current professional, financial or other interest which could: i) significantly impair the individual’s objectivity in carrying out his or her duties and responsibilities for the IPCC, or ii) create an unfair advantage for any person or organization. For the purposes of this policy, circumstances that could lead a reasonable person to question an individual’s objectivity, or whether an unfair advantage has been created, constitute a potential conflict of interest. These potential conflicts are subject to disclosure.And with respect to bias:
Those involved in selecting authors will need to strive for an author team composition that reflects a balance of expertise and perspectives, such that IPCC products are comprehensive, objective, and neutral with respect to policy. In selecting these individuals, care must be taken to ensure that biases can be balanced where theyHow important are these to the IPCC? Here’s its own statement:
The role of the IPCC demands that it pay special attention to issues of independence and bias in order to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, its products and processes. It is essential that the work of IPCC is not compromised by any conflict of interest for those who execute it….Nonetheless, says Pachauri, AR5’s author’s, because they’ve already been selected, won’t be required to live up to this policy.Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA), chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, fired off a letter June 17—apparently without knowledge of Pachauri’s statement—to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon expressing his “concern about the lack of progress in implementation of the conflict of interest recommendation of the” IAC.
The IPCC Conflict of Interest Policy is designed to ensure that conflicts of interest are identified, communicated to the relevant parties, and managed to avoid any adverse impact on IPCC balance, products and processes, thereby protecting the individual, the IPCC, and the public interest. The individual and the IPCC should not be placed in a situation that could lead a reasonable person to question, and perhaps discount or dismiss, the work of the IPCC simply because of the existence of a conflict of interest.
Today, Pachauri’s announcement makes headlines here and there. Will it be remembered when IPCC releases AR5? Not likely. The vast majority of the mainstream media are ignoring it now, and they’re not likely to discover it then.
I have a recommendation: When AR5 gets published, its front cover, every page, its executive summary, and every press release about it should carry this disclaimer: “The authors of this report have been exempted from the conflict-of-interest and bias policies of the IPCC, which therefore makes no claims of and takes no responsibility for the credibility of any of its contents.”
IPCC, Press Release, May 9, 2011
IPCC, Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
Mark Lynas, New IPCC Error: Renewables Report Conclusion Was Dictated by Greenpeace
Steve McIntyre, IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke; Responses from IPCC SRREN; Pachauri: No Conflict of Interest Policy for AR5; Lynas’ Questions
Oliver Wright, Climate Change Panel in Hot Water Again Over ‘Biased’ Energy Report
Donna Laframboise, IPCC: These People Haven’t Learned a Thing
Christopher Booker, The IPCC Declares Greenpeace in Our Time
Congressman Paul Broun, June 17, 2011, letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Oliver Moreton (“Babbage”), The IPCC and Greenpeace: Renewable Outrage
Using more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.
During the last extended period of solar dormancy, from 1645 to 1715, Europe plunged into some of the coldest winters on record. But Earth’s atmosphere, which now contains an abundance of greenhouse gases, differs in composition compared with three centuries ago, and solar physicists say they’re unsure how a long solar hiatus would affect the planet’s 21st century climate.
As 2011 unfolds, the sun is once again on the eve of a below-average solar cycle—at least that’s what forecasters are saying. The "Carrington event" of 1859 (named after astronomer Richard Carrington, who witnessed the instigating flare) reminds us that strong storms can occur even when the underlying cycle is nominally weak.