Monday, August 30, 2010

Climate (gate) panel needs serious changes- review states the obvious

Quote compilation by Marc Aupiais

SACNS looks into the report by the United Nations, asking for a more scientific, scholarly, and accurate approach to the controversy over Anthropological Climate Change theory. Our service notes an article by the French Government's France 24, before going onto just some of the shocking reports on the IPCC, and major scientists, including an admission by the University of East Anglia- according to the London Times: that it threw out the temperature data claimed to prove a connection between fossil fuels and and global temperature rises (this has been the data used to link information to the polar ice caps):

"AFP - The UN's climate panel needs to "fundamentally reform" its structure to prevent the kind of embarrassing errors found in a landmark 2007 study on global warming, a review said Monday.

A UN-requested probe of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that the Nobel Prize-winning body was largely successful, despite the political uproar that critics called the "Climategate" scandal.

But the five-month review called for changes including setting up an executive committee to replace the IPCC's largely part-time structure and stricter guidelines on acceptable source material.

It also asked for checks on conflicts of interest by board members and stricter limits on the terms of the chairman -- a position now held by Rajendra Pachauri.


The IPCC has admitted that the Himalayan glacier reference was wrong, but says its core conclusions about climate change are sound, an opinion shared by mainstream scientists.

The UN review focused primarily on the structure, not the substance, of the IPCC but gave its endorsement overall to the panel's work, saying it has "been successful overall."

It said that guidelines on source material for the IPCC were "too vague."


The review recommended creating a more permanent and professional position of IPCC chair, changing the current part-time arrangement. It also said that the IPCC's chair tenure -- two terms of six years each -- was too long.

"Formal qualifications for the chair and all other bureau members need to be developed, as should a rigorous conflict-of-interest policy to be applied to senior IPCC leadership" and authors, it said.

"Review editors should also ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views," it said.

The IPCC's study, known formally as the Fourth Assessment Report, helped earn it a Nobel Peace Prize which it co-shared with former US vice president turned environmental activist Al Gore."
France 24, Staff report by AFP (Based in France; Connected with the French government; Secular/General interests coverage; may be influenced by European support for action on the claims of Climate Change theory)
30 / 08 | August / 2010: UN climate body needs to 'fundamentally reform'

From quoting a hiking magazine, to allegations of the flow of money by British papers, and lucrative contracts, to quoting a deforestation report- to claim alleged future tree loss due to climate change, the UN panel has given sceptics much to talk about, here are some quotes our service has noted in the past:

One of the most noted issues, lies with the fact that much of the major purported evidence of a rise in global temperatures was destroyed by the University of East Anglia

"McEwan, 62, author of best-sellers including Atonement, Amsterdam and Enduring Love, said he was on the side of scientists who believe global warming is man-made.

“I have a fairly strong opinion. I’m not a complete alarmist. I used to think, but no longer think, that we’ve got six years left.

“I did spend a lot of time with the science, and read an enormous number of papers, and it would seem to me there’s a fairly powerful consensus. About three-quarters of the papers I read thought we had a man-made problem and there was some urgency.

“At the same time, there are some very good sceptics out there. Sceptics are completely different from ideologically-driven deniers, who have no evidence but have interests to protect. It’s a very important distinction to make. Some of my best friends are climate change sceptics. The denial camp are really not scientists at all, they are very well-funded, particularly in the States, and they have specific agendas.”"
Anita Singh writing for the UK Telegraph (Based in the United Kingdom; Independent of the Government; Tends to support the same special interests as the Tory/Conservative electorate; Secular/General interests coverage)
17 / 07 | July / 2010: "Ian McEwan says Americans are 'profoundly bored' by climate change" See other articles published by the UK telegraph of Anita Singh as well as their in-house bibliography

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”"
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor of the paper he is writing for, writing for the London Times (Based in the United Kingdom; Independent of the State; Possibly supports many of the same special Interests as the Labour party; Has been one of the British Papers to most actively question the UN panel on climate change)
29 / 11 | November / 2009: "Climate change data dumped"

"THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.


The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.""
Jonathan Leake, Environment and Science Editor of the paper he is writing for, writing for the London Times (Based in the United Kingdom; Independent of the State; Possibly supports many of the same special Interests as the Labour party; Has been one of the British Papers to most actively question the UN panel on climate change)
24 / 01 | January / 2010: "UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters"

"The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.

Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.
In his BBC blog three days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'

That essay, written last month, argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures.

It also presented the arguments of sceptics who believe natural cycles control temperature and the counter-arguments of those who think it's man's actions which are warming the planet.


The leak comes ahead of inter-governmental talks in Copenhagen next month which campaigners have argued is a last opportunity to prevent irreversible climate change.
Former Chancellor Lord Lawson has called for an inquiry into the scandal, warning the credibility of UK science is at stake.

It comes amid pressure on the professor at the centre of the scandal to quit from his position at the CRU.

In one damning email, he appears to call the death of a climate change sceptic 'cheering news!'.
In other messages, researchers appear to be discussing manipulating data and how to dodge Freedom Of Information requests.

Another shows a climatologist from the U.S. admitting it was a travesty that the lack of global warming in recent years could not be explained."
CAROL DRIVER writing for the Daily Mail (Based in the United Kingdom; Independent of the government; Has been accused of being a Tabloid in the past; General/Secular interests coverage)
26 / 11 | November / 2009: "Climate change scandal deepens as BBC expert claims he was sent leaked emails six weeks ago

Read more:"
See other articles published by the Daily Mail by Carol Driver

""It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth" says Professor John Beddington

Prof John Beddington admitted the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and condemned climate researchers who refused to publish data which formed the basis of their reports into global warming.
In an interview, Prof Beddington, called for a new era of honesty and responsibility from the environmental community and said scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.

His words were refected in a New Scientist editorial that also argued that climate scientists should "welcome in the outside world" for more scrutiny.
Prof Beddington also said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

''I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,” he said.
“Science grows and improves in the light of criticism.

“There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.”
His comments come after the United Nations’ climate science panel admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

The IPCC was forced to apologise after the prediction in its benchmark 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 – was revealed to have been based on unsubstantiated claims.

It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when leaked e-mails appeared to suggest that scientists at the University of East Anglia had manipulated climate change data."
Andrew Hough writing for the UK Telegraph (Based in the United Kingdom; Independent of the Government; Tends to support the same special interests as the Tory/Conservative electorate; Secular/General interests coverage)
27 / 01 | January / 2010: "John Beddington: chief scientist says climate change sceptics 'should not be dismissed'" See other articles and a short in-house bibliography of Andrew Hough on the UK Telegraph

"The real issue here is one of trust and transparency -- values that apparently didn’t matter enough to Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The files made public Nov. 19 include a message from Jones asking other scientists to delete e-mails, apparently as a way of dodging requests under the U.K.’s Freedom of Information law.

Other e-mails discuss trying to oust a journal editor who published skeptical papers and preventing dissenting views from being published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones wrote. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer- review literature is!”"
Anthropological Carbon Based Climate Change believer Eric Pooley writing an opinion piece for Bloomberg (Based in the United States of America; Independent of the Government; does support the same special interests of the Democratic Party at times)
01 / 12 | December / 2009: "Climategate Proves Sunlight Best Reply to Skeptics: Eric Pooley" See other articles on Bloomberg by Eric Pooley

"Phil Jones, a professor and director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, will temporarily relinquish his post, the U.K. school said yesterday in a statement. Private e-mails from Jones were among thousands of correspondences between scientists debating climate change that were stolen and posted on the Internet last month.

The e-mails, some dating back to 1996, show researchers musing that they may withhold data from critics seeking to discredit their work. Skeptics of man’s contribution to global warming, including former Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff member Marc Morano, are citing the e-mails as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate findings about climate change.

“This is a victory for science,” Morano, who is now editor of a Web site on the climate change debate, said yesterday in a statement. “Jones was at the epicenter of the UN’s efforts to keep the grand narrative of man-made climate fears alive regardless of the data.”

The Climatic Research Unit has said the e-mails were taken out of context and allegations of data manipulation are unfounded. Jones said disclosure of the e-mails ahead of the climate-change summit that starts Dec. 7 in Copenhagen is an attempt to undermine measures to fight global warming."
Jim Efstathiou Jr. and Alex Morales for Bloomberg (Based in the United States of America; Independent of the Government; does support the same special interests of the Democratic Party at times)
02 / 12 | December / 2009: "U.K. Climate Scientist Steps Down After E-Mail Flap (Update4)" See Other articles on Bloomberg by Jim Efstathiou Jr. and Alex Morales

No comments:

Post a Comment