What must be done now is to award the email hacker with the next Nobel Peace Prize, revoke Al Gore’s, confiscate all the profits that have been made from furthering the lies and misdirections of the climate alarmists (including Michael Moore of course), shut down the UN’s Climate wing, and immediately dismantle and disrupt the EPA and the last 20 years of restrictions and regulations and blockades of access to American energy resources. Oh yeah-let’s burn the Cap & Trade bill and shutter the whole economy-destroying Ethanol nonsense while we’re at it.

Why you ask? Because it has finally come out that there has been no global warming since 1995 (it was much worse during Medieval times you see) and the now-shamed Professor at the heart of the original IPCC email scandal has finally been uncovered as a fraud. I can actually understand now why he once considered suicide…he knew this day of reckoning was coming.

The problem with saying “the science is settled” is that, sooner or later, someone else that truly believes in the never-ending pursuit of “science” is going to un-settle it with either new revelations or new discoveries. Unfortunately for Al Gore, we have come upon a newer, even more inconvenient truth; they lied.

Now we have to go about the business of cleaning up their mess.

One and a half cheers to the NY Times for the article “Skeptics Find Fault With U.N. Climate Panel,” which admits to some of the scientific and ethical problems facing the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri. But the Times being the Times, while it lays out some of the damning facts, it omits key damaging details (especially regarding the egregiously amateurish nature of the IPCC’s errors regarding the Himalayan glaciers) and otherwise spends the rest of the article trying to explain away Dr. Pachauri’s problems, with hilarious results.

Read More →

Now that word has spread that the works and sources of the International Panel on Climate Change are neither “peer reviewed” nor based on “peer reviewed” publications, here come the consequences and loss of credibility. India is quitting the IPCC, and the quote from Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh is just beautiful:

There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science.

Don’t mess with this Ramesh, either.

The fraud at the IPCC is particularly relevant to India because the Himalayan glaciers are a local matter, so India is now to found its own National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to study the matter. It will begin producing its own reports in November. Of course, those will probably be blacked out in the press because they’re not blessed by international bureaucrats and WWF reports.

I hear they’re telling a joke at the International Panel on Climate Change: Knock knock. Who’s there? Peer Review. Peer Review who? Your guess is as good as mine.

But seriously, I thought it was bad enough when a single reference to a piece of speculative fiction about Himalayan glaciers made it into a “peer-reviewed” IPCC report. But it turns out to be a trend. Says the Telegraph via Hot Air, in reference to another outlandish prediction:

At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:

Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications
/files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf.

This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.

One can only imagine how many more references to activist groups are lurking in this and other IPCC literature. It’s as though the IPCC creates its works without anybody ever giving anything a critical evaluation, making Peer Review a truly Orwellian expression and IPCC our very own Minisci, producing as much science as Miniluv produced love.

Don’t laugh. The reverberations in the IPCC’s echo chamber might damage some eardrums.

The global warming alarmists have been caught lying again, unfortunately, if one wants to find out about “glaciergate” it is necessary to go to British papers. The American press is treating this story just like “climategate”, as far as they are concerned there is nothing to see here. Unlike with climategate, the IPCC is implicated directly in this fraud. They shared the Nobel Peace Prize with noted alarmist Al Gore:

“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

That political pressure has worked as planned. The EPA, relying on the fraudulent reports of the IPCC has decided it must regulate CO2. In regulating emissions of CO2 the EPA is essentially regulating the entire American economy. A bill is being introduced in Congress attempting to keep this economy killing regulation from taking effect:

“Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is leading the charge to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gasses, and today she got some support from across the aisle: Three Democratic senators signed onto Murkowski resolution to bar such regulation.
The Democrats, the Associated Press reports, are Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Murkowski’s resolution says a rule submitted by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses “shall have no force or effect.” ‘

Every Senator in New England needs to support this bill. In these tough economic times we shouldn’t be forced to pay more money to heat our homes when the “science” the EPA decision was based on fraudulent data. In fact, they admit the 2035 date for the disappearance of glaciers was simply made up.

Also, from Britain:

“A period of humility and even silence would be particularly welcome from the Met Office, our leading institutional advocate of the perils of man-made global warming, which had promised a “barbecue summer” in 2009 and one of the “warmest winters on record”. In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.” ‘

Unbelievable, the Brits are enduring the coldest, snowiest winter in decades, but it will be deemed the warmest to further the global warmists agenda. The model they are using in an attempt to run our lives wouldn’t pass muster at a 7th grade science fair.

Peer Review. Ha.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

….Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Peer Review. Heh heh.

The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.

I’m sorry, I’m laughing so hard I can’t see the screen. I keep thinking of all the times I’ve been assured that the IPCC and related organizations use only the finest peer-reviewed research, and that we should trust its major publications because its work is by experts in the field. So forgive the lack of in-depth analysis here.

Peer Review: The new punchline.

Do you ever wonder who stands to benefit from global trading in carbon credits?

We’ve looked at some of the investments of former VP Al Gore with “green” investment bank Kleiner-Perkins. We’ve also considered the Top 10 Green Energy Whores and the Climate-Industrial Complex, led by General Electric. These are companies who stand to win big in the New Green Economy, and are not above gaming our democratic system in the pursuit of green profits.

Now, the Telegraph graces us with an interesting look at the commercial pursuits of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The good Dr. Pachauri makes Algore look like a piker.

Read More →

Liberals worldwide still scoff at the idea of Bush’s War, with a singular mantra that still echoes:

Where are those Weapons of Mass Destruction??

To the left, Bush not producing WMDs proves the Iraq War was a pointless mission.

Now, in light of revelations of tampered “evidence” and bungled science, leaders of the world are committing the same sin they accused Bush of: diving headlong into committing –sacrificing in midst of this global recession — the resources of the world’s citizens, even though the IPCC responsible for this Copenhagen shindig admits they need time to verify the “proof” of man-made global warming:

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change [IPCC] admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.

Had Bush gone into Iraq under the pretense of saving the world from a nuclear winter — a real threat to our global climate — maybe the liberals and climate-changers would have thrown their full support behind him. But then there’s that little problem of “proof.”

And if the left is still about ”proof” regarding the sacrifices made over the Iraq War, why aren’t they outraged over Climategate?