Also – beware the unprecedented ‘smart storms’!
Also – beware the unprecedented ‘smart storms’!
Donna Laframboise is an investigative journalist who has investigated the IPCC’s claim that their findings are based solely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. She has found that far from basing their findings on solid scientific studies, the IPCC heavily relied on so called ‘gray literature’, composed mainly from activist propaganda with a dash of government policy papers thrown in for good measure.
Disclosure: I was one of the citizen reviewers who volunteered to go through the IPCC’s references as part of the citizen’s audit Donna Laframboise organized and then reported in her book, ‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate expert, and am acknowledged as such in the book.
What Donna Laframboise did was unique: rather than challenge the science behind the IPCC’s report or its conclusion, something which is difficult and open to dispute, she took the testable statement made by the IPCC regarding the sources on which they drew their conclusions. And, she proved that the IPCC lied about the sources on which they based their very report.
Since then, she has been speaking out about IPCC and the untrue statements she could prove they had made, in addition to publishing her book and blogging about the issue. It is therefore not surprising that a whistle-blower from within IPCC itself had sought her out to leak some information to her regarding the next IPCC report.
Donna Laframboise has gone public with this material yesterday, January 8th, 2013, by publishing a long post on her blog ‘No Frakking Consensus’ as well as a guest post on WUWT (Watts Up With That, world’s leading ACC-skeptic site) with links to the data from the three memory sticks with information from the so-termed ‘Secret Santa leak’.
Today, she had been served with legal notice by IPCC to take the data down or else…
So, if you’d like to get a hold of the data (I know I’ve been busy reading over it – fascinating stuff), better download it fast…or look for some of the many torrent sites distributing the information. Like Donna’s post concludes:
‘But really, the cat is out-of-the-bag. The damage is done. Thousands of copies of these documents are now out there. They can’t be recalled.’
You go, Donna!
Exposing corruption in unaccountable bureaucracies which increasingly try to regulate our freedom out of existence is the duty of each and every one of us!!!
Since Dr. Mann’s new hobby of suing people has brought up the subject of the ‘hockey-stick graph’ – specifically, whether its creation was honest incompetence or
straightforward fraud valid ‘climate science’, I wend digging through the interwebitudes for some more background material.
Note: Dr. Mann is not suing National Review and Mark Steyn for comparing Penn State’s whitewashing of both the pedophile and himself. Not at all. He is suing them for having called him a fraud. And the reason he is suing Dr. Ball is because he said that Michael Mann belongs in State Penn, not Penn State… Therefore, I am not suggesting either of these things, in any way, shape or form.
There is so much material out there, it is difficult to pick the best few – the ones that best document the events. However, here are a few front runners:
This post opens with:
‘There wasn’t any hockey stick prior to the year 2000.
The 1990 IPCC report showed that temperatures were much cooler than 800 years ago.’
It then supplies graphs – of what was the historical record prior to 2000, and how that all changed as the ‘hockey-stick graph’ took shape.
It even points out which bits were done by Phil Jones’s team, which by Michael Mann’s team.
Chock full of graphs, showing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ figures.
So, how did this become ‘accepted science’? What ‘studies’ confirmed it? How did it make it into the IPCC reports?
That is an interesting story in its own right – and has been meticulously pieced together in this post:
From the intro:
‘The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I’m going to try to tell it in layman’s language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it’s the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting. It’s a long tale – and the longest posting I think I’ve ever written and piecing it together from the individual CA postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle. You may want to get a long drink before starting, and those who suffer from heart disorders may wish to take their beta blockers first.’
Here, meticulously documented, is the story of how the ‘hockey-stick graph’ went from being just one paper, submitted by one scientist, to ‘scientific consensus’ and unquestionable holy writ.
It documents questionable behaviour by the scientists involved, the editors of the journals and the IPCC folks, none of whom appear to be following their own guidelines of professional conduct.
While we are on the topic of IPCC itself, it is important to note that while they loudly touted the unfortunate hockey-stick graph for quite some time – before quietly removing it without an explanation - it is important to understand that this is not a body of leading scientists: it is primarily a political body, formed by a political organization, through a politically correct process, to promote its own political agenda – with a few scientists tossed in for window dressing.
One person who has documented IPCC’s sloppiness (if not downright corruption) and lack of adherence to its own rules is the Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Here she is, from a tour in Australia:
Much of the IPCC process was dominated by ‘climate modelling’ – computer programs that try to predict what will happen based on what has happened. On the surface of it, this seems valid: the problem is in how these models were constructed. It seems they are, to put it mildly, highly flawed.
Another fundamental problem for the IPCC reviewers was that they were only permitted to comment on the studies which were pre-selected and presented to them for comment. This selection process was highly sensitive – but handled by the behind-the-scenes bureaucrats. There were many instances where scientists spoke up, saying the material they were presented with was not representative of the current work in the field and asked to be permitted to include a broader spectrum of studies. These requests were summarily dismissed by the apartchicks running the show.
But even as hamstrung as they were, when scientists actually commented on errors/omissions/inaccuracies in the drafts of the reports, their comments were dismissed, the drafts were not corrected and the objectionable conclusions or downright errors made it into the final reports. Cough, Himalayan glacier, cough…
That is not a sound scientific process….
While I was scouring the interwebitudes looking for supporting links, I came across an interesting site:
Bookmark this site – it catalogues peer-reviewed, scientific papers (by category) which refute the warm-mongering narrative. Over a thousand of them.
It would b easy to just sit here are read them all – but then, this post would never get fin…
Do you remember Dr. Michael Mann?
He is a singularly interesting figure in the world of Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis. (In this comment thread on Bishop Hill blog, the field is referred to as ‘Mann-made Global Warming – lol.)
Dr. Mann is also the author of the thoroughly debunked ‘hockey stick’ graph – as demonstrated by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Dr. Mann has said some very ‘not nice’ things about this statistician and economist…
And, he is in the process of suing Dr. Tim Ball – another Canadian!
Aside – this lawsuit is not going well for Dr. Mann: as part of the discovery process, he has to hand over for courtroom scrutiny the very data he has spent a decade hiding, or face contempt of court charges and a ruling in Dr. Ball’s favour. Somebody did not think his tactics through…
But, that is not all!
With all the critics of Dr. Mann ‘out there’ – why is he picking on the Canadians?
Could it be – CANUCKOPHOBIA?
I don’t know – perhaps we should have someone in the sensitivity training field pay Dr. Mann a little visit, just to be on the safe side…
What about those who think everyone is unfairly picking on poor Dr. Mann?
GAIA – THE EARTH SYSTEM (EARTH 002, Section 2; 3 credits) with the course schedule for days 37 & 38 is : MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 1 and Part 2)
Yes – according to this ‘scientist’, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is Universtiy-level science material! LOL!!! When, years ago, I showed it to my kids, my young son actually thought that this movie was made with intentional errors in the science so as to train kids how to spot bad science…and greatly relished pointing the mistakes out!
If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you really ought to know better than to use such seriously flawed material as a teaching tool…
In other words, perhaps more than any other scientist of our era, Dr. Mann is rather to be ridiculed…perhaps his compulsion for making himself the laughing stock of the scientific community is rooted in the same pathology from which his (potential) Canuckophobia stems.
P.S. It looks like Dr. Mann’s legal fund is backed by George Soros, via Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and GAP’s Environmental program…this could add a whole new dimension to the conflict.
If you have been following this blog for a while, you know my opinions on Anthropogenic Global Warming – even though I have not been writing on this topic much lately.
I am of the opinion that Global Warming is a good thing – whether human-caused or not (though, I am unconvinced that we, humans, deserve much of the credit for this positive change).
Looking back in history, warmer weather has always meant increased prosperity for humanity because it is easier to grow food. Since subsistence is less labour intensive, we get more time and energy to spend on such things as science, art and generally improving the world around us. So, trying to stop Global Warming is seriously anti-human!
As an Aspie, I would point out that in the big picture, we are in an inter-glaciation period, when the icecaps are supposed to be shrinking and the weather is supposed to be getting warmer (though, of course, the ‘noise’ of century-long cycles is bound to introduce cooler bits along the way). So, trying to fight against Global Warming is seriously anti-Earth!
Plus I consider myself to be a tree hugger. I love trees. I’d love to see more trees. Carbon dioxide is food for trees. So, trying to reduce carbon dioxide in the air is seriously anti-tree!
And, natural evolution will favour those organisms that can adjust to changes in their climate and surroundings the most successfully. Natural evolution is a good thing, because it builds better, stronger organisms in better, stronger ecosystems. So, trying to arrest the cyclical nature of climate change is seriously anti-nature!
As such, I reject on principle each and every action which is aimed at arresting nature and its cycle as unnatural statism which is immoral and anti-Mother-Nature.
Having said this, you might pick up on a few points of disagreement I would have with Bjorn Lomborg…but I still find listening to his opinions interesting:
‘The Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) will take place in Chicago, Illinois from Monday, May 21 to Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at the Hilton Chicago Hotel, 720 South Michigan Avenue. The event will follow the NATO Summit taking place in Chicago on May 19–21.’
This is one Climate Conference which promises to actually address the science and not just the politically correct rhetoric. It is also likely to address the issues arising from faulty or downright fraudulent science on the topic of Anthropogenic Climate Change:
‘On November 22, 2011, a second batch of emails among scientists working at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was released by an unknown whistle-blower. “Climategate II” revealed prominent scientists concealing data, discussing global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry, and admitting to scientific uncertainties that they denied in their public statements. ‘
Did I mention that Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President, will deliver the first dinner speech, on Monday, May 21st?
Of course, not everyone is planning to be there. Donna Laframboise of NoFrakkingConsensus, for one, has distanced herself from this event over concerns about Heartland’s ethics.
Donna Laframboise is the corageous Canadian journalist who has taken on the ACC/Global Warmmongers.
She is the one who conducted the IPCC audit (in which your never-humble correspondant participated) which clearly demonstrated that the IPCC did not use ‘peer-reviewed scientific publications’ as the sources of information on which it drew to created its reports.
(Check out the free preview – it is 7 chapters long!)
While our southern neighbours keep wondering if their votes count as they think they count, here, in Ontario, it is getting harder and harder to figure out where to park one’s vote in the quickly upcoming election.
The Liberals are corrupt and Dalton McGuinty will only say something that’s true by accident.
The Conservatives seem hell bent on bringing in publicly funded faith-based schools (that means religious apartheid in schools, in case you missed it) – the very issue on which the Conservatives crashed and burned during the last election.
The NDP wants to finish the job of bankrupting Ontario that McGuinty has so effectively started: on a per capita basis, Ontario – the one-time industrial engine of Canada – is now worse off than California. The NDP’s cure – spend more!!!
The Pirate Party – despite its drawbacks, a party which would push for a balance in consumer electronic rights – is not in the race.
The Family Coalition Party wants to legislate morality – not a sound principle, even were you to agree with their morals completely.
The role for Libertarians is to be a voice of reason – not to govern.
The Greens – yeah, pull the other one. People naive enough to get suckered in by the ACC hysteria are not stable enough to deserve anyone’s vote.
Then I saw these TV ads:
Perhaps I’m going to look at this Freedom Party a little closer.
Sorry – I did not realize that September 14th was ‘Climate Parody Day’!!!
If I had, I would have done something, like, witty…or something…
Perhaps a cartoon of Al Gore in a turban shaped like an ‘oveheating Earth’ or David Suzuki holding the IPCC report (any version – they are all corrupt) and threatening to burn (or behead) any heretic who does not treat it with sufficient reverence….
Of course, for a daily dose of climate skepticism, you can head over to Donna Laframboise’s ‘NoFrakkingConsensus’. (Her book on the topic will be ready soon!)