GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

So, their gloom & doom is based on a report riddled with errors?

by

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report:

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel’s assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

Oh, and, this fellow Pachauri, he’s not a climate scientist. He got is Ph.D. in economics.

Let’s not forget, the IPCC’s 2007 report “which won it the Nobel Peace Prize” based its forecast on the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers “not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.”   Wow, just wow.  Media interview as scientific evidence.  Seems sometimes the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) consensus is based on a series of media interviews (and slide shows).

The more people probe this and other reports alleging AGW, the more errors we’ll find that challenge their premise.

And take note of Pachauri’s reaction, it’s all about him and not letting the climate skeptics win:  ““I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them”.  Instead he calls it a “collective failure” (like socialism?).   So, it’s all about “not obliging” the climate skeptics where scientific accuracy takes a back seat, at least to Dr. (of economics) Pachauri.

Comments

  1. Tano to the Bloviate in three….. two………………….. one and half……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

  2. Since Dan is, I am sure, oh so interested in scientific accuracy, as opposed to political point scoring, lets see how he manages to deal with, or spin, the latest scientific data on global temperatures. (gee, I wonder why this wasn’t given the flashing light treatment on Drudge…) LINK

  3. Good thing NASA has never strayed. They wouldn’t just plug in old numbers for missing data to keep the flow going or anything. (Siberia.)

    Hansen has kept his nose clean of any charges of data manipulation and is as pure as the wind driven snow. (Not.) Therefore, Tano links to this:

    “There’s a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends,” Hansen said. “In the last decade, global warming has not stopped.”

    Oh, and by the way, global warming and MAN friggin’ MADE global warming are TWO different arguments entirely.

  4. What was all that Helio?
    Trying to find some backdoor way to cast aspersions on the scientists so that you can justify to yourself ignoring data – so that you can then justify to yourself coming to the conclusion that your politics demands of you?

    And what is your problem with the quote? Give me your interpretation of the data as represented in the graphs at the link.

    And your last comment? Are you preparing to concede that warming is real so we can get on to the question of the causes?

  5. [he] is, in actuality, “a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics”.

    Today’s economics is not quite a science either, and its most media-prominent practitioners also snake oil salesmen. But that’s probably a discussion for another time. Anyway, Dr. Pachauri fits right in with the fraud of AGW theory.

  6. Trying to find some backdoor way to cast aspersions on the scientists so that you can justify to yourself ignoring data – so that you can then justify to yourself coming to the conclusion that your politics demands of you?

    Tano, Hansen has brought a world of data manipulation problems down on himself. Heck yes, I question and shelve “data” with his name on it.

    And what is your problem with the quote? Give me your interpretation of the data as represented in the graphs at the link.

    NASA has ruined its reputation as a “go to” source on climate. (Not weather, climate.) I can’t interpret the data, because I lack the skills. But, in light of the hockey stick scandal, all climate data should be peer reviewed down to the software in the computers that create it. I have no comment until a large community of experts have examined all the nuts and bolts and made their findings known. Then, I will turn to the skeptics to see if “consensus” science is on the loose again and to identify the holes and inadequacies in the research. NASA is capable of under-appreciating frozen “O” rings; it is also capable of promoting junk climate trends.

    And your last comment? Are you preparing to concede that warming is real so we can get on to the question of the causes?

    No, of course not. You are the genius who posted a global warming link in a comment section of a post on the IPCC and MAN MADE global warming.

    Tano, do you know how the data on solar flares (sun spots) was incorporated in this report you link to? Neither do I. Do you know if the corrupted basic programming that underlies the East Anglia fiasco has been used? I know you do not, because those programs are being hidden from review as I write this. Do you have enough faith in NASA to be the monkey riding the next prototype rocket into space?

    I have faith, but not blind faith when it comes to science. Apparently you will take the whole offering, hook, line and sinker.

  11. Talking Points Tanovision is a lot like the scrolls at the beginning of the Star Wars movies, only instead of:

    LONG AGO, IN A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY…

    It says:

    BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!

    AMERICA IS THE REAL TERRORIST!

    MUMIA IS INNOCENT!

    CUBA’S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS SUPER-AWESOME!

    THE ECONOMY IS IMPROVING!

    THE TALIBAN IS OUR PARTNER IN PEACE!

    UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE WAS KILLED BY REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM!

    THE MOST ETHICAL CONGRESS IN HISTORY!

    OBAMA SAVED US FROM A WORSE DEPRESSION!…

  13. Sonic,

    You are going to have to do a bit better than that. The system is rigged to yield those results? Is that the takeaway you get from that article?

    What I see there is an argument that the temperature increases are not linear, but should be plotted out as a step-wise increase. with the steps correlating with major ENSO episodes. I don’t have the experience to be able to quickly run through the numbers, but lets assume he is correct. What are the implications of that?

    He is NOT arguing that temperatures are not increasing. He is NOT arguing, as you seem to indicate, that there is something phony about the 2000s coming out as the warmest decade. He makes the argument, and I do not see the sense of it, that the cause of the 2000s being the warmest decade is the lingering effects of the ’98 El Nino event. Somehow he thinks this is an argument against anthropogenic causes.

    Maybe I am missing something here, and maybe you can point that out to me, but I see ENSO events as a feature of the heat-distribution system, not a cause of it. If global temperatures are rising, as he acknowledges they are, then that is fundamentally because there is more heat in the system. One of the ways in which the heat is distributed through the oceans (and then into the atmosphere) is the southern oscillation. His claim that there is an after-effect of particular El Nino events may well be true, but it begs the question as to why these effects persist. Seems to me they persist because of the heat quotient in the oceans.

    The bottom line is that the temperatures are rising, whether that be plotted out linearly, or under a step-wise model. The temps are not steady, and they are not declining. If the temperatures were steady, then the El Nino variations he discusses might cloud the short term temperature record at various points in the ocean, but there could not be a long term upward trend, linear or step-wise.

    Maybe you can explain to me a bit better than he did why you think his model even speaks to the question of anthropogenic causes.

  14. The bottom line is that the temperatures are rising, whether that be plotted out linearly, or under a step-wise model.

    Alrighty then, now that global warming is settled science, lets move on to carbon credits.

  16. You just can’t trust liberals to be truthful about global warming, climatehoax, jobs “saved” or created, 3rd qtr GDP of 3.2% revised down to 1.8%, free healthcare for everyone…..yada yada.
    The lies are tiring.

  17. I just got back from south florida where a very cold two weeks finally came to an end. We had geckos and lizards falling from the trees to their deaths from the cold.
    For a week the highs in Ft Lauderdale didn’t rise above 55degrees. But the liberals got the date and put in their “fudge factors” and poof…it was 72. Amazing. And here I thought it was cold.

  18. I have drawn up certificates which provide you with $1,000.00 of carbon credits each and I am selling them in $1,000,000.00 lots for $19.95 plus shipping and handling. If you order within the next eight hours, I will double the credits and you will receive $2,000,000.00 worth. There will be an additional shipping and handling charge. With the climate heating up, these will not last long, so act immediately. I will also trade carbon credits for unused Sham-Wows.

  20. Just breaking……
    now it looks like another report linking global warming climate change with increase in natural disasters was….
    faked, wrong and not peer reviewed either.
    Good Lord.
    It was all a hoax, 100% of it.
    No man made warming, no melting glaziers in 10 or 20 years, no increased natural disasters, no rising sea levels. It was all faked.
    Now the only evidence of man made disasters is that plastic mess in the pacific. Send a couple row boats out to scoop it up and let’s get on with bar b quing.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/23/breaking-un-wrongly-linked-global-warming-natural-disasters

  21. By the way..l..where would we be if not for the conservative blog o sphere debunking man made global warming? We still be running head long into massive taxes to stop……what…..nada.
    Now I can laugh at not only the Obama bumper stickers vehicles but the Prius drivers as well. Sheep. Fools.

  24. There’s plenty of snow everywhere else… just don’t look for it in GISStemp.

    Tano, I’m making dinner, and am signing off for the night. I’ll respond to your comment tomorrow. Just wanted to let you know so you don’t think I’m avoiding your inquiry.

  26. We had geckos and lizards falling from the trees to their deaths from the cold.

    They probably weren’t dead, but hibernating. Your point remains valid though. We’re still getting massive amounts of dead fish here in the many central Fl. lakes.

  28. Oh oh. The next liberal Democrat hoax.
    Call it “letter GATE”. Apparently liberals are writting letters to editors, opinion makers, media etc all using the same name from different locations and states.
    Remember Obama keeps saying he keeps reading 10 letters at night from the “people”. Well it turns out…..not so much. hehe
    Read the whole thing…..it seems liberal Democrats can’t wait for real people to feel the need to write letters, they just write em themselves.

    http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/01/letter_writer_claims_diverse_r.html

  29. Tano, been xtremeely busy today. Rigged was not the right word. The article I linked to explains why the decade remained warm. note that the last two years were cooler, and GISS, as far as 2009 registers, is far above what every other temp measure is reporting. I’ll try and respond tomorrow. I’m noit avoiding the conversation, I promise. Just been very busy. Too busy to spell check even.

  30. Well, the last issue of the ACS journal had a passably fair article and a dishonest news brief on it so denial denial is common.

    Jump over to In the Pipeline and look at the post on data validity. The author makes a very traditional argument that bad data, lost data, etc means your work should be suspect and says he wants to limit talk about the topic to that. Most of the commentators are screaming that no matter how much fraud there may be, it is still true. I weep for my science.

    Amazing how much like fundamentalism this AGW can be?