Monday, March 08, 2010

IPCC Science Designed For Propaganda

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was specifically designed by Maurice Strong as a political vehicle to further his objective of crippling the industrial nations

Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) built a dam to contain a lake full of dirty water. Someone behind the dam drilled a hole and sprang a leak. The flow is small but growing and the color of the water gets dirtier and dirtier and the size of the hole will increase as the extent of the corruption expands. Now a second major leak has developed in a different area as people dig through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. The structure of the organization made this almost inevitable. However, the structure was necessary to achieve the political rather than a scientific goal.

Bureaucratic Structure

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was specifically designed by Maurice Strong as a political vehicle to further his objective of crippling the industrial nations. An acknowledged master of bureaucratic systems he set up every segment of the organization for the maximum public relations effect. This meant emphasis on emotional impact, especially by exploiting fear. The first need was to direct and control the science. It was achieved at the 1985 meeting in Villach Austria chaired by Canadian bureaucrat Gordon McBean with Phil Jones and Tom Wigley from CRU in attendance. The second need was for maximizing the fear factor to force political action.

Early stories from the leaked emails identified the obvious illegal and unacceptable activities that do not require understanding of climate science. These related to the work of the CRU members who effectively controlled the chapters on atmospheric chemistry, paleoclimatic reconstruction of past climate conditions, the computer models, and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Their objective was to prove their hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming and subsequently climate change. Apart from the SPM all of their work was concentrated in Working Group I (WGI) to produce the Physical Science Basis Report.

This Report is then accepted, without question, by Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Variability) and Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change) and becomes the basis of their research. Working Group II is the Report that has the greatest number of works that are now being exposed as non peer-reviewed and in some instances unpublished. They assume warming is going to occur and the rate will increase. This means that all the studies are focused in a single direction and taken to extremes. Glaciers will melt rapidly. Sea level will rise quickly. Drought will increase in intensity. (Here and here)

This last argument is an example of how wrong these reports are. Increasing droughts is counterintuitive because with warming evaporation increases putting more moisture in the atmosphere and increasing the precipitation potential.

Working Group II: Speculation As Fact Equals Corruption

There are several problems with the articles cited, especially in the WGII Reports. First the IPCC pushed the peer review issue to extremes by claiming they only used such articles, then peer reviewing each other’s work. They used the issue to divert skeptics by telling them to get peer reviewed publications knowing they could control it. When one article by-passed their guard and was published by Geophysical Research Letters they got the editor fired. Now we discover they used a multitude of non-reviewed articles often from very biased sources such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace as references. Second they used these articles to apply political pressure, yet the entire process claims to be unbiased and apolitical. IPCC Chair Pachauri gave this as the reason for including the false Himalayan ice-melting reports. Pachauri is now in defense of his actions but the extent of his involvement is so bad that even Greenpeace are calling for his dismissal.

Pachauri replaced Watson as Chair and the CRU were glad to see him go. Mike Hulme to Phil Jones on April 22, 2002 said, “Watson has perhaps thrown his weight about too much in the past.” He then added, “The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science.” In other words, we have the science controlled but the deceptions need to carry over to the political and economic arena.

The irony of Pachauri’s involvement is that the CRU emails disclose his appointment was of concern to the gang because he was seen as a President Bush appointee. On 19 April 2002 Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones passing on an Executive Summary that read, “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) plenary voted for Dr. Rajendra Pachauri as the sole chair of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri, an economist and engineer, will replace Dr. Robert Watson, an atmospheric chemist, as chair of the IPCC. This outcome was actively sought by the Bush Administration at the behest of the most conservative elements of the fossil fuel industry. This development threatens to undermine the scientific credibility and integrity of the IPCC and may weaken the job this extraordinary body has done to bring the world’s attention to one of the most pressing environmental problems.”

Attempts to Put Fingers in The Dam

The leaks in the dam they built at CRU and the IPCC get bigger and bigger. Only a fraction of the dirty water has escaped but will continue to emerge. Meanwhile the cover-up has begun. Pennsylvania State has a whitewash with an internal review committee. They also announce they are conveniently not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. They did not interview major players in the fiasco including Steve McIntyre who discovered Michael Mann’s hockey stick fraud. In England the temporary director of the CRU says Jones will be completely vindicated and reinstated. The person appointed to do the English investigation has a history of total commitment to the global warming alarmists view. Some of the IPCC affiliates, such as Andrew Weaver are climbing out of the lake and running for the trees. The mainstream media continues to ignore the issue, but the millions of eyes and minds on the Internet are exposing the cracks in the dam and the sewage that is emerging.


Clash over 'global warming' ratcheted up another degree

Congressman wants funding stopped

The clash over "global warming" has been ratcheted up another degree this week, with one member of Congress demanding U.S. taxpayer funding for the research be halted and scientists who have been accused of slipshod and deceptive work planning a campaign of retaliation against their critics.

The controversy moved to the front burner late last year when a series of e-mails was hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain that indicate scientists were hiding and manipulating data and trying to marginalize critics.

The revelations were significant, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed two findings Dec. 7 that concluded greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." The EPA's rulings could mean thousands of dollars in additional taxes for individual consumers.

Now, Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, is citing the doubts about the integrity of "climate change" science in a letter asking for an accounting of U.S. taxpayer support for the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. The U.S. since 1994 has given some $50 million to the panel, and contributions under Obama now have doubled.

Barton, writing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asked the State Department to stop any contributions until an up-to-date audit is released. "In recent months, the IPCC has come under significant criticism for the quality of its principal work product: the periodic assessments of the causes of climate change and related impacts from a changing climate," Barton wrote. "Various reports have identified problems concerning quality-control procedures, peer review, and political influence on the assessment writeups, raising serious questions about the scientific integrity of the enterprise," he said.

The congressman asked Clinton to provide details of U.S. funding and state what controls – if any – have been placed on the funds....

More here

Global warming plan could leave humans extinct

Forget climate change — the real threat to the planet and all of us riding on it comes from screwball scientists and their schemes to “save” us from nonexistent threats. The latest plot sounds like it might have been hatched by a Bond villain: a series of simulated volcanic explosions to fill the atmosphere with a manmade chemical sunblock that would shield the entire planet.

Can you imagine anyone saying this stuff with a straight face? Yet that’s just one of a number of dead-serious proposals in the growing field of “geoengineering.” Another scheme involves spraying seawater into the sky around the planet to create more clouds, lowering the global temperature. I hope you’ve invested in a good umbrella.

What’s even more disturbing is that our government is actually taking this nonsense seriously. The National Science Foundation just awarded $382,000 of YOUR money to University of Montana researchers just to study the ethics of geoengineering.

They should have asked me — I could solve that one for free: Ethics won’t matter one whit if we’re all dead after scientists blow their volcanic loads and dump the sea into the sky.

I wasn’t around when the dinosaurs got wiped out — I’m not that old — but the leading theory says it started with a meteor impact. The space rock itself didn’t kill off the creatures…instead, the real culprit was a massive cloud of dust kicked up by the impact, blocking out the sun. Sound familiar?

I’m not convinced the climate is changing in the first place — and even if it is, it’s certainly not because of anything we’ve done. The planet’s a lot older and stronger than us. But if we give in to this manufactured panic and let the mad scientists engineer the environment for us, we’ll go the way of the dinosaurs ourselves.


Bali-Hoo: U.N Still Pushing for Global Environmental Control

Despite the debacle of the failed Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the United Nations is pressing full speed ahead with a plan for a greatly expanded system of global environmental governance and for a multitrillion-dollar economic transfer scheme to ignite the creation of a "global green economy." In other words: Copenhagen without the authority — yet — of Copenhagen.

The world body even has chosen a time and a place for the culmination of the process: a World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, the 20th anniversary of the famed "Earth Summit" that gave focus and urgency to the world environmentalist movement.

The 2012 summit date is significant for another reason: It marks the end of the legal term of agreement for the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, which includes carbon reduction targets, and provided the legal basis for an international cap-and-trade market for carbon, centered in Europe. The U.S. first signed then backed away from the Kyoto deal without ratifying it; until its apparent collapse, the comprehensive Copenhagen deal was intended to include the U.S. and supplant Kyoto with a new, legally binding regime.

The new Rio summit will end, according to U.N. documents obtained by Fox News, with a "focused political document" presumably laying out the framework and international commitments to a new Green World Order.

Just exactly what that environmental order will look like, and the extent of the immense financial commitments needed to produce it, are under discussion this week at a special session in Bali, Indonesia, of the United Nations Environment Program's 58-nation "Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum," which oversees UNEP's operations.

The GC/GMEF, as it is known, is made up of environmental ministers and top-level bureaucrats from a roster of supervising nations — the U.S. is one of them — and its meeting is surrounded by a galaxy of environmentalist non-government organizations (NGOs) and environmental journalists from around the world.

Idyllic Bali is a favored venue for U.N. environmental meetings, in part because of its seclusion from too many outside eyes, and because its Pacific location and small size make it a highly congenial hothouse for environmental enthusiasm. In 2007, it served as a launching pad for the Bali Action Plan, which laid the negotiating basis for the Copenhagen treaty process.

The latest Bali session runs from Feb. 24 to 26, and is accompanied by a welter of other UNEP activity ranging from sessions on international waste management and chemical disposal, to the start of a process aimed at a new international treaty covering the storage and disposal of environmental mercury.

But the major topics are a global system of governance and what amounts to the next stage of a radical transformation of the world economic and social order, in the name of saving the planet.

Alongside that, as always, are discussions of vast sums of money that should flow to developing nations to help them make the transition to the new, greener world. As one of the papers written in advance of the meeting to "stimulate discussion" puts it, "the situation ... presents genuine opportunities for a dramatic shift from what can be termed 'business as usual.'"

For the anonymous bureaucrats who wrote the discussion papers, "business as usual" apparently means the current world economy, which the anonymous authors disparagingly term the "brown economy," or the "current dominant economic model." It is, according to the UNEP documents, a model in crisis, "which currently consumes more biomass than the Earth produces on a sustainable basis," and also "depletes natural capital" and "risks perpetuating and exacerbating persistent poverty and distributional disparities."

The new green economy under discussion at Bali will be something very different: For starters, it is much more vague, and as far as the discussion paper authors are concerned, it will stay that way.

The paper paints the coming green order in nebulous and utopian terms. It "implies the decoupling of resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth." It involves "substantially increased investment in green sectors, supported by enabling policy reforms." The investments will "provide the mechanism for the reconfiguration of businesses, infrastructure and institutions, and for adoption of sustainable consumption and production processes." It will lead to "more green and decent jobs, reduced energy and material intensities in production processes, less waste and pollution, and significantly reduced greenhouse-gas emissions."

But when it comes to measuring the achievement of those goals, the paper says, "it is counter-productive to develop generic green economy indicators applicable to all countries given differences in natural, human and economic resources." In the process of turning brown to green, "a green economy in one country may look quite dissimilar to a green economy in another country."

All of which may make judging the value of investment in the ecological transformation difficult to evaluate, except for insiders. But then, the paper suggests that the world may have an additional governing structure composed of exactly those insiders. As the paper puts it:

"Moving towards a green economy would also provide an opportunity to re-examine national and global governance structures and consider whether such structures allow the international community to respond to current and future environmental and development challenges and to capitalize on emerging opportunities."

The discussion paper, published — but not distributed — on Dec. 14, 2009, assumes that the goal of the green economic transformation is the same as that of the ill-fated Copenhagen conference: a 50 percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. That, the paper says, will require a staggering $45 trillion dollar to accomplish — much of it in transfers from rich nations to poorer ones.

The paper, however, paints that as a bargain — "an average yearly investment of just over $1 trillion." About half of that would go for "replacing conventional technologies with low-carbon, environmentally sound alternatives."

Much more HERE

Energy Suicide: Unplugging America

By Alan Caruba

What was that most homeowners and apartment dwellers most feared in the recent record-breaking blizzard that hit the northeast? The answer is losing electricity and that is why the news of the event was always filled with reports of what towns had lost electricity due to downed tree limbs. This was followed by news of how quickly the utilities were making repairs.

Simply stated, when you lose electricity, you lose light and warmth, and you are instantly back to the dark ages before magical power flowed into your home through outlets throughout your house or apartment. No power leaves people searching for flashlights or, if they have planned for it, firing up a generator. That is why energy is so critical, not just to our everyday lives, but to the future of the nation. It is, in many respects, life itself.

On March 4, yet another environmental organization, this one called Natural Capitalism Solutions, will hold a teleconference, the purpose of which is to demonstrate “how utilities can benefit financially by shifting power generation from existing coal-burning plants to a combination of efficiency and renewable energy technologies.”

Let’s put this in context. Currently, coal-burning plants provide just over half of all the electricity generated in the nation. Coal is abundant and cheap. Wind and solar energy is neither. It is expensive by almost comparison and, worse, it is unreliable. Unlike the other energy sources, it provides few jobs.

Under the cold conditions of recent winter events, some wind turbines simply froze and ceased to function. In more temperate conditions, there is always the likelihood that the wind will not blow, thus necessitating the constant maintenance of back-up facilities that require coal or natural gas. This raises the obvious question, why bother with wind? Solar energy is subject to the same inconveniences if the sun is obscured by cloud cover and must constantly be monitored to remove dust on the panels that interferes with efficiency.

So-called renewable or clean energy currently represents about one percent of all the energy produced nationwide. If it weren’t for massive amounts of government cash and subsidies, there would be little or no renewable energy.

The U.S. is home to huge reserves of coal. It is often called the Saudi Arabia of coal. The same applies to oil. For all the talk of “energy independence”, the U.S. through its energy policies has been embarked since around the 1970s on something I call energy suicide.

If there is one thing the Greens truly hate it is the fuels we use to maintain our economy and our lifestyle. High on the list is coal, but it is essential to understand that the Greens are at war with oil and nuclear power as well. While fifty-five nuclear plants are being built worldwide, the U.S. lags behind the rest of the world thanks to the opposition of the Greens.

The purpose of cap-and-trade legislation, the next horror the Obama administration wants to foists on us, is to make the use of coal very expensive by claiming that it generates so much “greenhouse gas” that global warming is always just around the corner. This is no global warming and those greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, vital to all life on Earth as plant food. Nevertheless, reports are seeping out of the festering wound we call Congress that thirteen U.S. Senators are urging the Majority Leader and the authors of cap-and-trade “to specifically grant the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired plants.”

Without legitimate scientific justification, EPA should not be able regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but that is not likely to stop it from trying since real science or facts of any kind have rarely deterred its destructive agenda.

This is just another example of the Greens incessant and relentless attack on a major source of America’s vital source of life, its electrical power, and a major fuel source to generate it.

To return to the teleconference, those charged with the management of utilities would have to be mentally impaired or stupid beyond belief to give serious consideration to wind or solar power. It will be argued that those advocating this idiocy are na├»ve or just seeking energy alternatives for whatever noble notions they claim to have, but there is no such thing as “natural” capitalism. There is just capitalism and, the last time I checked, it operates on the basis of profit achieved in the most cost efficient and productive way to be competitive in the interest of its investors, its employees, and its consumers.

I think those in Congress and involved in the mind-boggling matrix of thousands of Green groups are engaged in doing as much harm as they can, as swiftly as they can, to the American economy and our future as a nation.


Australia: Police may lay charges over fatal results of rushed Greenie scheme

Peter "The Skull" Garrett should be in the dock too. He is the responsible Federal environment minister who seemed not to know his a*s from his elbow and basically seems to have supervised nothing in his portfolio

THE Federal Government's home insulation debacle took another twist yesterday with police confirming criminal charges could be laid over the three Queensland deaths. Detectives have been interviewing witnesses and gathering forensic evidence in all three cases, which occurred between October 2009 and February this year.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland officers are continuing separate investigations. They were still interviewing people last week and moving towards a potential prosecution of individuals or companies. Individuals could face two years jail and a maximum $100,000 fine if found guilty of offences causing death.

The latest moves come as a NSW company ABC Insulation became the first installer to be penalised. It was hit with a $10,000 fine after a dodgy installation resulted in extensive fire damage to a western Sydney home. In Queensland, authorities said they were working quickly to complete reports into the fatalities. Police said they were investigating the deaths, but added it would be up to the coroner in each case to decide whether police explored criminal charges.

The directors behind two Queensland companies linked to fatalities were newcomers to insulation installation.

Matthew Fuller, 25, was electrocuted and his 18-year-old girlfriend, Monique Pridmore, received serious burns while installing foil insulation in a Meadowbrook home in Logan last October. He was working for QHI Installations, a company contracted by Brisbane-based Countrywide Insulation to do the work. Countrywide Insulation was founded by former bankrupt Jude Kirk, whose previous business interest was in telemarketing. A spokesman for Countrywide said it had not had any contact with authorities since an interview before Christmas. Countrywide reportedly secured 2000 insulation contracts before it was deregistered.

Also under investigation is the death of 22-year-old Mitchell Sweeney, who was electrocuted while working in the ceiling of a house at Millaa Millaa, southwest of Cairns, on February 4. He was employed by Gold Coast company Titan Insulations. Company records show Titan was co-owned by 26-year-old Nicholas Lindsay, a Building Services Authority-licensed builder, who established the company with Frederick Palomar in 2009. Titan was struck off the registered installers list before the program was scrapped, but Mr Lindsay is still able to operate as a builder.

Ben Aarons, the owner of the home where Mr Sweeney was killed, said he had not had any contact with authorities or Titan since the day of the accident. "I haven't heard a thing. They left a few rolls of insulation here but I don't think they'll be back to pick it up," he said last week. "The power was off for about 12 days. They got an electrician in to check everything about three weeks ago and it was given the all-clear. "But the Sweeney family lost a son so it's no big deal to go without power for a little while."

A third Queenslander killed was 16-year-old Rueben Barnes. Mr Barnes was killed on November 18 while installing insulation at Stanwell near Rockhampton. He was working for Arrow Property Maintenance, a company based in Rockhampton since 2006.



For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here


No comments: