Monthly Archives: January 2010

SEC Wants Corporations to Explain How They are Alleviating Global Warming


First it was the EPA moving forward to set-up regulations for controlling CO2 emissions.  And now,  another Executive Branch Commission is planning to make another end run around Congress by setting up a standard that every corporation must meet . This standard will require the corporation to explain how they are going to alleviate global warming.  This was a proposal by the Security and Exchange Commision to be discussed on Wednesday last  week.  Representatives Joe Barton and Greg Walden sent a letter to Chairman Shapiro asking for an explanation and rationale for this proposed rule.   They ask what statutory authority allows them to to this.  And as there is no Federal law on the subject of global warming, how does a corporation’s actions relate to  an investors safety and security?   So far  there is no response by the SEC, best I can determine. To read their full challenge to such rule making click here.

Cbdakota

Advertisements

AGW Implodes-US Media Silent


In my  24 January blog, IPCC-The “fools gold” Standard?-UPDATED, I said that the US media were largely silent about the crumbling AGW theory.    The posting “Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent”  in The American Thinker blog, explores the US media silence.   To read their posting, click here.

Its always nice to see confirmation.

Cbdakota

IPCC-The “fools gold” Standard?-UPDATED


The Warmers say the IPCC climate report No. 4, is the “gold standard” for the global warming science and there can be no further argument. Now that report is suffering from two new revelation, which further damage its credibility.

In the past week, the IPCC found it necessary to disavow the glacier section of the report.  When issued in 2007,  the report said that the Himalayan glaciers would likely be completely  melted by 2035.  They were forced to admit that there was no scientific foundation for that  assertion.   And now we learn that the lead author of that section has this to say according to the Mailonline:

“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.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”

That pretty much speaks for itself.  Read more of the Mailonline report here.

How many times have we heard from Al Gore, President Obama, Gordon Brown, Hugo Chavez, etc. about how global warming is causing natural disasters such as, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc.? Their proof  was the  2007 IPCC report.

The support for this assertion was a not peer-reviewed, unpublished paper.  From the Timesonline:

“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.”

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

To read more of the Timesonline report click here.

So the “gold standard “ seems to be the “fools gold standard”.

It has long been known that anything that conflicted with the theory of man-made global warming was never seriously considered by the authors of the IPCC report. Further use of less than scientifically veted but supportive to the AGW theory were used.  However, the media, in a show of complicity, never investigated.

UPDATE 01/25/10

Late yesterday, WattsUpWithThat posted “The scandal deepens–IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers.”  Watts says:

“Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.  A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

END OF UPDATE

Note that the discoveries of the IPCC deceptions are coming from the British Media and NOT the American Media.  At my local barbershop, a home of skeptism,  most have never heard of Climategate as there is only minimal reporting by our media.  Not that there are not many ripe targets for investigation such as our equivalents of the British CRU— The GISS and NOAA.

Cbdakota

Northern Lights


When I was growing up in South Dakota,  the Northern lights fascinated me.

But now I live in the mid-Atlantic region and these lights are really a rarity. One has to rely on photos to see the beauty of these light displays. Thanks to the pick up of the Sun’s activity,  January is begining to have excellent displays of these lights. Take a pause from the daily discussion of AGW and look at some photos, from the far north, of the light displays.

To see them click here and page down to see the photos.

Cbdakota

More on IPCC “Science” and UN “Ethics”


Two stories recently in the news impinge on one another. The first story is about the UN’s 2007 IPCC report which is the bible of the AGW movement and the other is about the Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.

First.  The latest IPCC Climate Change Report, issued in 2007, stated that glaciers were melting rapidly and that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.  This astounding statement was viewed as a major determination by the IPCC but now we know that it was false.  From a report in the Timesonline.co.uk the following details how this got into the IPCC report:

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

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.

Timesonline further adds:

The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key data.

To read more click here.

The second story  is about Dr Pachauri  who is under scrutiny regarding his finances and the appearance that he may be using the IPCC dire reports to steer business to his company.  The Glacier story is a new lead. According to a posting by Roger Pielke, jr., Dr. Pachauri, Director of TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) hired Syed Hasnain after the IPCC published the 2007 report.   Then Pachauri and Hasnain sought to raise funds for TERI to study Himalayan glaciers.   They, at least Hasnain, knew that the assertion in the IPCC report were unproven.   As Pielke adds:

Of course, neither Dr. Pachauri nor Dr. Hasnain ever said anything about the error when it was receiving worldwide attention (as being true) in 2007 and 2008, nor did they raise any issues with the IPCC citing non-peer reviewed work (which is a systemic problem). They did however use the IPCC and its false claims as justification in support of fund raising for their own home institution. At no point was any of this disclosed.

To read all of Pielke’s report  click here

Himalayan Glacier  Image  from Katilifox.wordpress.com

CBDakota

Rolling Stone Savages Skeptics


If you have read the  latest Rolling Stone magazine rant about global warming skeptics,  you probably are wondering how the two guys that wrote the article got that stupid.  The only way I could get my mind around their article was to think of the Salem witch trials.   As you know,  the Puritans believed that certain people were witches and it was the Puritan’s religious duty to rid them from the community.  So,  they hanged and crushed some of those convicted of being witches.

Well, the Rolling Stone belongs to another extreme religious group,  the church of  Anthropogenic Global Warming.  The witches they see are those that do not conform to their view and they do a “public hanging” of the people they believe are the worst of the skeptics.   The “dirt” they dig up on each person, would be  laughable,  if it weren’t so serious.

So far, Senator Inhofe of Ok had the funniest remark about this rant.  Inhofe was the seventh person discussed and he objected saying he was angry that they seemed to rank him no.  7 because he felt he deserved to be no. 1.

Anyway the Climate Skeptic blog has a brief summary of the article and some good advice for we skeptics going forward.   To read that blog , click here.

Cbdakota

The Weakness of the AGW Theory–Part 3, The Great Global Warming Hoax


Physicist Jim Peden, in late 2007 wrote an article explaining why the theory of     Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), aka man-made global warming is a hoax.  The article achieved wide readership because Peden explains the science behind his assertion in a way that one need not be a physicist to understand it. The entire article is worth reading, but I think where he describes how CO2 absorbs the long wave IR being emitted by the Earth and what CO2’s impact is on the greenhouse effect are very well explained.  This starts at the “INTO THE LABORATORY, ITS TIME TO GET TO WORK.    And he finishes that section off with this statement:

“Now, you can sit back and give yourself a pat on the back, because you now know more pure physics of the atmosphere than a lot of so-called “climate scientists”, and likely know more than almost all of the non-scientist Popular Journalists and other writers churning out panic-stricken books and newspaper articles on the subject. And for sure, you now know a lot more than Al Gore.”

To read this posting by Jim Peden,  click here

For related postings see
Weakness of the AGW Theory –Part 2, Fact-based Climate Debate

Weakness of the AGW Theory

Cbdakota