Monday, 28 November 2011

Climategate 2: The ugly alarmists

I won't even try to summarise Anthony Watt's post on WUWT (link in title)

This post shows the evil side, the ugly side of the IPCC- Climategate CRU. They tried to have Chris de Freitas sacked as editor of Scientific publication - Climate Research.
Chris is a distinguished scientist.

From Wikipedia:
De Freitas received both his Bachelors and his Masters at the University of Toronto, Canada, after which he earned his Ph.D. as a Commonwealth Scholar from the University of Queensland, Australia.[1] During his time at the University of Auckland, he has served as Deputy Dean of Science, Head of Science and Technology, and for four years as Pro Vice Chancellor.[1] He is Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and is a founding member of the Australia-New Zealand Climate Forum as well as serving on the Executive Board of the International Society of Biometeorology from 1999-2001.[1] He has written extensively in popular media on an array of environmental and climate-related issues. The New Zealand Association of Scientists has made him a four-time recipient of their Science Communicator Award.
As the Poster says - "The post is very long, but please stick with it. The story unfolds, and is worth the effort if you really want to see what is going on." The Poster mentions that IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri was cc'd to many of the e-mails and so he can not claim ignorance.

If anyone has doubts that the IPCC, CRU scientists are dishonest, this post will convince you that they are crooked. Read it all at New Zealand Climate Change - here.

UN's climate chief sounds alarm on global warming

Christina Figueres
Even as more of the AGW hoax unravels with the Climategate 2 emails, the Alarmists are trying to shore up their position prior to the up-coming COP17 Durban Gab-Fest.

From The Business Recorder:
The head of the United Nations climate change watchdog warned Sunday that recent research shows there is a need for urgent action to halt global warming.
Speaking to journalists on the eve of annual climate talks in Durban, South Africa, Christina Figueres, excutive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), said that the latest international findings are "sounding alarm bells."More than 20,000 government officials and activists are to start meeting Monday to wrestle with the problem of carbon emissions and the role scientists say they play in warming the planet.Figueres referred to reports by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).The WMO reported that "the atmosphere has reached record levels of greenhouse gasses," while last week's IPCC report found that hot days "are becoming hotter" and winter cold even colder, she noted.
She may be right that greenhouse gasses have reached record levels (at least in recent history) but what she has to show is whether those "record levels" are causing runaway global warming.

And, if they ARE causing global warming, why is "winter cold even colder?"

Still from (M4GW) Minnesotans 4 Global Warming's:-
  "If we had some global warming..."

Climategate 2 & the BBC

The UK Mail on Line reports that the BBC's reporting was vetted:
Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives  in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.
The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.
They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.
Was our ABC's reporting equally compromised?
BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.
‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is  settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’
In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
The Climategate 2 e-mails suggest that UEA's Professor of Climate Change, Mike Hulme, expected the slanting of BBC coverage to exclude AGW sceptics.
On February 25, 2002, the climate change sceptic Philip Stott, a London University professor, debated the subject with John Houghton of the Met Office on the Today programme.
This prompted an angry email to colleagues from Prof Hulme. ‘Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4, this morning?’ he wrote.
‘Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media Environment Programme, to starve this type of reporting at source.’
Read More of the Mail on Line including Prof Phil Jones calling sceptics "crackpots" HERE