UN Scientist Says IPCC Has 'Flawed Review Process'
B0NZ0
October 26, 2007
Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_...@EPW.Senate.Gov - 5:05 PM ET
This analysis was echoed by UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a
retired Environment Canada scientist.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, Khandekar lashed out at those who "seem to
naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents
'scientific consensus.'"
Khandekar continued: "Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of
the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed
out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my
letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number
of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas
induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact
of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on
the observed temperature increase than previously believed."
"Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an
objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated
climate change," Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now
calls the concept of consensus on global warming a "sham." Reiter, a
professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute
in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the
IPCC. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are
agreed," he said on March 5, 2007. "It's not true," he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane
Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from
the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics
with Hurricane science.
Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience
with the UN:
"I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of
the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.
In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership,
their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process
that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound," Landsea added.
As if to further cement these allegations, the UN allowed a Greenpeace
activist to co-author a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by
most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace,
was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC's 4th
Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report
predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN's
policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC's own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific
reports have to be "change[d]" to "ensure consistency with" the
politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party's
convention platform battle - not a scientific process. During an IPCC
Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international
bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the
infamous "Hockey Stick" temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for
Policymaker's process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: "So the purpose of the three-month delay between the
publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of
the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any
'necessary' adjustments to the technical report to match the policy
summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would
say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters
made the 'necessary' adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial
statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me."
--
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Regards
Bonzo
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
Claudius Denk
Ya know, in reading this post Crighton's book came to mind. (I haven't read
the actual book but I've read much about it.) Is there anything these IPCC
desperados won't do to achieve their goal? Is there any lie they wouldn't
tell? Is there any person's reputation they wouldn't besmirch in order to
isolate them if they felt threatened. It doesn't seem that there is.
I do think, however, that they have a real public relations problem now.
It's only at the grass roots level now but a fire is starting that they will
not be able to put out, in my estimation. More and more people are starting
to realize that there is no real science there. And there is a general
realization that the refusal of these experts to debate their science is
behavior more befitting a politician than that of a dispassionate scientist.
Most scientists are eager to be heard. Yet here we have an army of
scientist that have the worlds full attention and they don't want to discuss
anything in an open forum. Kinda makes you wonder.
Ouroboros_Rex
"B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote in message
news:4767500d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>
> October 26, 2007
>
> Posted By Marc Morano
...lying right wing shill.
Ouroboros_Rex
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zMI9j.80661$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
rofl As usual, the denialist has nothing.
Lloyd
>
> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Cont...
>
Oh great, Inhofe again.
> This analysis was echoed by UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a
> retired Environment Canada scientist.
>
> In an August 13, 2007 letter, Khandekar lashed out at those who "seem to
> naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's]
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents
> 'scientific consensus.'"
>
Well, you could go through the scientific literature and see how many
are on one side vs the other.
> Khandekar continued: "Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of
> the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed
> out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my
> letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number
> of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas
> induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact
> of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on
> the observed temperature increase than previously believed."
>
> "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an
> objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated
> climate change," Khandekar concluded.
>
> Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease
> Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now
> calls the concept of consensus on global warming a "sham." Reiter, a
> professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute
> in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the
> IPCC. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are
> agreed," he said on March 5, 2007. "It's not true," he added.
>
Reiter sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" of an
organization called the "Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public
Policy. " The Annapolis Centre is a US think tank that has received
$763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil and has been very active in
playing down the human contribution to global warming. According to a
January 16, 1997 Wall Street Journal article, the Annapolis Center was
at one time largely funded by the National Association of
Manufacturers, one of the largest industry associations in North
America.
> Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane
> Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment
> Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from
> the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics
> with Hurricane science.
>
> Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience
> with the UN:
>
> "I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of
> the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.
> In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership,
> their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
>
> "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process
> that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
> scientifically unsound," Landsea added.
>
> As if to further cement these allegations, the UN allowed a Greenpeace
> activist to co-author a key economic report in 2007. \
You'd let Exxon employees do it?
>Left unreported by
> most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace,
> was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC's 4th
> Assessment.
So?
>Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report
> predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN's
> policy prescriptions.
>
> The UN IPCC's own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific
> reports have to be "change[d]" to "ensure consistency with" the
> politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
>
You are lying.
> In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party's
> convention platform battle - not a scientific process. During an IPCC
> Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international
> bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
>
Liar.
> Steve McIntyre, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the
> infamous "Hockey Stick" temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for
> Policymaker's process on January 24, 2007.
>
Oh great, another of the paid prostitutes.
Lloyd
>
> Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Mor...@EPW.Senate.Gov - 5:05 PM ET
>
> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Cont...
>
> This analysis was echoed by UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a
> retired Environment Canada scientist.
On May 3, the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted a Capitol Hill briefing.
Reiter
Reiter sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" of an
organization called the "Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public
Policy. " The Annapolis Centre is a US think tank that has received
$763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil and has been very active in
playing down the human contribution to global warming. According to a
January 16, 1997 Wall Street Journal article, the Annapolis Center was
at one time largely funded by the National Association of
Manufacturers, one of the largest industry associations in North
America.
Nils-Axel Morner -- supports dowsing to find water and oil
underground.
Patrick Michaels -- Cato. Nuff said.
So this is the company Khandekar keeps.
V-for-Vendicar
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.
You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
"Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!
Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.
You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.
Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.
"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.
Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....
"Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54
No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".
1998 14.57 *********************o******
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
In fact the equation is...
o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))
This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.
So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?
V-for-Vendicar
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Ya know, in reading this post Crighton's book came to mind. (I haven't
> read
> the actual book but I've read much about it.) Is there anything these
> IPCC
> desperados won't do to achieve their goal?
Desparate for Material, Denk now beginst to halucinate and confuses a poor
quality science fiction novel with the real world.
Apparently, logic really is a tweeting bird....