x404.co.uk
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/

climate gate investigation impartiality?
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=9614		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  eddie543 [ Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  climate gate investigation impartiality?
Quote:
A classic example of jury-rigging

After Climategate and Glaciergate the UN (Mr. Ban Ki-Moon) and IPCC (R.Pachauri) have selected, who should investigate them. I wonder who Al Capone would have appointed to investigate him, if he had the chance, and what the results would have been? Probably similar.

Ban and Rajendra chose the InterAcademy Council and the InterAcademy Council established a 12 member investigation panel. The investigating panel is an interesting bunch of fellas. We have already heard rumours about some of them. This is probably the first attempt to asseses them all.

The list looks like they all met at some stinking rich UN reception with plenty of caviar and expensive vintage wine. All of them are CEOs or top managers. The nobility. I did not know, that being an independent and unbiased investigator requires one to be a VIP top manager?

(Carbon market is a big business for rich VIPs. Who else would be better to investigate it than VIPs themselves? They know the ropes.)

So here they are. They are totally independent, unbiased and with no ties to environmentalism, UN, Pachauri or suchlike. Totally independent. See for yourself.

1. Harold T. SHAPIRO: Chairman of the investigation committee. By a coincidence he is in the board of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which happens to be one of the key sponsors of IAC (source). By another coincidence he is one of the top sponsors of Mr.Pachauri’s company TERI-NA (North America). For instance in 2001 Pachauri got some 45 000 USD from them for his TERI-NA (see here and here, page. 21). Pachauri is to be investigated by his own sponsor? Well, I guess one has to watch over his own investments, right?

2. Roseanne DIAB: She was in the International Ozone Commission (IOC), where – I guess –they would not let any climate skeptic. The World Wildlife Fund gave her a grant for the environmental education (read: brainwashing, source). Not only she is an environmentalist, she even poisons young minds with that green slime (source).

3. Carlos Henrique de BRITO CRUZ: Director of FAPESP, a governmental bureau, which finances research and technical development in Brazil. Is Brito one of the people, who decide, that alarmist research gets all the cash, while climate sceptical scientists get none? This is a problem, which for instance the hurricane expert William Gray complained about (see). You get no grants, you cannot produce a study, so they kick you out of the Uni. Publish or perish. Or is Brito the exception?

4. Maureen CROPPER: An economist from the World Bank (along with UN this is the institution, for which IAC is supposed to provide advisory services). What is she doing here? World Bank is giving advice to itself? Also, Maureen is on board of the eco-foundation Resources for the Future (see), where a climate skeptic certainly would not sit. RFF is a sponsor (yeah, another one) and a partner of Mr.Pachauri’s TERI-NA. What is worse, Maureen was a member of the advisory panel to EPA. The very EPA, which is now making a coup-d-etat to impose the carbon tax, bypassing the US Congress, see).

5. Jingyun FANG: Teaches at the department of environmentalism of the Beijing University. Hardly a place to look for an unbiased person or a skeptic.

6. Louise O. FRESCO: She is on board of Rabobank, which organises, among others, trade with carbon credits at the electronic stock-exchange CLIMEX. If she fails to “exonerate” IPCC, her colleagues will lose cash at the stock exchange (see).

7. Syukuro MANABE: A pioneer of computerised 3D models of climate. Worked with NOAA. I doubt he would like to make his friends at NOAA angry. He would not get invited to BBQ any more. BTW, he is nicknamed a “godfather of greenhouse gases”, due to his climate models. And now they want him to be unbiased when assessing his own models, his life work? (source). Something like: “My bleeming models overestimated CO2 forcing, my work is crap, let me get some rope and hang myself.”

8. Goverdhan MEHTA: A former director of the "Indian Institute of Science" in Bangalore. This institute has many ties to Pachauri’s TERI. It was established as a foundation of the Tata company. Tata was started a century ago by an Indian industrialist (an Indian Ford). Pachauri is now the boss at Tata. (see).

9. Mario MOLINA: One of the leading authors of the Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC. So now he is invited to assess his own work? How is he supposed to question himself? He is a director from the freaked Union of Concerned Scientists. He signed a letter to the US Congress, urging them to forget Climategate, which is just a storm in a teapot. A solid unbiased guy.

10. Sir Peter WILLIAMS: A vice president of the British Royal Society. We know the management of RS are renowned alarmists. Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society, is an apocalyptic visionary (in an interview he said: “The chances, that mankind survives the next century, is 50:50”). Rees is up to his neck stuck in the fraudulent whitewash investigation of UEA. His predecessor Lord may called sceptics “crackpots”. And guess what. This green extremist lord May was a member of IAC in years 2005-2009! I have no reason to believe Williams is any different.

11. Ernst-Ludwig WINNACKER: The first director of the European Research Council. I doubt the maoist Barosso would entrust this job to someone, who is not a believer in the green religion. After all the ERC was founded to strengthen the iron grip of politicians over the helpless scientists. To make them write what the politicians want.

12. Abdul Hamid ZAKRI: The director of the "Institute of Advanced Studies" (A UN university) (see). Also he is a director of "Centre for Global Sustainability Studies" in Malaysia, where alarmist faith is a must. Also an advisor to the PM of Malaysia.

And the IAC director? Robbert Dijkgraaf is nuts. In an interview he said, that they would not investigate the Climategate e-mails, because, they are not “directly related” to the work of IPCC. Amazing. And I thought, that they are e-mails of the leading authors of IPCC describing the background, how the IPCC procedures work.

I guess they selected the members by randomly tearing a page out of the “Who is Who in Alarmism” encyclopaedia. It seems like choosing NSDAP officials to investigate Herman Göring at the Nuremberg Tribunal.

All these people have built their careers on the IPCC alarmism. It is their faith. It is unlikely any of them would be willing to undermine their own careers by biting the hand that feeds them.

Is it really such a problem in a planet with 7 billion people to find 12 unbiased people without ties to Pachauri and his Blues Boys? And why is there no climate skeptic there? What sort of court is that without any prosecutor being invited?
Author:  ProfessorF [ Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
Where's this from?
Author:  JJW009 [ Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
ProfessorF wrote:
Where's this from?

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/th ... rty_dozen/
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
This looks like the anti climate change crowd trying to spin it as a fraudulent investigation.
Author:  ShockWaffle [ Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
This guy doesn't seem to have any information on most of these people other than their employers, and his assumptions about the kind of people that work for such organisations. So his whining about other people being biased is hypocritical in the extreme. I think it would be a mistake to take his opinion very seriously.
Author:  paulzolo [ Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
Amnesia10 wrote:
This looks like the anti climate change crowd trying to spin it as a fraudulent investigation.


The whole climate change thing is run like a religious cult - make negative comments about it, or the people running the show, and you get slammed down. We’ve seen this time and time again. I am hardly surprised than investigations into the “climategate” fiasco have come out so positively for the Church of the Carbon Footprint - it was bound to be it was never going to be overly critical. It’s like asking the police to investigate themselves - there is no check; no independent way of verifying that the data is being handled correctly, no way to know that the data is even intact. It took a Freedom of Information Action request to get the raw data - why? It should be freely available to anyone and everyone to examine and process.

Anyone who questions the Church is labelled a “denier” - a word used in the same tone of voice as you would if you preceded it with “holocaust”. With that kind of mindset in operation, I steadfastly refuse to believe point blank any of the Church’s propaganda. I will not even consider it until their attitudes change, those who present other ideas theories are accepted without such hostility.

Science is not a religion - and it should not behave like one, yet it does time and time again. The problem here is that we are not dealing with some philosophical debate about the behaviour of quarks or photons - we are talking about a subject which may affect the planet. The thing is that we do not know WHAT or HOW. Some assumptions have been made based on a rather human arrogance that assumes that we are (a) the cause and (b) the solution. You only have to look at the sky during the hours of daylight to see a nuclear reactor in the sky - and yet we have not explored how the sun affects the climate. There have been attempts to explain it, but thew Church has refused to listen. Heaven help the carbon offset industry if it is proven that the sun is a major actor in climate change because there is nothing we can do about it, and all that carbon trading will be all for nothing. The money flow will cease.

I am very, very cynical about this. It’s stopped being just about the science now - there is a multinational business trading in so called “carbon offsets” and we all know that in this world, it’s business that drives the show, not other more lofty considerations.

So, I am very sceptical about this enquiry. It looks at the face of it that a whitewash is being put in place, and the conclusion will be “as you were” and we have to continue to suffer the rantings of a cult which has gripped us in ways that Scientologists can only dream of.
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
I do agree that the whole business of carbon offsets is far too flawed to actually be worthwhile. The whole system of using artificially low carbon costs to then do something overseas where the cost of reducing that carbon output is considerably lower resulting in a profit for the company involved where it cannot be verified and everyone takes on trust that you actually did it and did not do a Bernie Madoff and run off with the money. It has also be taken up by the investment banks as a new business. Not a good sign. I would rather than carbon was dealt with on a national basis so that governments could not lie about their achievements. Though we as nation will have lower carbon for years as the coalition trash the economy in the name of austerity. No point of buying offsets because unless those offsets are permanent they are just more greenwashing.
Author:  eddie543 [ Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
ShockWaffle wrote:
This guy doesn't seem to have any information on most of these people other than their employers, and his assumptions about the kind of people that work for such organisations. So his whining about other people being biased is hypocritical in the extreme. I think it would be a mistake to take his opinion very seriously.


It's not the fact that they are biased but it is a whole board of investigators that are all employed or linked to organisations that need or want AGW to be 100% man made and the future to be 100% bleak.

I doubt highly that any findings will be of misconduct.

And you can judge what type of beliefs people have from what organisation they run or work for. Look in the new scientist recently and see how it is over weeks and weeks the same stories blasted at you again and again. One week it was “more hurricanes due to "climate change."" A few months later and a quiet hurricane season it was "fewer hurricanes due to "climate change.""

The magazine goes on to talk about deniers in articles rather than science. Then goes on about how the debate is over. So I doubt anyone in New Scientist is a Anthropogenic global warming Heretic. As Paul rightly says they use the word denier as in holocaust denier. James Hansen wanted sceptics on trial. I wasn't sceptical about AGW because of oil companies I became sceptical when I heard the "debate was over", "the science was settled."
The psychology of people’s belief in this shows why it is not science but closer to pseudo science or religion:

1. Firstly the over exaggerations by what are supposed to be rational scientists, about say how the world will end as a result.
2. Then people like George monbiot and his economically impossible ideas that seem he justifies with global warming philosophy so as to tout his impossible almost communist ideals at people.
3. The use of the word denier
4. The feel good factor and super hero factor whereby people feel good by doing “green” things because they are helping to “save the planet”
5. Businesses want to make money and car manufacturers can sell cars to part time “greens” as cars with low CO2 emissions
6. The reason why it has took hold so well is the sheer volume of propaganda you’ve got the media, pressure groups, government and various celebrities all peddling their green beliefs.
Looked at CBBies recently childrens programmes touting what is basically inaccurate and heavily exaggerated information even by AGW believer standards being shown to young children from the ages of 2-7 and the same with CBBC. Whatever happened to Looney tunes; Edd, Ed and Eddy or for the younger generation teletubbies which generally didn’t aim to have a message behind them.
Then I saw, not to much surprise, during the election campaign 50% of questions to nick clegg from young children being AGW related. Since when the brainwashing began at my school I was in my 3rd year of high school. But a lot of children now are getting indoctrinated early.
Bloody hell even with evolution in high school we were told that some people believed in “intelligent design.” And evolution has about 130 years evidence and real scrutiny on climate change
7. The media do this because it sells papers and is some good power hungry dick swinging, that the media love, to take part in
8. The government love it for the taxes that can be taken, the powers that can be taken and all with very little questioning.
9. it’s a simple condition of cognitive dissonance.
10. it’s an apocalyptic theory in most instances and how many people love a good world anding prophecy
Author:  ShockWaffle [ Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
eddie543 wrote:
ShockWaffle wrote:
This guy doesn't seem to have any information on most of these people other than their employers, and his assumptions about the kind of people that work for such organisations. So his whining about other people being biased is hypocritical in the extreme. I think it would be a mistake to take his opinion very seriously.


It's not the fact that they are biased but it is a whole board of investigators that are all employed or linked to organisations that need or want AGW to be 100% man made and the future to be 100% bleak.

Well that's not true, certainly not on the basis of the evidence supplied. Look at the comments on number 11, nothing but unhinged political hyperbole. Another one gets it for being a teacher in a university department with a name he doesn't like. One is guilty of being Malaysian, which supposedly proves he belongs to a cult of environmental disaster worship. Nothing can be established with lazy ignorant claims like these other than the laziness and ignorance of the author.

Face it, your correspondent is not honest enough to admit that he knows little about these people and put some leg work into finding out who they are and what they do. He's decided in advance of any relevant facts.


eddie543 wrote:
And you can judge what type of beliefs people have from what organisation they run or work for.

Rubbish. You can at most guess on that basis. But if you want to judge, then you should have factual evidence. That's surely the point that climate skeptics are trying to make, why give it away so hypocritically?

eddie543 wrote:
The magazine goes on to talk about deniers in articles rather than science. Then goes on about how the debate is over. So I doubt anyone in New Scientist is a Anthropogenic global warming Heretic. As Paul rightly says they use the word denier as in holocaust denier. James Hansen wanted sceptics on trial. I wasn't sceptical about AGW because of oil companies I became sceptical when I heard the "debate was over", "the science was settled."

I'm confused. You make no point at all with your prattle about this magazine as you fail to establish that...
a: They have anything to do with this (I didn't notice them being on this panel)
b: That absolutely every person who works there agrees with every word printed on the subject.
So what precisely is the point of this rant?
Author:  eddie543 [ Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
What you don't seem to realise is that it is pretty hard to be a sceptic of AGW theory in many of the institutions named and i likened this to new scientist which is a magasine that is very pro AGW. But with the level of propogation from that institute it would be incredibly difficult to be an AGW sceptic. Much like in all those institutions named.
Author:  ShockWaffle [ Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
And what you fail to realise is that all of that is bald assumption, not demonstrated fact. You have misrepresented this assumption as if it were fact, and that is unacceptable when you are criticising others for providing insufficient or biased evidence.

I repeat, one of these people is criticised simply for being Malaysian, that won't do, it is stupid, lazy and ignorant. Is it ok for people to be ignorant when they are saying something you agree with in a way that is not acceptable when they are saying stuff you don't like?
Author:  lumbthelesser [ Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
Ok, so I am something of an environmental ignoramus. Having a flick through wikipedia (not the most reliable, I know), it would appear that water seems to be a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 and appears in the atmosphere in far greater concentrations than CO2. Why is it then that water vapour is never talked about when talking about climate change generally? or is the answer so glaringly obvious I am going to look light a right pillock for even asking about it?

Edit: This is the wikipedia article I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Author:  ShockWaffle [ Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
Because the water vapour, unlike CO2, is not dumped into the atmosphere by industrial processes, it just evaporates from the sea.

The relative quantities and efficiencies of different gasses in this regard is not relevant. if there were no greenhouse gases, the Earth would be far colder than it is now (something like 30 degrees below what it is now, I can't remember). If CO2 accounts for ten percent of that 30 degrees, and we double the amount of CO2 through industrial production, then the Earth's temp goes up by 3 unnatural degrees (I made all these numbers, I don't know what the real figures are).

Either way, some people think this is bad and will destroy civilization. Some others think it's mythical voodoo and that the other dudes are evil manipulators sent by the devil to make everyone poor and miserable. The apparent purpose of being in either camp is to spend all day slandering everyone in the other camp, and to pretend you aren't making yourself look bad in the process.
Author:  lumbthelesser [ Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
ShockWaffle wrote:
Either way, some people think this is bad and will destroy civilization. Some others think it's mythical voodoo and that the other dudes are evil manipulators sent by the devil to make everyone poor and miserable. The apparent purpose of being in either camp is to spend all day slandering everyone in the other camp, and to pretend you aren't making yourself look bad in the process.

True. We haven't yet seen a war fought over scientific disagreements... but we can't be far off... Actually, maybe it is all this heated debating that is causing the earth to get warmer ;)
I still don't quite understand why the earth getting warmer is a problem, as the earth clearly has been hotter in the past, and also had hugely higher levels of CO2 (all the carbon in fossil fuels being organic, it must have all been CO2 at some point, Right?). Ok, some adaptation to the way we live will be needed, but it was not as if those conditions destroyed all life.
And has the link between rising temperatures and increasing frequency of natural disasters been properly confirmed? As Eddie543 pointed out, the media do seem to pin an awful lot of disasters on climate change, and is this link really justified? While the graph below is clearly rubbish, it does kind of illustrate a point, I feel.
Image
Quote:
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

Of course, if there has been work done to suggest the likelihood that natural disaster and rise in global temperatures are linked, that would be good to know, as I honestly don't.

Edit: Apologies if this is somewhat off-topic. And also, I am not, as yet, for or against 'environmentalism', it is just highly polarised viewpoints have never engage or convinced me. And while I do think that much more care needs to be taken with the earth's resources, the carbon offset industry scares me.
Author:  JJW009 [ Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: climate gate investigation impartiality?
lumbthelesser wrote:
Why is it then that water vapour is never talked about when talking about climate change generally? or is the answer so glaringly obvious I am going to look light a right pillock for even asking about it?

Water is talked about, but there's a HUGE difference between water vapour and other gasses such as CO2 and methane. All these gasses have a natural cycle in the atmosphere, but the negative feedback mechanisms which provide equilibrium are slower for some than others.

Water vapour dumped directly in the sky by aeroplanes has a measurable effect on the environment, raising night time temperatures by about 2 degrees near airports (off the top of my head - exact figure available elsewhere). That is a fact which is easily demonstrated with available data.

However, it's a local effect and it's short lived. If you cancel all the flights, the air returns to normal in just a day or so. Water vapour disperses and precipitates out of the sky. You may be familiar with this phenomenon, which is often observable in Britain and commonly referred to as "rain".

The sheer volume of water recycled by the planet on a daily basis is vast. The oceans cover two thirds of the planet, and they're quite wet. As is the rain. The few zillion tonnes we add to the cycle are really quite insignificant.

By comparison, CO2 takes years to be processed and methane takes centuries. These processes have also been crippled by deforestation and destruction of the coral reefs which are so important in fixing carbon. I CBA to look up the specific time scales and extent of the damage, but the information is out there if you want it.

Just be thankful we haven't found a way to stop the rain, because I bet some selfish c*nts would happily trade the future of the world for a nice sunny holiday. Seriously, the next person in my office that doesn't separate their waste correctly for recycling because they're "too busy" to put paper in that bin rather than this one is going to regret the day they met me...
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/