H1N1 and Climate Change

[waldo]

There is no one so blind as he who will not see.

it is refreshing to see you self-analyzing. In any case Simple, I'm personally not phased by your weak and pathetically juvenile attempts to, backhandedly, attack the overwhelming consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change. But let's play - some more: let's have you name the names, the select "Simple cabal" that has so masterfully articulated the presentation of the IPCC to present what you claim/infer is a hopelessly flawed and skewed account... as you say, "over the past 20 years" - name the names, and state their most dramatic impacts - that you claim as "corruption"... so wide, so sweeping... that anything the IPCC presents is suspect? While you're at it, could you also offer comment on why/how the scientific consensus parallels what the IPCC presents?

[waldo]

The DOD does not do its own climate research. It relies on sources like the IPCC to tell it what the impacts of climate change will be. If those sources are shown to be unreliable then the DOD conclusions cannot have any merit. This is not because the DOD did anything wrong other than trusting unreliable sources if information. The formal term for this problem is GIGO.

the link/quote I offered states, "... The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies", and also references, "... Assessments conducted by the intelligence community...".

but again, just so we're clear, would it be acceptable to you if I added the U.S. Department of Defence to your conspiracy charges/claim (Riverwind conspiracy, circa xxxx - xxxx, vol xxx)?

[Riverwind]

Assessments conducted by the intelligence community..."

The EPA relies almost entirely on the IPCC as a justification for its rulings. There really is not any other source available for governments to use. You cannot credibly argue that the 'intelligence community' did not do the same as the EPA. As I said, garbage in garbage out.

[waldo]

clarification please: given this U.S. Department of Defence's most emphatic reinforcement of the imminent dangers of AGW climate change... of it's strategic position/statement/action towards that end... should I now add the U.S. Department of Defence to the Riverwind conspiracy (circa xxxx - xxxx, vol xxx)?

the link/quote I offered states, "... The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies", and also references, "... Assessments conducted by the intelligence community...".

but again, just so we're clear, would it be acceptable to you if I added the U.S. Department of Defence to your conspiracy charges/claim (Riverwind conspiracy, circa xxxx - xxxx, vol xxx)?

The EPA relies almost entirely on the IPCC as a justification for its rulings. There really is not any other source available for governments to use. You cannot credibly argue that the 'intelligence community' did not do the same as the EPA. As I said, garbage in garbage out.

excellent! Although I truly wasn't aware of your suggested dotted-line association between the EPA and the U.S. Department of Defence... nor that a strategic positioning/action plan for the continued U.S. domestic defense and it's global protectorates/aspirations... hinges on the IPCC and it's report presentations. Damnit man - just how did the defacto free world's global policeman get so gob-smacked by the IPCC... noooooooooooooooooo!!!

anyway, let's put that in the win column: noted: added the U.S. Department of Defense to the Riverwind conspiracy (circa xxxx - xxxx, vol xxx)

[Riverwind]

Although I truly wasn't aware of your suggested dotted-line association between the EPA and the U.S. Department of Defence

Provide some evidence that the DOD has sources other than the IPCC or shut up. There are simply no other sources being used by governments. All of the analyses come from the same poisoned font.

[waldo]

excellent! Although I truly wasn't aware of your suggested dotted-line association between the EPA and the U.S. Department of Defence... nor that a strategic positioning/action plan for the continued U.S. domestic defense and it's global protectorates/aspirations... hinges on the IPCC and it's report presentations. Damnit man - just how did the defacto free world's global policeman get so gob-smacked by the IPCC... noooooooooooooooooo!!!

anyway, let's put that in the win column: noted: added the U.S. Department of Defense to the Riverwind conspiracy (circa xxxx - xxxx, vol xxx)

Provide some evidence that the DOD has sources other than the IPCC or shut up. There are simply no other sources being used by governments. All of the analyses come from the same poisoned font.

I hear ya... I have always been very suspicious of certain fonts!

in any case, I do believe you have your selective blinders ratcheted up very high today. I keep repeating the U.S. Department of Defense's stated sources - you keep ignoring them. Again: "the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)" & "assessments conducted by the intelligence community". Now, I don't happen to know this weeks secret decoder access to the "U.S. intelligence community"; however, I do believe you'll really appreciate what the U.S. Global Change Research Program has to say

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society.

.

.

During the past two decades, the United States, through the USGCRP, has made the world's largest scientific investment in the areas of climate change and global change research. Since its inception, the USGCRP has supported research and observational activities in collaboration with several other national and international science programs.

These activities led to major advances in several key areas including but not limited to:

* Observing and understanding short- and long-term changes in climate, the ozone layer, and land cover;

* Identifying the impacts of these changes on ecosystems and society;

* Estimating future changes in the physical environment, and vulnerabilities and risks associated with those changes; and

* Providing scientific information to enable effective decision making to address the threats and opportunities posed by climate and global change.

These advances have been documented in numerous assessments commissioned by the program and have played prominent roles in international assessments such as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Program results and plans are documented in the program's annual report, Our Changing Planet.

oh my! The USGCRP actually claims to be source for the IPCC... so, to recap: we have the U.S. Department of Defense relying on support from the USGCRP... and we have the USGCRP positioned as a source for the IPCC. Does that answer your request?

[Riverwind]

"the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)"

Here are the primary sources of information that the USGCRP uses. You will note that the IPCC is included in its list of primary sources which demonstrates that it does rely on the IPCC assessments, although there does seem to a lot of incest going on where the USGCRP produces a report which the IPCC references which is turn referenced by the USGCRP.

As for the other primary sources they appear to be a selection of politically motivated material. For example. This report's editors was so biased to promoting the catastrophe AGW view that Pieke Sr. resigned in disgust from the committee.

Another report produced by the US government had similar problems.

The bottom line I do not trust anything produced by the US government anymore than I trust the IPCC because there is too much evidence of ideological biases and politically motivated conclusions.

[waldo]

in any case, I do believe you have your selective blinders ratcheted up very high today. I keep repeating the U.S. Department of Defense's stated sources - you keep ignoring them. Again: "the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)" & "assessments conducted by the intelligence community". Now, I don't happen to know this weeks secret decoder access to the "U.S. intelligence community"; however, I do believe you'll really appreciate what the U.S. Global Change Research Program has to say

Here are the primary sources of information that the USGCRP uses. You will note that the IPCC is included in its list of primary sources which demonstrates that it does rely on the IPCC assessments, although there does seem to a lot of incest going on where the USGCRP produces a report which the IPCC references which is turn referenced by the USGCRP.

no – nice try… I provide you a direct quote from USGCRP, where it states itself as a source for the IPCC. Understandable, given NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is a part of USGCRP… understandable, given NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is a part of USGCRP… understandable, given NSF (National Science Foundation) is a part of USGCRP… understandable, given DOE (Department of Energy) is a part of USGCRP… understandable, given EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is a part of USGCRP…

you provide a purposeful distortion claiming the IPCC is a “primary source” for the USGCRP… in relation to that single USGCRP report (Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States), that you don’t even bother to acknowledge. You simply find a linked document titled “Primary Sources of Information”… but don’t even bother to indicate that it relates to a single report. Pathetic – your desperation knows no bounds! When you actually dig beneath your purposeful distortion and look at the actual report, you’ll note that the IPCC turns up as a stated reference within the report – 9 times. That’s 9 single IPCC report references out of a total of… 569 stated references within the report.

your pathetic desperation would have you attempting to discredit the U.S Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) strategic response to AGW Climate Change, by completely ignoring the DoD’s one stated support reference (the “intelligence community”) and presuming to claim the DoD’s other stated support reference (the USGCRP) is, itself, supported by the IPCC… based entirely upon you distorting a single USGCRP’s report references. Ya... clearly... the DoD (itself a part of USGCRP) would base it's strategic response to AGW Climate Change based entirely upon that single USGCRP report. Your naivete is profound, most profound.

but your pathetic desperation grows from there… and when you set it up so nicely – I simply can’t resist in going for the two-fer, particularly as you would presume to outright label any/all CCSP reports as “politically motivated” and cast Pieke Sr. as a casualty of your stated supposed political motivation. The fact you give me (another) open shot against Christy/Spencer… well… that’s just gravy on the two-fer... wait, this is actually a three-fer!

As for the other primary sources they appear to be a selection of politically motivated material. For

example

. This report's editors was so biased to promoting the catastrophe AGW view that Pieke Sr.

resigned

in disgust from the committee.

to be clear… the impetus to investigate/write that particular CCSP 1.1 report was most certainly politically motivated – as in called for directly by the Bush administration, in response to the “apparent” differences between temperature records of varying sources… more specifically, different trend results from surface data sets as compared to satellite data sets. The initial prospectus for the CCSP 1.1. report: here. Of course, this was all predicated upon the faulty skeptic/denier’s Christy & Spencer’s UAH satellite data... and, of course, the prevailing desire/intent of the Bush administration to cast doubt on the warmer surface temperature data/trends as compared to Christy/Spencer’s satellite measurements. As it turned out, the problem with Christy/Spencer’s processing was identified (by other scientists who challenged Christy/Spencer) prior to publication of the CCSP 1.1 report – making it somewhat moot… the executive summary of the CCSP 1.1 report brings attention to the correction applied to Christy/Spencer’s data and that the discrepancies between surface and satellite data no longer exist.

but don’t let that stop skeptic Pielke Sr. from trumpeting his prior resignation from the report committee. Unfortunately for Pielke Sr., the non-Pielke spun account holds to the prevailing view that Pielke was the only one within the committee that wanted to take it's investigation/analysis in a direction contrary to the mandate set by the Bush administration. The committee was asked to investigate and report on differences in global average trends between surface versus satellite data… for Pielke’s own purpose/rationale, Pielke had designs toward investigating spatial trends in tropospheric temperature trends. The fact the committee wouldn’t go along with Pielke’s distraction, of course, gets spun (by Pielke… and the denialsphere… and by you, Riverwind) as a most significant undeserving miscarriage of justice – just another example of “keeping the skeptic man down!” Note to Riverwind: pleeeseee… yes, bring forward the related Hackergate emails! In any case, many examples of Pielke’s prima-donna antics are well documented – evidence, his many forays into the depths of Anthony Watts’ entangled web of mystery/deceit/crap science!

The bottom line I do not trust anything produced by the US government anymore than I trust the IPCC because there is too much evidence of ideological biases and politically motivated conclusions.

don’t tell me – you’re also a 9-11 truther… shoulda known. But this is good. This latest round has allowed us to not only include the U.S. Department of Defence in your conspiracy, it’s also allowed us to (now) include the U.S. Government, proper – in it’s entirety – within the ever expanding Riverwind conspiracy (circa xxxx – xxxx, vol xxx)

[Shady]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but it sheds more light on the hoax of climate change.

Strange case of moving weather posts

The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.

He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

Keenan told the Guardian: "The worst case was a station that moved five times over a distance of 41 kilometres"; hence, for those stations, the claim made in the paper that "there were 'few if any changes' to locations is a fabrication". He demanded that Jones retract his claims about the Chinese data.

Link

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced

Link

How anyone, with even half a brain, can still believe in this religion is beyond me. Every day, new information comes out, of just how corrupt these AGW so-called scientists are. :angry:

But, I guess there's still people who think the earth is flat. Unfortuantely, I'm guessing rubes will always exist.

[eyeball]

How anyone, with even half a brain, can still believe in this religion is beyond me. Every day, new information comes out, of just how corrupt these AGW so-called scientists are.

It's clear there isn't a single school of science with even the slightest amount of influence on public policy that can or should be trusted. Not a single one.

Medical, climate, economic and above all else, political...they're all equally suspect. Only a rube could believe otherwise these days.

[Keepitsimple]

It's clear there isn't a single school of science with even the slightest amount of influence on public policy that can or should be trusted. Not a single one.

Medical, climate, economic and above all else, political...they're all equally suspect. Only a rube could believe otherwise these days.

I might not go THAT far but along those lines, The Star reported this morning that a very influential study relating to Autism being caused by getting a Measles/Mumps vaccine - has been retracted by the world's leading Medical Journal because the scientist broke research rules and acted unethically. I wonder how many "peer reviewed" Climate Change studies will end up in the dustbin of history when all the chickens come home to roost.

The anti-vaccine movement lost steam Tuesday after the world's leading medical journal officially retracted a controversial autism study that has caused millions of parents around the world to fear childhood vaccines.

In his 1998 study, Wakefield said he and his colleagues investigated 12 children with chronic inflammation of the colon and small intestine and regressive developmental disorder, and found "in most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunization."

Other scientists were unable to replicate the study.

The retraction is the third strike for the paper: Ten of the study's 13 authors later renounced it in a statement to The Lancet. It was discovered that Wakefield received funds from lawyers hired by parents who believed their children were harmed by the MMR vaccine; and last month, the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice Panel ruled Wakefield broke research rules and acted unethically, which prompted The Lancet to withdraw the paper.

Link: http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/familyhealth/children'shealth/article/759764--flawed-autism-study-retracted

[eyeball]

I might not go THAT far but along those lines, The Star reported this morning that a very influential study relating to Autism being caused by getting a Measles/Mumps vaccine - has been retracted by the world's leading Medical Journal because the scientist broke research rules and acted unethically. I wonder how many "peer reviewed" Climate Change studies will end up in the dustbin of history when all the chickens come home to roost.

Probably nowhere near as many "peer reviewed" economics studies.

[waldo]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but it sheds more light on the hoax of climate change.

oh snap! Shady has revealed another of his smoking guns.

in actuality, just another of the merry-go round in the concentrated effort clearly being orchestrated through the mainstream media... timing is everything - of course. Although related to a 2007 charge of fraud levied against American scientist Wei-Chyung Wang... in relation to a 1990 paper! - yes, that's right a 1990 paper - 2 decades ago. But it just happens to come out... today - essentially, recycled from last fall's focus on Hackergate. Yes, timing is everything in efforts to keep the denier drum beating.

in any case, that 1990 paper was one of the earliest research papers dealing with "urbanisation" (i.e. Urban Heat Island effect (UHI)). We've dealt with UHI several times in various MLW threads... several references to current papers have been offered that speak to current affects and handling of UHI within surface temperature recordings - a non-issue. For all purposes that 1990 paper has been usurped, many times over.

but Shady... let's swap UK Guardian headlines from today - speaking of your : How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies - Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation. I'm sure it must be true!!! Damnit - it's a mainstream press headline!

[waldo]

apparently... Steve McIntyre, and his minions don't agree

Michael Mann exonerated

Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones

Allegation 3: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar

Allegation 4: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

Decision: NO evidence of a violation could be found. However, a second phase will proceed to ensure public trust in Penn State's research procedures.

I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me.

Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely. Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the University administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures.

This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong.

I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts. I intend to cooperate fully in this matter – as I have since the beginning of the process

[Shady]

Here's a great piece from the Ottawa Citizen, which sheds even more light on the climate hoax, which now even Osama Bin Laden is championing.

Manipulating the Climate Numbers

We've been given some clear answers that weren't serious, ranging from the famed "hockey stick" diagram, that entirely misrepresented planetary temperature trends; to smaller assertions such as, "all the glaciers in the Himalayas will have melted by the year 2035." This latter we now know was made up from whole cloth, like the polar bear die-off, and a great deal of nonsense about Arctic and Antarctic ice cover.

To my survey, there is not a single aspect of the "anthropogenic global warming" hypothesis that has been left standing by recent revelations, and more shoes drop every day.

Link

As David Warrens states in the article, I also believe that the AGW true-believers probably do think they're serving a higher purpose. And that cutting a few corners is acceptable if it's for the greater good.

[Shady]

Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data

Of course he didn't. He had his minions at EAU do it for him.

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones

Again, he had others do it for him.

Allegation 3: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar

Once again, he had his other minions do it for him.

Allegation 4: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

Decision: NO evidence of a violation could be found. However, a second phase will proceed to ensure public trust in Penn State's research procedures.

And lastly, of course he didn't. Because the type of selectively supported peer review, manipulation, and silencing of dissenting opinions is perfectly acceptable within the academic community. Even more so within the AGW community.

[Riverwind]

NO evidence of a violation could be found. However, a second phase will proceed to ensure public trust in Penn State's research procedures

Mann - the OJ Simpson of climate science.

This inquiry was joke. They did not contact a single critic of Mann. All they did is let Mann explain himself (a.k.a. lie and spin) without cross examination. Charles Manson would be aquitted if he was offered such accomodating judges.

SteveMc has an initial post up illustrating at least one blatant lie in the report.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Here's a great piece from the Ottawa Citizen...

excellent drive by Shady - clearly... an opinion newspaper columnist for the Canwest chain has much to contribute ... particularly one who has written such past columns titled, 'The Myth of Global Warming'. It is evident you take solace in the writings of like minds.

[waldo]

Of course he didn't. He had his minions at EAU do it for him.

Again, he had others do it for him.

Once again, he had his other minions do it for him.

And lastly, of course he didn't. Because the type of selectively supported peer review, manipulation, and silencing of dissenting opinions is perfectly acceptable within the academic community. Even more so within the AGW community.

- thanks for playing Shady... your insights are well recognized and greatly appreciated

[waldo]

apparently... Steve McIntyre, and his minions don't agree

Michael Mann exonerated

Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones

Allegation 3: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar

Allegation 4: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

Decision: NO evidence of a violation could be found. However, a second phase will proceed to ensure public trust in Penn State's research procedures

Mann - the OJ Simpson of climate science.

This inquiry was joke. They did not contact a single critic of Mann. All they did is let Mann explain himself (a.k.a. lie and spin) without cross examination. Charles Manson would be aquitted if he was offered such accomodating judges.

SteveMc has an initial post up illustrating at least one blatant lie in the report.

like I said - apparently... Steve McIntyre, and his minions don't agree

McIntyre - the self-righteous, climate warrior - martyr extraordinaire, self-proclaimed "slayer of the hockey-stick", mineral exploring "blog-scientist"... who does no actual science, performs no actual research and writes no actual papers.

rather than enter McIntyre's cesspool and weed on through another of his lengthy diatribes, why not just post said stated "blatant lie" - perhaps we could have some fun with that!

[waldo]

in regards earlier referenced bogus allegations against the IPCC in regards "disasters & climate change"... is there a pattern here?

sloppy journalism attacks IPCC

the actual IPCC response: IPCC STATEMENT ON TRENDS IN DISASTER LOSSES

The January 24 Sunday Times ran a misleading and baseless story attacking the way the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC handled an important question concerning recent trends in economic losses from climate-related disasters. The article, entitled “UN Wrongly Linked Global Warming to Natural Disasters”, is by Jonathan Leake.

The Sunday Times article gets the story wrong on two key points. The first is that it incorrectly assumes that a brief section on trends in economic losses from climate-related disasters is everything the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) has to say about changes in extremes and disasters. In fact, the Fourth Assessment Report reaches many important conclusions, at many locations in the report, about the role of climate change in extreme events. The assessment addresses both observations of past changes and projections of future changes in sectors ranging from heat waves and precipitation to wildfires. Each of these is a careful assessment of the available evidence, with a thorough consideration of the confidence with which each conclusion can be drawn. The second problem with the article in the Sunday Times is its baseless attack on the section of the

report on trends in economic losses from disasters. This section of the IPCC report is a balanced treatment of a complicated and important issue. It clearly makes the point that one study detected an increase in economic losses, corrected for values at risk, but that other studies have not detected such a trend. The tone is balanced, and the section contains many important qualifiers. In writing, reviewing, and editing this section, IPCC procedures were carefully followed to produce the policy-relevant assessment that is the IPCC mandate.

[Riverwind]

allegations against the IPCC in regards "disasters & climate change"

And here Pielke debunks the IPCC spin doctoring.

RESPONSE: Asserting balance does not make it so. The facts here are what the IPCC should respond to: The IPCC report highlighted a single non-peer reviewed study to make a claim that (a) that study did not support, and ( that was countered by the entirety of the peer reviewed literature (much of which went uncited). My work was misrepresented in the text and in the IPCC response to reviewers. The latter included an outright lie. The only balance that was achieved was between misrepresentation and error.

RESPONSE: This statement is remarkable for its untruths. (1) The "one study" did not detect a trend over the full period of record, only a cherrypicked subset, and when that paper was published it explicitly stated that it could not find a signal of increasing temperatures in the loss record, (2) The IPCC report did not note that other studies had not found a trend, except when citing my work in passing, and then undercutting it in error by mistakenly citing the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons to suggest something different (and untrue). (3) The Chapter includes the following figure, which has absolutely no scientific support whatsoever:

The only pattern I see here is the appalling combination of ignorance and arrogance exhibited by the IPCC and its defenders.

[Riverwind]

like I said - apparently... Steve McIntyre, and his minions don't agree

I would say the only people who think the ruling means anything are the blind AGW fanatics like yourself. People with or more balanced view of the world can understand that a university that receives millions in funding due to a prominent scientist is in no position to determine whether that scientist violated any ethical rules. Relying on the university to conduct an honest assessment is as dumb as relying RCMP investigate when their own officers are involved in a death. Edited February 4, 2010 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

I would say the only people who think the ruling means anything are the blind AGW fanatics like yourself. People with or more balanced view of the world can understand that a university that receives millions in funding due to a prominent scientist is in no position to determine whether that scientist violated any ethical rules. Relying on the university to conduct an honest assessment is as dumb as relying RCMP investigate when their own officers are involved in a death.

Even dumber.

[waldo]

And here Pielke debunks the IPCC spin doctoring.

The only pattern I see here is the appalling combination of ignorance and arrogance exhibited by the IPCC and its defenders.

clearly, Junior has to carve out a niche... somehow - after all, he's got such big shoes to fill. Not everyone could parlay a political-science degree into a self-described "climate expert", so effectively, as Pielke Jr. has done with his. Pielke Sr. must be proud

as for Pielke Jr's supposed debunk, I think I prefer this blog accounting that actually speaks to the issue at hand - unlike Pielke Jr's self-serving, spin-doctoring.

Pseudo-science begets pseudo-insurance — and another phony attack on the IPCC is debunked - Climate change is the greatest risk facing the insurance industry

Climate change is a fact, and it is almost entirely made by man. It is jointly responsible for the rise in severe weather-related natural disasters, since the weather machine is “running in top gear”. The figures speak for themselves: according to data gathered by Munich Re, weather-related natural catastrophes have produced US$ 1,600bn in total losses since 1980, and climate change is definitely a significant contributing factor. We assume that the annual loss amount attributable to climate change is already in the low double-digit billion euro range. And the figure is bound to rise dramatically in future.