Environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. recently accused the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) of “extreme misrepresentation.”
A recently released 1,149-page draft report prepared by the USGCRP says that US flooding is now worse due to human-caused climate change. In Pielke’s view, the scientists who wrote that report are “playing games” since no scientific evidence supports this conclusion. In his words, this draft report:
is well out of step with the scientific literature, including the very literature it cites…
…Given the strength of the science on this subject, the USGCRP must have gone to some effort to mischaracterize it by 180 degrees. In areas where I have expertise, the flood example presented here is not unique in the report (e.g., Hurricane Sandy is mentioned 31 times).
…just because the report is erroroneous [sic] in areas where I have expertise does not mean that it is incorrect in other conclusions. However, given the problematic…treatment of extremes in earlier IPCC and US government reports, I’d think that the science community would have its act together by now…
Click source to read FULL report from Donna Laframboise
The United Nations is doubling down on ignorance and bias for its upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, investigative journalist Donna Laframboise reported in a bombshell presentation earlier this month in Munich, Germany.
Although IPCC claims it only appoints scientists at the very top of their profession to oversee its reports, it appointed several people without Ph.D.’s, or even Masters Degrees, as Lead Authors for its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. IPCC also appointed scientists affiliated with environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to steer the direction of the Report. Indeed, Laframboise documented formal connections between at least 78 IPCC scientists and the World Wildlife Fund environmental activist group.
Alan Jones is Australia's most popular talk back presenter. Alan Jones is a phenomenon. He is described by many as Australia's greatest orator and motivational speaker. Alan has the mind and capacity to make complex issues understandable to the largest Breakfast audience in Australia.
Climate change:the debate continues
Alan Jones speaks with visiting climate change sceptic and author Donna LaFramboise.
Recently I blogged about Neil Adger, who’s currently leading an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chapter that will examine decidedly non-scientific issues such as “culture, values, and society.”
I reported that Adger was employed by the University of East Anglia (UEA), the source of the notorious climategate e-mails. As it says at the bottom of this UEA web page, the “Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research is a trademark of the University of East Anglia” – and Adger “led Tyndall’s adaptation theme of research since 2000″ (backup link).
However, it appears that Adger recently moved on to the University of Exeter, where he now teaches geography. My apologies for the error.
The HauntingtheLibrary blog has since noticed that Adger’s official academic bio over at Exeter tells us that:
nytimes.comA new ad campaign comparing people who believe in global warming to murderers has foundered, with its conservative sponsor pulling a digital billboard down less than 24 hours after it went up in Chicago.
Drivers cruising along the city's inbound Eisenhower Expressway on Friday may have been surprised to see Theodore J. Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, staring at them from a huge billboard. "I still believe in global warming. Do you?" the billboard said. Just below was the Web address www.heartland.org.
The billboard was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a libertarian organization based in Chicago that describes its chief mission as promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems. It said it chose to feature "some of the world's most notorious killers" on the billboards "because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the 'mainstream' media and liberal politicians say about global warming."
But late Friday, the organization canceled the ad, which had drawn criticism from some global warming skeptics as well as mainstream climate scientists.
Would a scientifically rigorous organization have the owner of a PR firm as its chairman?
Here in Canada, David Suzuki’s recent decision to remove himself from the board of directors of the David Suzuki Foundation has been a hot topic. Suzuki is our version of Al Gore. Actually, that’s not quite fair. Gore has no scientific background. The 76-year-old Suzuki, on the other hand, is a trained geneticist.
But Suzuki’s area of expertise, which involved the study of fruit flies, is a million miles away from what most of us would consider climate science. He isn’t a meteorologist. Or a physicist. Or a geologist.
Moreover, much of his career has been spent as a science communicator. He has hosted multi-year radio and television shows, authored numerous books and newspaper columns, and delivered hundreds of speeches.
Last week my book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, was mentioned in the Canadian Senate. Since governments at various levels rely on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Senator Nancy Greene Raine thinks my book could help her colleagues make more informed decisions. In her words, a Senate committee:
should consider whether the reports of the IPCC should be relied upon by the Government of Canada for policy formulation. To give members a quick overview of the many problems with the IPCC, I suggest that you read the well-documented review by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise. Her book is entitled The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. After reading the book, you may no longer consider her book title to be mere humour.
A cut-and-paste of her full remarks appears here. You can also find them in the official record here (about halfway down the page).
Photo credit: BuntyBubly.com; see www.webcitation.org/660x2Yk1K
On its website, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says it’s a “scientific body” that provides governments with “rigorous and balanced scientific information.”
How do we know that such claims are total rubbish? Because its chairman does not behave remotely like a neutral scientist. He demonstrates no commitment to objectivity. Indeed, safeguarding the scientific reputation of the body he leads appears to be the last thing on his mind.
I have discussed Rajendra Pachauri’s environmental activism on previous occasions, including here, here, here, and here. Earlier this month, he provided one more reason to take a dim view of the IPCC – he accepted a Green Crusader award from the India Chapter of the International Advertising Association (see also here and here).