Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 1st Feb 2010, 14:29
  #4461 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,198
At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate 'hackers'

Sir David King, the totally sane, not remotely hysterical, and non-aluminium-foil-hat-wearing former advisor to much-loved and respected former Prime Minister Tony Blair, has spoken out on the Climategate emails.

Apparently, he has told the Independent, they weren’t leaked (as pretty much every other person who has been following the story now thinks). They were hacked. Probably by US “anti-climate-change lobbyists” or, possibly, by evil foreign intelligence services.

Sir David said, however, that it was not possible to dismiss the possibility of Russia’s involvement. “If it was a job done on behalf of a government, then I suppose there is the possibility that it could be the Russian intelligence agency,” he said.

Sir David – who, like Osama Bin Laden, believes strongly in man-made global warming – has had a bit of a problem with the Russkies ever since they made him look ridiculous at an international climate seminar in Moscow in July 2004 chaired by Putin’s chief economic adviser Alexander Illarionov.

According to Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Disaster, Sir David was horrified to find so many sceptical scientists at the conference and tried, unsuccessfully to have them censored. The final straw came during a speech by Professor Paul Reiter, one of the first IPCC contributors to point up the flaws in the IPCC process: the 2001 report had utterly misrepresented his expert views on insect-borne diseases in order to make it seem as if the incidence of malaria would increase with “global warming.”

As Booker recounts:

“When King himself then put forward the now familiar claim that global warming was responsible for the melting of the ice on summit of Kilimanjaro, Reiter challenged him by referring to various studies showing that the melting had been taking place since the 1880s. It was due not to global warming, these had concluded, but to deforestation causing a sharp drop in local precipitation. Apparently unable to answer Reiter’s point, King broke off in mid-sentence and led his delegation out of the room.”

Illarianov was appalled by the behaviour of Sir David and his delegation, he wrote afterwards:

“It is not for us to give an assessment to what happened but in our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government and the reputation of the title “Sir” has sustained heavy damage.”

I’m touched that the Independent continues to do the charitable work of making Sir David feel better about himself by still taking him seriously. But I’m not sure I can promise to carry on this tradition when I take over as Environment Editor.
Problem is, I’m with Illarionov. I believe, as he does, that the eco-fascist ideology and warped science underpinning the AGW scam are like something out of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

As Illarionov wrote:

That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the twentieth century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkovism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda.
ORAC is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2010, 20:47
  #4462 (permalink)  
Just another number
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 1,078
On Friday 5th February, at the Royal Institute, Albemarl St, London, Prof Roger Pielke Jr will be debating whether global warming really does cause environmental disasters. He will have an uphill battle as the Royal Institute seems to have made up its mind that we are all doomed. I have booked my ticket to try to adjust the balance.

The Royal Institution of Great Britain | Has Global Warming increased the toll of disasters?

Dave

PS....Does anyone know a good pub near the Royal Institute?

Last edited by Captain Airclues; 1st Feb 2010 at 22:22. Reason: spelling
Captain Airclues is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 00:51
  #4463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
From 'vested lefty interests publications plc' - editorial.

There is plenty of room for argument about the rate at which the world is warming, the degree to which humans are culpable, the likely outcomes and the most effective steps to be taken. But there is not much argument about the big picture.
But that IS the big picture. One can easily argue that 'in the big picture' jumping up and down will affect the orbit of the Earth. Plausibilty IS NOT the issue, regardless what Simenpro sez.

The big picture (even assuming the grauniad's assumptions - which I don't) is about degree and significance of unquestionably debatable data.

The sandal-wearing intillectual peasants that read and ignorantly worship the grauniad ideology would very much like global warming to be a real phenomena as they rely on majority ignorance to support their socialist crusade...and haven't they done well in creating that majority.

To an increasing level, every aspect of the debate, which is merely what it is, has recently become more openly questionable in a social sense. This is a healthy development.
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 07:55
  #4464 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
You say that but there is a definite shift away in the Guriden.
From today's article:

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws

Exclusive: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures
• How the location of weather stations in China undermines data

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

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.

Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-*Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".

The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair and it has a name attached to it.

It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.
Full article: Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws | Environment | guardian.co.uk

And it has a name attached to it.

Love this quote from the comments on the editorial piece

One of the things that surprised me the most when I first dipped my toes into the climate debate several months ago was the dogmatic devotion of the AGW faithful. Indeed, the whole AGW movement stinks like a crusade.

1- The gods (Scientists)
2- The sacred texts (IPCC reports)
3- We are all sinners (Our carbon footprint)
4- We must repent (Stop using fossil fuels)
5- The end of the world is nigh! (the looming climate catastrophe)
6- The four horsemen of the Apocalypse (War, Famine, Pestilence and Death. Identical to the ones AGW believers scare people with)
green granite is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 07:56
  #4465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
The carbon dioxide molecule absorbs infrared radiation in one narrow band of wavelengths in the IR sector of the spectrum.
Two actually. Plus a further band further in the spectrum but within the wavelengths corresponding to the emittance of the Earth.

However, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is not linear, because once all the IR radiation in the CO2-absorbable band is absorbed, the addition of further CO2 cannot and does not have any further effect.

The saturation by CO2 of the CO2-absorbable IR band occurs at an approximate atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 50ppm, beyond which increasing concentrations result only in a logrithmically diminishing effect with regard to IR absorption.
This makes no sense. first you say that after a certain point CO2 will not have any further effect upon absorption, and then you say that after this point it follows a logarithmic decline in effect. For the record, you're wrong the first time and right the second time.

This is why average temperatures on earth have not increased in recent years despite the steady increase of atmospheric CO2. It is not CO2 which is responsible for temperature; it is the sun.
So how do you explain that last year was the second warmest on record, despite the fact that we're at solar minimum? How about 1998 (the warmest year on record)? That didn't occur at solar maximum. I have the SOHO data to hand, so at some point during today I'll correlate it with the temperature record for the last few years and see what we get. Seeing as this has been done countless times before, though, I doubt it'll produce the result you expect.

Don't worry about replying quickly; I have time for you to consult Google.
Nice of you to add an insult in. I was almost thinking that you'd managed to go for a whole post without needing to insult someone.


(edit) Okay, I compared the GISS temperature series to the composite solar irradiation trend for 1978-2003 published by NASA based upon data from a number of spacecraft. The correlation between monthly average temperature and solar irradiation is 0.072. That's an absolutely pathetic correlation, much worse than I expected.

Last edited by Nemrytter; 2nd Feb 2010 at 08:46.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 10:32
  #4466 (permalink)  
Lupus Domesticus
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Quote:
The carbon dioxide molecule absorbs infrared radiation in one narrow band of wavelengths in the IR sector of the spectrum.
Two actually. Plus a further band further in the spectrum but within the wavelengths corresponding to the emittance of the Earth.
How come you never told us that before, then? Surely you knew.... Either way, how does this 'new information' affect your previous contention that linear increases in CO2 will result in linear increases in temperature? Or are you not claiming that anymore?

This makes no sense. first you say that after a certain point CO2 will not have any further effect upon absorption, and then you say that after this point it follows a logarithmic decline in effect. For the record, you're wrong the first time and right the second time.
Yes it does. I did make a point of saying "approximate" and refering to the variable nature of the sun's output. As usual, you haven't read or understood the detail.

So how do you explain that last year was the second warmest on record,
Honestly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. We all know now that the record has been doctored. Just because it's the second warmest year 'on record' doesn't mean it's the second warmest year.

despite the fact that we're at solar minimum?
But we're not at a solar minimum yet. We are however headed for one.

How about 1998 (the warmest year on record)?
According to some records, that was 1940.

Nice of you to add an insult in. I was almost thinking that you'd managed to go for a whole post without needing to insult someone.
Insults aren't really about need, now are they? I just can't help myself. Easy targets are like that.

(edit) Okay, I compared the GISS temperature series to the composite solar irradiation trend for 1978-2003 published by NASA based upon data from a number of spacecraft. The correlation between monthly average temperature and solar irradiation is 0.072. That's an absolutely pathetic correlation, much worse than I expected.
Really? What would you have expected?
BlueWolf is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 10:58
  #4467 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
(edit) Okay, I compared the GISS temperature series to the composite solar irradiation trend for 1978-2003 published by NASA based upon data from a number of spacecraft. The correlation between monthly average temperature and solar irradiation is 0.072. That's an absolutely pathetic correlation, much worse than I expected.
Simonpro; in the light of the current China(and yet another)-gate and other known flaws, do you think it's scientifically or statistically acceptable to use GISS or HadCRU data, or do you think it's necessary to first reorganize and calibrate these temp data bases?

Anthony Watts' comment in the Chinagate thread is remarkable (note it's the Guradian, the Temple of AGW):
REPLY: Yes that’s right, and you know what else is amazing? The Guardian authors emailed me this afternoon to make sure I knew about this story. I’ve never been given a tip from the Guardian staff before, evar. – Anthony
I remember once I mentioned that UHI might be a factor in registering warming temperatures and the usual arm-waving warmista answer was "has been taken care of". Well, now we see how...

Last edited by Capt.KAOS; 2nd Feb 2010 at 11:08.
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 11:06
  #4468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
So how do you explain that last year was the second warmest on record,
Honestly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. We all know now that the record has been doctored. Just because it's the second warmest year 'on record' doesn't mean it's the second warmest year.
It was only one year; that's just weather, not climate, remember?

And this has been the coldest Scottish winter for a century. Weather or climate?
MagnusP is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 11:42
  #4469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 64
Posts: 215
More problems for the IPCC ??
The Daily Mash - TREES WILL NOT BECOME UNSTOPPABLE KILLING MACHINES, ADMIT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
handsfree is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 12:09
  #4470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Honestly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. We all know now that the record has been doctored.
More like trying to debate with one of the Goldfish in said barrel
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 12:23
  #4471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
How come you never told us that before, then? Surely you knew.... Either way, how does this 'new information' affect your previous contention that linear increases in CO2 will result in linear increases in temperature? Or are you not claiming that anymore?
I don't believe I ever claimed that CO2 resulted in a linear increase in global temperatures. If you can find somewhere that I've said that it did then please quote it, or at least say the post number.

Honestly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. We all know now that the record has been doctored. Just because it's the second warmest year 'on record' doesn't mean it's the second warmest year.
That doesn't answer my question, or are you claiming that last year was not, in fact, a warm year? If this is the case then please provide evidence.

But we're not at a solar minimum yet. We are however headed for one.
The predicted solar minimum was almost a year ago. Solar irradiance is currently increasing, indicating that it is likely that we are now past the minimum.

According to some records, that was 1940.
That doesn't answer my question. So I'll simply state it again in a different way: How do you explain that 1998 was a very warm year, despite the fact it was not anywhere near solar maximum?

Really? What would you have expected?
I was expecting a correlation of around 0.2-0.3, which is what most previous studies have shown. However, my brief example did not include effects such as el-nino or any other variable, all of which must be removed before a true correlation value can be determined.

Simonpro; in the light of the current China(and yet another)-gate and other known flaws, do you think it's scientifically or statistically acceptable to use GISS or HadCRU data, or do you think it's necessary to first reorganize and calibrate these temp data bases?
I have not looked at the CRU data and don't know their processing chain. I would have full confidence in the GISS data, however. Their processing chain is adequately described in the literature and (last time I checked) on their website.

It was only one year; that's just weather, not climate, remember?
I don't recall saying that it was climate, that was the guy who thinks that everything is due to the solar cycle. The warmness of 2009 was likely due to el-nino, I'd say.

And this has been the coldest Scottish winter for a century. Weather or climate?
Weather, of course. Same as 2009 being one of the warmest years. If Scotland continues to be cold for the next few years then it'd graduate into climate.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 13:05
  #4472 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
I have not looked at the CRU data and don't know their processing chain. I would have full confidence in the GISS data, however. Their processing chain is adequately described in the literature and (last time I checked) on their website.
I admire your faith in GISS and I'm sure their processing (whatever that may be used or not is another point, see below) is adequately described, but GISS is using CRU data, so there's room for some doubt.

Furthermore, this blogger has investigated GISS' processing chain, you might want to have a look at it?
Well, the code NASA GISS publishes and says is what they run, is not this code that they are running.
Yes, they are not publishing the real code. In the real code running on the GISS web page to make these anomaly maps, you can change the baseline and you can change the “spread” of each cell. (Thus the web page that lets you make these “what if” anomaly maps). In the code they publish, the “reach” of that spread is hard coded at 1200 km and the baseline period is hard coded at 1951-1980.
So I simply can not do any debugging on this issue, because the code that produces these maps is not available.
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 15:16
  #4473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
To add to the confusion in the UK I see the prospective Tory Prime Minister has awoken his one remaining brain cell and employed Lord Stern as his advisor on all matters to do with Climate Change and Green renewables!

"A Tory source said: 'Every party has members of parliament who don't necessarily fully buy up to the climate change agenda, but David Cameron remains fully behind his green commitment. It was no surprise that David Davis has made these comments.'
Mr Davis was responding to comments made by one of Britain's top climate gurus, Lord Stern, who said families should be forced to pay green taxes to subsidise wind farms and low carbon power plants in the Third World.
Lord Stern warned the cost to the UK of preventing dangerous climate change was double his previous estimate - around £22billion a year by 2020, or the equivalent of £1,000 for every household.
David Davis said.....
" Building wind farms would blight hundreds of thousands of properties and 'ruin' lives through the unbearable noise levels, while future predicted power shortages would further undermine public support for action.
'Lights going out around Britain could be an electoral off switch for environmental policy,' he added.
His comments were last night being viewed as an open attack on Mr Cameron, who pledged to launch a 'green revolution' if the Tories win power.
Mr Davis warned of a public backlash against unpopular green measures, such as higher taxes on holiday flights or more wind turbines.

Cameron is losing it and fast.
aviate1138 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 15:55
  #4474 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Both Stern and King (and here) have not been saved from disgrace lately in their feeble attempt to save the Church of AGW.

How long will it take for scientists and politicians to realise that being associated with AGW can be highly libelous?
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 21:38
  #4475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: England
Posts: 98
Global warming / cooling / climate change

Forgive me if this has been allready mentioned - not read all 160 odd pages.

If anybody is qualified to comment on observed global warming / cooling / climate change over the last, say 10-20 years it has to be you elder and most experienced flight deck crew. You are with, in, above & below the weather, observing and taking account of it, constantly. You are also experts at receiving weather data from others and using that data in your daily work.

So, my question is, can any of you comment, regarding observed (or not) signs, over an extended time, of global warming / cooling / climate change ?

Lid
flying lid is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2010, 22:50
  #4476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,550
Life is so funny!

Notice how every day now we hear of yet another false report, yet new admissions of fiddled data, covering up data that conflicts with theories, positions, and statements telling us of the coming disaster of AGW?

How long do we have to listen to this Death by a thousand cuts....before the Al Gore's of this World are fully seen to the Scoundrels they really are?
SASless is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2010, 00:00
  #4477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
Cameron is losing it and fast.
Defeat from the open jaws of victory...

Cameron is no more than your average councillor, He sees politics as a career choice rather than a personal mission. He relies (as do the Govt) on the mood-music of what he is advised the electorate (down the GPO or A&E) want to hear. I have yet to hear anything that sounds like a scintilla of conviction or confidence on where he stands on major ideological issues, say eg

Govt waste of our (extorted) money and excising that - immediately.
Green taxes (see above)
UK vs EU (see above)
UK vs immigration
UK vs Devolution (aka no-UK)

All he has to do is get off the fence - if he did, the votes would follow. The likelihood (on performance to date) is however that (lacking the necessary conviction) he will remain on the fence and ultimately be considered Lib-Dem. That = Prolonged Misery for us all and we know it hence not enough votes for Cameroon and result will be 'More Prolonged Misery' anyway.

We're f*cked basically. Thanks to the Greenies - which they will lap up as mission accomplished.
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2010, 01:14
  #4478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 431
BlooMoo

We're f*cked basically. Thanks to the Greenies - which they will lap up as mission accomplished.
No, it's NOT the Greenies BlueMoo.

I think we're all green to some extent. Who want's to cr*p in their own nest ?

No, it's the apalling scientific illiteracy of a population dependent on scientific outcomes allowing certain radical "greens" to present these doomsday scenarios which the ignorocentri lap up because they are still slave to the "original sin" claptrap pedalled by religion (and still is)
ZEEBEE is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2010, 05:42
  #4479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Well, nice to see that the apologistic stance of some people is still on about IPCC, as expected. So now a Master's thesis of a student is " peer reviewed " literature for IPCC, as certified and confirmed by our resident climatologist.

My daughter has done an 8th grade paper about rainforests and it's been peer reviewed by a panel of 3 reviewers in her school. How do I write to IPCC to include it in the AR5?

And by the way, the below link shows which was the dissertation used by IPCC as a reference

A look at IPCC’s referenced student dissertation shows more economic than climate concern Watts Up With That?

Watts' report states

The dissertation itself is not entirely about climate change. In fact, he mentions the number one reason that mountain guides give for decreased climbs is not climate change, but:
“They attribute this decrease in the first place to the recession and the high exchange rate of the Swiss franc in relation to the German mark. In the second place they mention changes of the natural environment.”
That wasn’t mentioned in the AR4.

The comedy show goes on for IPCC.

Here's more " peer reviewed " references from the IPCC report, a story from New York Times.

Gate Du Jour: IPCC AR4 references NYT story Watts Up With That?

And here's more fun, a boot cleaning guide in Antartic is cited as reference by IPCC for Climate change

Gate Du Jour: IPCC gets the boot (cleaned) Watts Up With That?

Watts says as follows

That might be laughable in and of itself, but the problem is the article doesn’t even mention climate change. Once. Nothing at all about global warming, or temperature increase. Nothing!

And as to the reliability of GISS temperatures, look at post # 3218.

GISS shows Svalbard region as having " warm " anomaly, which is a joke.

And this is the same GISS which got the " adjusted " data from NOAA for 2009, performed " value addition " on it and immediately declared 2009 as the warmest year, only for NOAA to put 2009 in 5th position, based on the same data.

GISS and HADCRUT temperatures have been shown to be fudged and unreliable. They have all been " adjusted " to show warm trend. The Chinese temperature sets based on which the paper on UHI effect was written, do not exist and can't be verified. The Siberian data sets have been shown to be fudged with all cold stations dropped and UHI disregarded. North American station data has been dropped to 1500 from 6000 stations and cold ones have been disregarded. NIWA station raw data shows no warming but " adjusted " data shows warming trend with no explanations of methods and no rcords for the adjustment. Entire Antartic data was shown warm based on one station in an airport with every other station disregarded. Australia has the Darwin story with more sure to come on to light. Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts have just released the surface station data compendium for North America which shows that the data is a mess and is totally unreliable. In South America, Bolivia is shown to have a " warm " anomaly when there's no measuring station there in the first place. Peru and Amazon sea level and ground level data were used to extrapolate Bolivian temperatures, not even considering that Bolivia is an an elevation up in the Andes and is a cool place.

With all these junk data, one thing that can certainly be ascertained is that all papers written by the CRU and GISS people and other authors who used the same data, have no value. They were based on contaminated data. In science, when the source data is contaminated, any study based on those data is immediately dismissed and has no value.

With all this mess, the below article questions whether the claim of 1998 was the warmest year was real whether it was also " dressed up "

Is the NULL default infinite hot? Musings from the Chiefio


Last edited by rvv500; 3rd Feb 2010 at 06:46.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2010, 06:25
  #4480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Suddenly the Guardian seem to be getting quite active in publishing front page articles about the CRU and IPCC issues. They of course are still putting " Still this does not affect the science behind global warming " disclaimer but the disclaimer seems to be more of a formality. Looks like Fred Pearce is preparing to switch camps.

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian

Controversy behind climate science's 'hockey stick' graph | Fred Pearce | Environment | guardian.co.uk

There were three more articles in the Guardian front page

One is about Pachauri refusing to apologise for Glaciergate. He alone single handedly seems to be bent upon ensuring that IPCC's name is mud.

No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy | Environment | The Guardian

One is about Phil Jones finally coming out and defending his work.

No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy | Environment | The Guardian

And other is about George Monbiot talking about scandals " sahming " CRU but still maintainung his pro-warming attitude.

No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy | Environment | The Guardian
rvv500 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.