U.N.'s IPCC to Create 'Independent' Review Panel

Really? Why didn't they just do this (and this) to begin with, before all the scandals were revealed BY SKEPTICS?

The world's leading authority on climate change announced Saturday it is appointing an independent committee to investigate whether it needs to change its procedures to ensure it practices rigorous science.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, beset in recent months by a string of allegations of factual mistakes and improper scientific behavior in the preparation of its high-profile reports, said it will share details of how the independent review will work in early March.

A story in The Wall Street Journal on Friday detailed the IPCC's current effort to resuscitate its reputation and a longstanding tension within the organization between the desire by policy makers for clear, usable conclusions about climate science and the massive complexities of that science, many aspects of which scientists continue to debate.

[From Climate Panel to Appoint Committee to Review Its Procedures - WSJ.com]

January Hottest On Record! Really?!?

Empirical evidence be damned, unless it makes their case...and by "their" I mean the alarmists. Remember, the satellite data record is young, and it, too, is subject to scrutiny. Try to ignore the fact that you're freezing to death out there, America.

How the heck does this jibe with the recent Reuter's article?

CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the hottest January the world has ever seen.

The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.

***

His extraordinary claims came after the World Meteorological Organisation revealed 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850.

But UK forecaster Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “If it is the case and it is borne out that January was the hottest on record, it is still no marker towards climate change.

“It’s all part of a cyclical issue and nothing should be read too deeply into that.

[From Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Weather: Hottest January ever say climate experts]

Reuters: Scientists Examine Warming Lull

I can only say WOW. And this is via Reuters; it doesn’t completely let go of the ‘we unquestionably have manmade warming’ line, but it’s the first U.S. media outlet I’ve seen which goes this far. Now if the Ass. Press (abbreviation intentional) would just stop the advocacy journalism and report on all the scandals, facts, and scientific truth regarding manmade climate change, we skeptics might get somewhere. But truthfully, it’s getting to the point where the holdouts like the AP and MSNBC will not be able to stop the avalanche of evidence—empirical and scientific—that demonstrates just how stupid and false this hoax is. Remember when U.S. media outlets ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal (to protect Clinton) while Drudge broke the story? The public is becoming more and more wise to the trickery. The British press has covered the scandals and lies exposed recently, while most of the American media has ignored it all. After all, the U.S. mainstream media can’t be seen to admit that they’ve been feeding the American public a load of bull (which they’ve been doing).

Note what Reuters admits. They make a point about discovering the exact cause of cooling for ten years (which they laughably call ‘lack of warming’) from 1999-2008, while Dr. Hansen’s GISS has recently said—stupidly—that the last decade (through 2009) was the ‘warmest on record.’ Yes, the same alarmist Dr. Hansen who had to retract a similar pronunciation in October 2008, when skeptics scrutinized his data and discovered errors (good thing for skeptics, eh?). So climate scientists don’t even agree on what year or decade was the ‘warmest’ as a baseline. They don’t agree because it’s all based on ‘smoke and mirrors’—computer models fed temperature data from ground stations that—themselves—skew the data. Garbage-in, garbage-out.

I know what’s causing the cooling. It’s called natural climate variability, which will create warming periods (as it has in the past BEFORE manmade emissions) and cooling periods (as it has in the past BEFORE manmade emissions). In other words, this is all bullshit, just as the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s was. And I’m not even a climate scientist...I’m a molecular biologist. The ethics of science are the same for us all.

What’s amazing are the number of people apparently willing to just accept whatever line they’re fed by authority figures and their media lapdogs, without question. We’re just going to allow a group of politicians to regulate and tax CO2 (which we exhale with every breath) because a “consensus” of 60 scientists (versus >31,000 skeptical scientists) say we “must act now!” Aspirant, opportunistic politicians are always looking for openings such as that, for fear manifests a requirement for their intervention and subsequent consolidation of power (and wealth...right, Al Gore?).

The point of this article is to lament the crisis faced by alarmist climate scientists in continuing to convince everyone that “the debate is over” and “the consensus says” and “we must act NOW.” Once you sheep stop believing the lie, their little research grant boondoggle will begin to dry up. Politicians will move on to the next boondoggle, but we MUST make unethical scientists pay the price for betraying their profession in order to endorse radical political stances by warping science. We can all agree to take care of the Earth (because it’s the right thing to do) without violating our integrity, ethics, and lying to ourselves.

* Exact causes unknown for lack of warming from 1999-2008

* The underlying reason for cold winter not known

* Climate science in focus after email scandal, errors

By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle

LONDON/OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

Public conviction of global warming’s risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

[From Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming]

AP Covers Climate Data Revision, Slams Skeptics

Trying to walk the truth high-wire, the AP is trying to prove its journalistic integrity by covering the fact that the U.N.’s IPCC must examine and likely revise its temperature data. Why must the IPCC examine and revise its own data? Because it has been shown to be full of errors and alarmist hype, and we’re using their Nobel-winning, erroneous reports to drive global governance of carbon emissions. This global governance of carbon will cost each person in our country dearly. We must ENSURE that it’s not all a lie and we must not simply trust some government-anointed “consensus” because they said, “trust us, we’re right...skeptics are wrong.” Oh yeah, prove us skeptics wrong BASED ON scientific data. The paltry number comprising the “consensus” has been shown to lack integrity in recent accumulating scandals in climatology.

Of course, the point the AP misses (what a surprise) is that THIS RENEWED SELF-SCRUTINY by the IPCC WAS A RESULT OF SKEPTICISM! If skeptics weren’t asking for raw data from the “consensus” to examine (and researching Hansen’s claims, and reading ten years of CRU emails, and so on), none of the errors, manipulations, cover-ups, obstructions, and lies would have been discovered, and the global warming scare cult would go along as it has for years—unchecked and unquestioned.

But, predictably, the AP takes the alarmist’s advocacy tactic of criticizing the skeptic or “denier,” if you will. Ad hominem attacks refuse to address the central issue: Show me unquestionable proof that atmospheric carbon has warmed the Earth in the last 200 years and continues to do so.

It's interesting to see the contrast between the AP's story and the one from Fox News. Fox actually gives some time to the scandals that the AP just tries to gloss over and bury.

GENEVA -- World weather agencies have agreed to collect more precise temperature data to improve climate change science, officials said Wednesday, as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged environment ministers to reject efforts by skeptics to derail a global climate deal.

[From UN weather meeting agrees to refine climate data - Forbes.com]

Just one year ago a pronouncement from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) was all that was needed to move nations and change environmental policies around the world. But today, the panel's creditability and even its very existence are in question.

In the wake of its swift and devastating fall from grace, the panel says it will announce "within the next few days" that it plans to make significant though as yet unexplained changes in how it does business.

[From FOXNews.com - EXCLUSIVE: U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant Changes]

Obama's New Climate Agency Czar Suppressed Data

The scandals relating to all things manmade-climate-change continue to mount. This new NOAA agency was just announced several days ago, and it turns out that the appointed head of the nascent agency is responsible for some data obstructionism of his own in relation to his work with the IPCC and the scientists at East Anglia, including the disgraced Phil Jones.

The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department's new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.

Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.

***

But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC's most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.

The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.

[From FOXNews.com - New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge]

Hitler Learns of AGW Collapse

Just for fun in light of all the scandals and the end of global warming.

Climate Scientists Withdraw Rising Sea Level Claims

Another British media piece on the rising tide of recent global warming scandals that the U.S. mainstream media REFUSES to acknowledge or cover (except for Fox News, which still won't cover it very much). As certain scientists have been exposed, they're now frantically turning to damage control measures to mitigate the harm to themselves personally. I predicted this would happen a long time ago.

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

***

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

[From Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk ]