The BM posted an article today called,”Violent backlash on against climate scientists”, written by Stephen Leahy.
Here is an excerpt of that post:
“I have hundreds” of threatening e-mails, Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University in California, told Tierramérica.
He believes scientists will be killed over this.
“I’m not going to let it worry me…but you know it’s going to happen,” said Schneider, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. “They shoot abortion doctors here.”
So this is how believers of global warming wish to engage and inform us about climate change.
If they can’t warn us about the impending doom of our planet because of man’s involvement, then suggest that climate scientists might be killed over their belief and/or stance on climate change.
The article goes on and reports:
On the surface, this campaign is about a few errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2,800-page report released in 2007 and some 10-year-old personal e-mails stolen from Britain’s University of East Anglia.
But deeper down, this is the last big effort by the fossil-fuel industry to delay action on fighting climate change, just as the tobacco industry successfully delayed understanding of the harmful effects of smoking for several decades, says Schneider.
“We’re up against the multibillion-dollar fossil-fuel industry and the haters of government. They spin and spin and cast doubt on the credibility of science,” he said.
The media are an accomplice in this, he said, because they have failed to put wild claims into context and continue to interview people like Inhofe and others who have no evidence or credibility on these issues.
“I’m pretty damn angry that media companies are putting profits ahead of truth. The media are deeply broken…That’s a real threat to democracy,” Schneider said.
There is no solid scientific dispute over the simple physics that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-effect gases warm the earth’s atmosphere, and that emissions of these gases from human activities are largely responsible for the increased temperatures over recent decades.
This is simply a very bizarre story being regurgitated by MSM to cast doubt on the skepticism of climate change.
Yeah, this story floats. Like a lead weight tied to a brick, sinking to the bottom of the ocean.
And if thats not enough, the media is somehow an accomplice?
If Stephen Schneider is the author of these remarks, as reported by Leahy, he’s an idiot. Pardon me; he’s a tool.
How is the media putting profits ahead of truth? When it comes to providing financial profits to media outlets, the environmentalists cannot be matched in time or money, when it comes to climate change. And if the media is broken and threatens democracy, its not the fossil-fuel industries fault, it will be from years of lies and manipulation of the facts regarding man-made global warming exploited by the greed of environmentalists and the scientists that support those ideas.
So let me get back to the ‘on the surface issues regarding a few errors’ in the IPCC report.
Rather than attempt to provide a well documented account of the many flaws in the IPCC report, I will supply links to reports discussing the errors in great detail on the subject.
The Mail Online reported this story:
Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified .
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
The Telegraph.co.uk reported this story:
The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.
Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.
New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.
More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.
They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007.
Last month, the panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.
Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.
Here is a conclusion from John Daly on his website:
A calculation of Tom Wigley (NCAR) [Geophs. Res. Lett. 25, 2285-2288 (1998)] shows that for compliance of developed nations with Kyoto, the temperature effect till 2050 will be only 0.07 °C. As IPCC uses a far too high climate sensitivity, the realistic effect should be about 0.02 °C only. Energy and CO2 taxing within the EU will yield a contribution for temperature reduction of 0.002 °C only. Contrary to the serious economic impacts, the temperature effects of claimed emission reductions are absolutely negligible. So the international bureaucratic activism to enforce Kyoto seems rather useless and ridiculous.
Here is another report on rainforests from Internetscofflaw :
In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.
But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming — and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist. . .
It has now been revealed that the claim was based on a WWF study titled “Global Review of Forest Fires,” a paper barely related to the Amazon rainforest that was written “to secure essential policy reform at national and international level to provide a legislative and economic base for controlling harmful anthropogenic forest fires.”
EUReferendum, a blog skeptical of global warming, uncovered the WWF association. It noted that the original “40 percent” figure came from a letter published in the journal Nature that discussed harmful logging activities — and again had nothing to do with global warming.
And another report done by World Climate Report :
So, the peer reviewed literature, both extant at the time of the AR4 as well as published since the release of the AR4, shows that there has been a significant increase in the extent of sea ice around Antarctica since the time of the first satellite observations observed in the late 1970s. And yet the AR4 somehow “assessed” the evidence and determined not only that the increase was only half the rate established in the peer-reviewed literature, but also that it was statistically insignificant as well. And thus, the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic was downplayed in preference to highlighting the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.
This report comes from Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog site:
A graph showing averaged global temperature and averaged catastrophe loss since 1970 was included in supplementary material rather than the IPCC report itself and was not itself published. RMS believes that the graph could be misinterpreted and should not have been included in these materials.
This is but a few of the growing number of errors supplied by the WWF, sorry, the IPCC.(Its difficult to tell the difference between the WWF and the IPCC, after reading all of these reports. If anyone is more guilty of wrong doing, I would assume it would be the World Wildlife Federation.)
So, to somewhat conclude this ongoing investigation into the errors by the IPCC and the media, men like Stephen Schneider, and environmental groups like the WWF will continue to spin stories how fossil-fuel companies are just like the tobacco industry, the IPCC is flawless, the media is corrupt and ultimately, climate change is infallible. Nothing could be farther from the truth.