jump to navigation

Climategate: two more bricks fall out of the IPCC wall of deceit – rainforests and polar bears March 17, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Climategate: two more bricks fall out of the IPCC wall of deceit – rainforests and polar bears

By Gerald Warner
Telegraph.co.uk, March 16, 2010

Oops! There go another two bricks, tumbling out of the IPCC wall of deceit on man-made global warming – there is not a lot left now; even the Berlin Wall (to which the AGW construct is ideologically allied) has survived better. Unhappily for Al, Phil, Michael, George and the rest of the scare-mongers, these two discredited components are among the most totemic in the AGW religion.

Firstly, a new study, funded by Nasa (which may be feeling the need to rehabilitate itself post-Climategate) has revealed that the ridiculous claim in the notorious IPCC 2007 report that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could be drastically affected by even a small reduction in rainfall caused by climate change, so that the trees would be replaced by tropical grassland, is utter nonsense. That assertion has already been exposed as derived from a single report by the environmentalist lobby group WWF.

Now Dr Jose Marengo, a climate scientist with the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research and himself a member of the IPCC, says: “The way the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong, while (the new) calculations are by far more reliable and correct.” These calculations were done by researchers at Boston University and were published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters. They used satellite data to study the drought of 2005, when rainfall fell to the lowest in living memory, and found that the rainforest suffered no significant effects.

Read the rest here

About these ads

Comments»

1. Oliver K. Manuel - March 17, 2010

There are many more bricks in the foundation of the climate scandal.

As the Climategate scandal unfolds, the shadowy outline is emerging of an unholy international alliance of politicians in the US, UK, UN, France, Germany, etc. with federal research agencies [US's NAS, UN's IPCC, DOE, NASA, ESA, etc.], major publishers [Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, etc] and news media [BBC, PBS, CBS, NBC, NY Times, LA Times, etc] to use science as a propaganda tool to establish a totalitarian world government.

For decades I innocently believed that NASA was an unusually corrupt agency for manipulating and hiding data that would reveal the origin, composition, and energy source for the Sun, e.g. [1,2].

1. “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, abstract 5011 (1998);
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf

2. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1n87370x6685079/

Climategate has revealed a much more sinister plot to use science as a tool of propaganda to control people in the manner described in the novel “1984″ by the late George Orwell.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

Every brick in the foundation of Climategate must be removed.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo

2. Mervyn Sullivan - March 18, 2010

How many more flaws in the 2007 IPCC Report need to be exposed before even just one western government breaks ranks and deems the report no longer to be the “gold standard’ in climate science?

I am hoping it will first happen in the USA… because as the saying goes, when America sneezes, everyone else catches a cold.

3. Oliver K. Manuel - March 18, 2010

Thanks, Mervyn, for your comment.

Your question is very rational.

But rational thought does not explain why the behavior of mankind is so accurately described by Lord Acton’s statement:

“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The longer the delay before some “western government breaks ranks” – the more likely are their irrational claims part of a “sinister plot to use science as a tool of propaganda to control people in the manner described in the novel “1984″ by the late George Orwell.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

4. Mervyn Sullivan - May 2, 2010

Since last posting, there have been signs of encouragement that governments are now showing a change of heart over their global warming/climate change policies. The signs from European countries, and from countries like Japan, Australia and New Zealand would indicate that there may be hope yet that commonsense will prevail, and that they will reassess the climate science and distance themselves from the IPCC mantra.

5. Oliver Manuel - May 3, 2010

I hope that you are right, Mervyn.

If so, the hacked e-mails and the climategate scandal have probably saved us from a totalitarian world government like that described by the late George Orwell in the novel “1984.”

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/world

A 5 Feb 2010 news story from NASA strongly hints that NASA has decided to move away from decades of active deception about the Sun: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/

It includes these comments from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), NASA Headquarters, NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, and the University of Colorado.

1. From NASA Headquarters: “The sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, “is a variable star.”

2. From NRL: “Understanding solar variability is crucial,” says space scientist Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. “Our modern way of life depends upon it.”

3. From NAS: “According to a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a century-class solar storm could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina.”

4. From the Marshall Space Flight Center: “The depth of the solar minimum in 2008-2009 really took us by surprise,” says sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “It highlights how far we still have to go to successfully forecast solar activity.”

5. From Boulder, CO: “If human eyes could see EUV wavelengths, no one would doubt that the sun is a variable star,” says Tom Woods of the University of Colorado in Boulder.

6. From NRL: “‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”

7. From NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center: “Understanding the inner workings of the solar dynamo has long been a ‘holy grail’ of solar physics,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

Now Department of Energy (DOE) scientists need to admit or deny that N-N repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun and generates the cycles of solar magnetic activity that are empirically linked with changes in Earth’s climate.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

6. Matt Hart - August 5, 2010

The reference you list to how NASA has decided to stop actively deceiving us does nothing to prove your point. Rather, the reference makes the statement that they have gathered enough data to show that the sun is more variable than ever thought in the past. This is a mere correction to theory, rather than some declaration that they are now not going to deceive us anymore. As a scientist yourself, I assume that you would not appreciate anyone claiming that you were trying to deceive anyone after you and/or others, discovered something that more clearly explains or possibly corrects your past theories on nuclear interactions.

The other references you list are similar, in that they merely state findings.

If the answer to your N-N replusion question DOE scientists is “We don’t know”, how would you consider that response? You seem to be accusing them as well, while implying a theory (magnetic activity being empirically linked to earth’s climate) , which no one would argue against having at least some effect, but hasn’t been prooved, as being a possible answer.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: