Wash. Post Fires Back: Accuses Climate Depot of having ‘an anti-science and anti-science journalism agenda!’ — Climate Depot Responds
[Update – September 10, 2009: Wash. Post’s Own Meteorologist Counters Paper’s Claims! ‘I wince when hearing…science is ‘settled’ — Climate ‘hysteria’ may be ‘another bubble waiting to burst’ — Update – September 4, 2009: World-Wide Reaction Pours In Over Climate Depot’s Public Climate Clash with the Washington Post: Climate Depot ‘point by point minced Wash. Post’s empty claims’]
The Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman has responded to Climate Depot’s article entitled: Shock: Wash. Post Blames Obama For Failure of Global Warming Movement! President’s ‘mistakes may cost the planet dearly’ – Climate Depot Credited With Helping To Stop Obama From Enacting Climate Legislation! – September 1, 2009 – The Washington Post’s Freedman, of the paper’s “Capital Weather Gang”, wrote a rebuttal in a September 2, 2009 article titled “Response to Climate Depot’s Distortions.” Freedman accuses Climate Depot of having “nothing more than an anti-science and anti-science journalism agenda.” Climate Depot has responded to the Washington Post attack in a point by point rebuttal below. (Readers can leave comments at the Washington Post website here.)
Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman: Dear Mr. Morano of Climate Depot: Your lengthy response to my piece “Obama Needs to Give a Climate Speech – ASAP” contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation. I think you revealed your politically driven agenda quite nakedly when you assailed the United Nations for its role in climate and energy policy.
Climate Depot Response: Please elaborate on the alleged “numerous errors of fact and interpretation.” You do not cite a single specific “error” in Climate Depot’s response. The UN has destroyed itself when it comes to integrity on climate science and energy policy. UN leaders cannot help but cherry-pick and hype global warming beyond anything resembling science.
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN and its scientific methods.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman: The fact that you think the solutions to climate change will cost more than letting the climate system run amok, particularly in the developing world, does not stand up to close scrutiny in the academic literature.
Climate Depot’s Response: How is the “climate system run amok?” Where is the evidence for this Mr. Freedman? You claim it has run amok particularly in the developing world, but you do not provide evidence beyond what could, might, may, happen based on computer models that violate the basic principles of forecasting and that even the UN does not call “predictions.”
If you would open your mind and allow journalistic objectivity and balance to slip in about global warming, you would find that man-made climate change is not killing the developing world’s poor — poverty is! See: S. African UN Scientist: Global Warming’s ‘basic science is demonstrably false’ – ‘Not a single person in S. Africa has died as a result of provable climate change. But thousands have died from poverty-related starvation, malnutrition and disease’ – August 29, 2009 – Excerpt: “There is also no statistically believable evidence of linkages between climate change, and increases in the occurrence and magnitude of floods, droughts and threats to water supplies. Climate alarmist tactics are obstructing the right of these people to progress towards the normal lives that those in the western nations enjoy.” (Above is written by Professor Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.)
Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman: I stand by what I wrote, especially the criticism of your venture as existing largely to create the impression of a crumbling scientific consensus on climate change, when in fact there is no such trend taking place in the scientific community.
Climate Depot’s Response: It is difficult to imagine how a journalist with a major news publication can write with a straight face that “there is no such trend taking place in the scientific community.” For evidence, just take a look at the outpouring of blowback in major science organizations. You did not even attempt to refute or counter the numerous examples Climate Depot provided reports of scientists speaking out around the globe — including more UN IPCC scientists — and dissenting in scientific societies. In July 2009, the world’s largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS’s climate activist editor. Another development in shattering the so-called “consensus” was an Open Letter signed by more than 130 German scientists urging German Chancellor to “reconsider” her climate views. See: ‘Consensus’ Takes Another Hit! More than 130 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears ‘Pseudo ‘Religion’; Urge Chancellor to ‘reconsider’ views – August 4, 2009 On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The year 2009 also saw a report from 35 international scientists countering the UN IPCC. See: “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” This year also saw the flow of peer-reviewed scientific papers continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. as well. See: Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming…little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans’ – July 23, 2009
A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” In April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.”
In 2008, a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian Earth scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”, with only 26% of the scientists attributing global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.”
A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”
Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports here & here ]
For more complete analysis see: Science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse – August 26, 2009
Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman: Furthermore, your argument is breathtakingly heartless: You’re actually pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change on the grounds that it would protect citizens of developing nations. If that is true, then why are leaders of developing countries, such as the African nations and small island states like Tuvalu and the Maldives, clamoring for the industrialized world to take action on climate change? Study after study has shown that it is the world’s most vulnerable who are going to suffer most from climate change, and yet you wish to focus on protecting them from the comparatively tiny risks of fighting the problem? What a remarkable argument. I can only imagine what the reaction to it might be in Dhaka, Bangladesh, where millions are at risk from sea level rise and increasingly intense tropical cyclones.
Climate Depot Response: Please Mr. Freedman, let’s not confuse international aid politics with an alleged “scientific” process. Gee, wonder why leaders of developing nations are clamoring for money from wealthy Western nations. Let’s give it some thought shall we? The developing world leaders sense gullible Western nations may start pouring out the cash based on some sort of bizarre “climate guilt.” Of course many developing world political leaders have their hands out, as many are hopeful for Western loot, just like the UN. See: Reparations: Africa seeks climate change cash…demands billions in compensation for ‘damage caused by global warming’ – August 25, 2009 & UN: Poor nations need ‘wartime’ support against global warming – ‘Need 600-billion-dollar ‘Marshall Plan’ annually’ – September 1, 2009
The UN is licking its chops to get it’s hand on that type of climate money. See: Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About ‘Global Governance’ – July 10, 2009 – There have been numerous calls for a global Co2 tax to “aid” developing nations, and guess who is in charge of distributing the funds – the UN!! All any reporter needs to do is scratch beneath the surface of the UN’s claimed climate crisis and they will find a political organization with a political motive.
As for Tuvalu and other islands “drowning” in global warming inspired sea level rise, please do some basic research, Mr. Freedman. See: Scientific Analysis: ‘Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe’ – August 16, 2009
Mr. Freedman, you claim “millions are at risk from sea level rise”, yet you don’t provide a shred of evidence. Here is some evidence from your own paper, the Washington Post, debunking your claims! See: Wash. Post reporting makes progress! Article concedes sea level computer model ‘predictions could be flawed or flat wrong’ – June 9, 2009 – The article by the Post’s David A. Fahrenthold’s
noted that the increase in sea level by 2100 on the East Coast may be enough to “submerge a beach chair.”
As for your sea level rise scares, once again, please do some research before you attempt to condemn millions to climate model “drowning!”
Sampling of scientific data on sea level:
‘No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise’ says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008
Excerpt: In an op-ed piece in the December 11 issue of NRC/Handelsblad, Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at KNMI, writes: “In the past century the sea level has risen twenty centimeters. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise. It is my opinion that there is no need for drastic measures. It is wise to adopt a flexible, step-by-step adaptation strategy. By all means, let us not respond precipitously.”
Excerpt: Nearly two dozen prominent scientists from around the world have denounced a recent Associated Press article promoting sea level fears in the year 2100 and beyond based on unproven computer models predictions. […] Prominent scientist Professor Nils-Axel Morner, declared “the rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot happen.” […] Internationally known forecasting pioneer Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and his colleague Kesten Green Monash University in Australia: “As shown in our analysis experts’ forecasts have no validity in situations characterized by high complexity, high uncertainty, and poor feedback. To date we are unaware of any forecasts of sea levels that adhere to proper (scientific) forecasting methodology and our quick search on Google Scholar came up short,” Armstrong and Green explained. “Media outlets should be clear when they are reporting on scientific work and when they are reporting on the opinions held by some scientists. Without scientific support for their forecasting methods, the concerns of scientists should not be used as a basis for public policy,” they concluded. […] Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania, explains that sea level is only rising up 1.8 millimeters per year (0.07 inches) — less than the thickness of one nickel. “Sea level is rising,” Giegengack said, but it’s been rising ever since warming set in 18,000 years ago, he explained. “So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn’t know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming,” he said.
Global warming may not affect sea levels, study finds – January 11, 2008
Excerpt: Excerpt: The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today.
Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman: I can only imagine what the reaction to it might be in Dhaka, Bangladesh, where millions are at risk from sea level rise and increasingly intense tropical cyclones.
Climate Depot Response: Which “increasingly intense tropical cyclones” are you referring to Mr. Freedman? The ones that are not trending the way global warming promoters claimed? See:
Peer-Reviewed Study: No Trends in Landfalling Tropical Cyclones – April 27, 2009 – Here are a few more tidbits on storms:
Florida State University: “Global [both Southern and Northern Hemisphere] Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years” – Updated April 17, 2009
Ryan N. Maue – Department of Meteorology – COAPS – Florida State University
Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming’s impact – Houston Chronicle – April 12, 2008 – Excerpt: One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand. The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.
Another Hurricane Expert Reconsiders Warming/Hurricane Link – Associated Press – May 19, 2008 – Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject. Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday. In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.
Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman: Furthermore, your argument is breathtakingly heartless: You’re actually pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change on the grounds that it would protect citizens of developing nations.
Climate Depot Response: Please Mr. Freedman, there is still hope for you to think clearly on this issue. After all, you courageously reported in January 2009 that the “American Meteorological Society Group Erred Giving NASA’s James Hansen Its Top Honor.” Kudos for that.
Mr. Freedman, you must not let yourself buy in to the “climate astrology” logic where every bad thing that is happening in the world is due to man-made global warming and you must not start believing that climate model “scenarios” are akin to a fact or “evidence.”
Let’s let Mathematical physicist Dr. Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, at Tulane University, explain how climate fear claims have evolved into astrology. “Whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology,” Tipler wrote on May 15, 2009. “It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself,” Tipler explained.
“As we know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience. NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period,” Tipler wrote.
As for Climate Depot being “heartless” to the developing world, let’s review shall we:
The world can only hope that many, many “more years of inaction pass by” for the sake of the poor in the Western nations and the developing world’s poor who have the most to lose from so-called “solutions” to global warming. The estimated 1.6 billion people in the world without electricity who are leading a nasty, brutish and short life, will be the ones who “will pay” for global warming solutions that prevent them from obtaining cheap and abundant carbon based energy. (See: 1) It is a moral issue! – ‘People cannot cook’…Chad’s Global Warming Inspired Ban on Charcoal leads to ‘Desperate’ Families! – January 16, 2009 2) Black clergymen protest Robert Redford ‘link his environmentalism to racism’ 3) Poor Kenyans rebel as UK grocery store’s “carbon friendly” policies may stop food exports – 4) African Activist: ‘African life span is lower than it was in U.S. and Europe 100 years ago. But Africans told we shouldn’t develop’ because wealthy Western nations are ‘worried about global warming’: ‘Telling Africans they can’t have electricity and economic development – is immoral; 5) India: ‘It is morally wrong for us to reduce emissions when 40% of Indians do not have access to electricity’ ; 6) Obama Advisor Warren Buffett ‘repeats criticism of cap and trade, saying it would be a huge, regressive tax’) 6) UN Scientist: African Nations Rebelling at ‘measures to use climate change to maintain colonialist master-servant relationship’ – August 27, 2009
Mr. Freedman, would you like some more evidence of “heartless” policies toward the developing world’s poor? Read on:
Flashback 2003: S. African Activist: Poor countries should just say: ‘Go to hell’ to Wealthy Western Nations: ‘If you don’t want us to fill in our wetlands, then you bomb your big cities like Washington, a third of Holland and Rotterdam and so on, and restore them to being swamps’
Flashback 2002: Average American Lifestyle Called “Total Bull—t” by U.S. Environmentalist – Excerpt: ‘If anyone in a developing country looks to the U.S. and wants a lifestyle like the average American–it’s total bull—t!’
Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman: You make it hard to counter all your claims, yet easy to see through them, since you swiftly dismiss the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. IPCC as a “political” entity, rather than the scientific organization that it is. The U.N. sponsors it, but does not control its agenda. Scientists chart its course, not politicians. The IPCC follows one of the — if not the most — rigorous peer-review processes in all of modern science, and it has faced such criticisms before and consistently withstood them on the basis of the quality of its work. Only the Summary for Policymakers, which is a tiny fraction of the organization’s report, must be approved line-by-line by political officials.
Climate Depot Response: The claim that the UN IPCC is a “scientific organization” is beyond the pale. I will allow UN scientists below to respond to your silly assertion that the UN IPCC is a “scientific” organization. Yes, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is not the only report from the UN, but it is the key report that the media and public pays attention to – it is what UN leaders use to tout the “setttled” scientific “evidence.” The IPCC summary is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. You also make the claim that the IPCC follows perhaps “the most rigorous peer-review process in all of modern science.” If the UN IPCC process represents ““the most rigorous peer-review process in all of modern science,” then scientific objectivity in our modern era is truly in a very pathetic state.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about what you claim is “the most peer-review process in all of modern science.” (It is still hard to fathom those words came from Andrew Freedman’s computer!) (Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate EPW committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.'” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman: Your (Climate Depot’s) strategy is to dismiss the IPCC as political, and then swat away the joint statements of the world’s major national academies of sciences and scientific organizations such as the American Geophysical Union etc., which then leaves you in the position of relying on the peer-reviewed academic literature, which you cherry pick to fit your preconceived political notion that is based on an antipathy to government.
Climate Depot Response: The IPCC is political. Once again, just in case you need to have your memory jogged, it has “government” in its title. The “InterGOVERNMENTAL’ Panel on Climate Change.
The statements by the major science groups are purely political statements. Some groups did not even have a vote by governing board members. The media is choosing to ignore the current blowback from member scientists in scientific societies.
Sadly, it is the Washington Post who is ignoring the fact that a crafted statement from a science group and a summary from the UN IPCC does not constitute “settled science.”
Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman: Such reverse-engineered reasoning, in which you start at the desired political outcome and seek scientific evidence to support it, is nothing more than an anti-science and anti-science journalism agenda.
Climate Depot Response: This is simply fluff and spin. Climate Depot is reporting on a major disintegrations from the so-called scientific “consensus” on man-made global warming. Climate Depot, uses direct quotes, specific reports from around the globe, presents the latest peer-reviewed scientific papers and reports on the international outpouring of dissenting scientists. But it appears that because this is “inconvenient” information, the Washington Post is accusing Climate Depot of “cherry picking to fit its preconceived political notion.” Have we reached this point in American journalism now, where a news service (Climate Depot) is being called “anti-science” because it dares to report on challenges to the politically agreed to “science” of man-made global warming. Mr. Freedman, you should think long and hard about your final assertion about science journalism and science. The Washington Post and New York Times and the other organs of the traditional establishment media are dying a slow painful death for one key reason: They have become arms of the state, arms of political powers that be. And in the case of man-made global warming, the mainstream press has become co-opted by UN political leaders and the heads of science organizations who are very politically connected. The saddest outcome of all of this is that science journalists have now degenerated into reporters who “accept” the “consensus.” And these same science journalists embarrass themselves by accusing news outlets who question the alleged “consensus” of being “anti-science.”
The Washington Post’s attempt at insulting Climate Depot’s reporting by labeling it somehow “anti-science,” bears further scrutiny. It is interesting that Freedman chose the phrase “anti-science.”
UK Botanist Dr. David Bellamy used to believe in man-made climate fears, but recently reversed himself after new peer-reviewed studies and data came to light. Here is what Dr. Bellamy had to say in November 2008: “The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe.” (One of the most recent examples of how man-made global warming has degenerated into “anti-science” is this: ‘Find ways to exaggerate’: Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schellling wishes for ‘tornadoes’ and ‘a lot of horrid things’ to convince Americans of global warming threat! – July 19, 2009)
Washington Post’s Andrew Freeman: Climate Depot is ‘actually pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change…”
Climate Depot Response: On the contrary, Mr. Freedman. Climate Depot is pitching a vibrant energy policy that promotes development and expands energy around the globe. The only people “pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change” are the UN and the U.S. Congress. Why else would the Kyoto Protocol not even have a detectable impact on global temps (assuming they were correct on the science ) and it was fully enacted?
It is the U.S. Congress and the “scientifically meaningless” Waxman-Markey bill that even Obama’s EPA admits will not have a measurable impact on global Co2 levels, let alone a detectable impact on global temperatures. The man-made climate fear promoters have been “pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change…” since the movement’s launch in 1988 by consistently promoting purely symbolic “solutions” to global warming. Mr. Freedman, you attempted to tout Congressional or UN carbon trading bills as an “insurance” policy against global warming. But a simple question to ask is: Would you purchase fire insurance on your home that had a huge up front premium for virtually no payout if you home burned down? If you answered YES to such an “insurance” policy, then Congress and the UN has a deal for you with their cap-and-trade legislation.
If we did actually face a man-made climate catastrophe and the “solutions” of the UN and Congress were our only hope, we would all be DOOMED!
Shock: Wash. Post Blames Obama For Failure of Global Warming Movement! President’s ‘mistakes may cost the planet dearly’ – September 1, 2009