Since my blog has moved, I can no longer use Bloggers "Follower" gadget. If you are a part of NetWorked blogs, which includes a Facebook page, you can follow through NetworkedBlogs, and I can follow you back. Please come to my new blog - MaggiesNotebook.com, see the NetworkedBlogs widget in the right sidebar and click follow. I will follow back.
"I learned that in extreme situations when human lives and dignity are at state, neutrality is a sin. It helps the killers, not the victims." Elie Wiesel, Holocaust Survivor who lost his family in the Holocaust - Nobel Prize Author
Socialism - Liberalism Quotation
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." – Norman Thomas
The U.N. climate panel, the IPCC has made things up and ignored other "things,"...again. This time, the IPCC claimed tourism had been down significantly due to wildfires - "millions of dollars," of losses according to this decidedly unscientific panel.
Wildfires
The source used by the IPCC was British Columbia Tourism newsletter, which said:
It is possible that the stronger performance of regions far from the fires is due to travellers who changed their plans to visit these regions instead of those heavily affected by the forest fires.
Obviously, the newsletter was not saying that tourism was down, but that tourism in the area of the forest fires had simply moved to regions farther away from the fires.
ClimateQuotes has been following the story for awhile now, and has all the reference links, including spelling errors made by the "scientists." ClimateQuotes cites the exact IPCC sections and the discussion that happened around the wildfires and tourism. The IPCC claims are incorrect and the bottom line is, they knew it and refused to do anything about it.
Al Gore recently lamented that we can't wish away climate change just because some inaccuracies have been found - referring to the full blown ClimateGate scandal sweeping the entire globe. The climate-magnet says there are "at least two" oopsees! in ClimateGate, just for full disclosure, I suppose. But, Al, Al, Al, there are so many more than two, and they aren't mistakes. They are purposeful manipulations of data, and the inclusion of unsupported stats - meaning no peer review. What a piece of work you are; you make Charlie Rangel's ethics look laudable.
See a video below.
Al Gore
In his New York Times editorial, Gore said no matter ClimateGate, we still face "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventative measures to protect human civilization...." Of course we do (eye roll). What a diva.
He lashed out at America, and our reluctance to roll over on carbon emission regulations. We are guilty of "exploitive behavior in the marketplace," he said, and we label those trying to fix our behavior, and make the reforms, "socialists. Mr. Gore is distressed.
Our "rule of law as an instrument of human redemption" is at stake, he says. We have a "hubris of market fundamentalism." That hubris led to the "democracy sphere" being pummeled by "the market sphere." Damn capitalism!
Mr. Gore's message goes far beyond climate change. Anyone thinking God wasn't looking our for this country in the Gore-Bush election should think again (don't ask me where God was looking in November 2008).
But Gore buys carbon offsets to cover his footprint. In other words, he pays some amount figured to value a ton of carbon emissions, and whomever he buys the carbon offset (carbon credit) from, pays young boys in third world countries to plant trees in that amount, or something similar. If the trees die, are burned off, plowed under, or the money for trees magically ends up in someone's pocket, nothing is offsetting anything.
Under the radar is Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). While on the Board of the charitable Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama helped award more than $1 million in grants to test the viability of a carbon credit market, and then to launch the privately-owned concern. Gore's partner, Maurice Strong, (more about him a few paragraphs down) is on the Board of CCX. Obama's Cap and Trade legislation will likely be a boon to CCX. Maybe it's a Chicago-thing.
...if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that’s almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore [and Maurice Strong] front and center.
But here's the kicker. Gore really is on the cutting edge of carbon emissions, because he buys his carbon credits from his own company, Generation Investment Management (GIM)...but it is how he buys the credits from himself that is interesting, and it comes down to this: he buys stock in his own company, and the company loans money to other wealthy individuals or company's who are investing in green technology of some kind. And Gore and company's stock conceivably rises and the profits roll in. More about this below.
In his New York Times op-ed, Gore "wishes" man-made global warming was an illusion - and of course, it is just that, but you and I don't have the intelligence to know it, and to realize that this industry is his personal cash cow...he was the first, and he has the profile.
In the op-ed:
1) Gore admits the U.N. climate change panel, the IPCC, published a "flawed" "over-estimate" of the melting rate of Himayalan glaciers. But it was not an "over-estimate," or an "exaggeration," as Gore says. It was a magazine interview with one climate scientist - no evidence to support the claim, and zero evidence cited.
Yet, the IPCC treated Dr. Syed Hasnain's comments as science and published them under protests from other experts in the filed of glacierology.
Now it appears that conflict of interest charges are about to go to a
higher level.
The “IPCC 2035 glacier error” has been used to solicit funds for new
projects, and guess where the money goes?
This PDF File is from the EU’s HighNoon
website, and shows how the EU set up a project to
research the ‘rapid retreat’ of glaciers in the Himalayas based on the
bogus IPCC report. Some of the EU taxpayers’ money put into this
project has gone to TERI, which is run by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.
2) Gore regrets the inaccurate information about the Netherlands - which raised the ire of Dutch officials, who said the IPCC's vaunted 2007 report on climate change may "invalidate all claims that the last decades were the hottest ever...."
3) He says it is "worth noting" that scientists "probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century," whatever the word "underestimated" means to him. The oceans are not rising. In 2008, soon-to-be president, Barack Obama said "this was the moment the oceans began to slow...., but no, the oceans never began to rise. The claims of rising oceans have been withdrawn. Nature Magazine published the article making the claims, and now, for the first ever, have retracted the data.
4) Gore mentions the "stolen" e-mail messages from the U.K.'s University of East Anglia, which showed that all manner of data had been manipulated to show false results. After many ignored Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for certain data controlled by leading scientist, Phil Jones, (Gore calls the requests "an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics) - it appears someone on the inside leaked the telling emails. Gore says Jones and his buddies "may not have adequately followed the requirements of the FOIA" laws. Right. What about the inaccurate data and the efforts to "hide the decline." And then there's the Fudge Factor. Gore doesn't go there.
But keep in mind that Chris Horner, a writer and researcher, has been forced to sue NASA - right here in the U.S., not the U.K., for copies of warming data that he suspects is cooked by the NASA scientist. And this unfortunate quote from Hansen surfaced today - ...a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperature or rainfall in the U.S. over that entire period [going back nearly 100 years].
So, Gore himself mentions five mistakes, but fails to mention theses:
1) Mountain ice data in the Andes, Alps and in Africa has been discredited. This time, the IPCC accepted a geography student's dissertation as gospel and published it, and then accepted further data from a mountain climber. Both were considered "authoritative assessment,"by the IPCC. They were no such thing.
2) The emails from University of East Anglia (UEA) showed deception in numerous areas, not just one. One of import is American Michael Mann's "hockey stick graph," which omitted the period of Medieval Warming to show more recent warming as the warmest ever. That little adventure by Phil Jones and Michael Mann is known as "hide the decline," taken from an email between the two men. It wasn't a mistake. It was manipulation and deception.
4) The media has been at the heart of every piece of bogus reporting. No challenges...just adoration for these imperious scientists with one goal, to keep the funds flowing in their direction. Where is the vetting from the media? If they are not capable of ferreting out untruths, they have also refused to print dissenting viewpoints. When the hacked emails were made public, no one reported it but the Brits, conservative blogs and FOXNews. From Tom Bethell, The American Spectator:
Here, the betrayers of science have found that public opinion is easily manipulated, especially with press cooperation. The principles that, starting in the 17th century, turned science into one of the great human enterprises can be subverted. Most Americans—most people in the world—know so little about these things that the methods of science can be twisted with hardly anyone noticing.
Today, many scientists and opinion leaders think that if an elite consensus in favor of certain “policies” can be generated, the underlying science must be right. The corrupt system of “peer review” will reliably exclude dissenters, and if the naysayers continue making themselves heard they will be called denialists, tools of right-wing talk radio, etc.
5) Weather data from China was manipulated, and an American scientist at the University of Albany, Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang was a Jones collaborator.
Al Gore is the Chairman of the Board of Alliance for Climate Protection, and Chairman of Generation Investment Management (GIM). Gore and his silent partner, Maurice Strong, a former senior adviser to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, got their groove on back in 1995. Gore, in a speech, trumpeted the exceptional work of Massachusetts-based Molten Metal Technology, Inc. (MMTI). Seems they invented a process for recycling metals from waste in.
In his speech, he failed to note that Strong owned MMTI, along with other close associates like his former top Senate aide, Peter Knight, who is the President of GIM (read about Knight below), and failed to mention that MMTI received in excess of $25 million in Department of Energy grants, but completely failed to prove that their methodology - how to recycle metals - actually worked. Nevermind. They would receive another $8 million in federal funds.
Gore's stock in MMTI soared. When the DOE began to catch on, and Strong and Gore knew that their golden goose had laid the last of its golden eggs, they sold off over $15 million in shares at the high price - then a few days later, quietly on a Sunday, announced the lethal news and left shareholders watching the stock plummet to $5.00 a share from $35.00. Lawsuits followed.
Now about top aide, former lobbyist, former Bill Clinton campaign manager, and current president of MMTI: An investigation was underway to determine how a gift of stock worth $20,000 from MMTI ended up in Peter Knight's son's ownership. Janet Reno came along and shut-down the look-see. It's convoluted but the bottom line is, Franklin Haney, III, the chairman of MMTI, was indicted on 42 counts charging him with making illegal donations to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign.
Henry Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO, is Gore's co-founder at Generation Investment Management (GIM). Other GIM co-founders also have a background with Goldman Sach.
From Human Events (linked below and a few paragraphs up):
...as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports
An Arkansas company, Winrock International, has an employee sitting on the IPCC panel. Winrock provides "carbon-advisory services."
Winrock has received government grants from the EPA, USAID and the Departments of Labor, State and Commerce, as well as from the Nature Conservancy (whose chairman used to be Henry Paulson).
I'll end with another quote from Human Events - October 2007:
The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore’s carbon-trading enterprise.
The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange.
Thanks to Scotty Starnes Blog for the video reminding us that we cannot control Mother Nature.
In June 2008, the U.S. Senate released a report saying that of the 13 "populations" of polar bears, all were "stable" or "increasing," and none were affected by a diminishing population.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service put Polar Bears on the threatened species list one month prior to the Senate report. See a video below.
Polar Bears surviving in the lap of luxury
Even if we did have global warming going on, Polar Bears have been around for "at least 100,000 years and have already lived through a period warmer than the present.
The polar bear is
basically a brown bear that decided some time ago that it would be
easier to feed on seals on the ice. So long as there are seals, there
are going to be polar bears.
A Canadian biologist, Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a wildlife researcher in the Artic Nunavut:
Mama Polar Bear and Baby
Of the 13 populations of
polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are
not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor
said. “It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25
years based on media-assisted hysteria.”
ClimateGate goes back to early 2008. This from Dr. Scott Armstrong (Whorton School at Univ. of Pennsylvania):
The study analyzed the
methodology behind key polar bear population prediction and found that
one of the two key reports in support of listing the bears had
“extrapolated nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only
five years data - and data for these years were of doubtful validity.”
Biologist Josef Reicholf, head of the Vertebrates Department at the National Zoological Collection in Munich, Germany:
In warmer regions it takes
far less effort to ensure survival,” Reichholf said. “How did the polar
bear survive the last warm period? … Look at the polar bear’s close
relative, the brown bear. It is found across a broad geographic region,
ranging from Europe across the Near East and North Asia, to Canada and
the United States. Whether bears survive will depend on human beings,
not the climate.
Dennis Compayre, a Polar Bear expert, has studied the bears for almost 30 years in their natural habitat:
I tell you there are as
many bears here now as there were when I was a kid,” Compayre said.
“Churchill [in Northern Canada] is full of these scientists going on
about vanishing bears and thinner bears. They come here preaching doom,
but I question whether some of them really have the bears’ best
interests at heart.”
Dr. David Bellamy, Botanist and famed UK environmental campaigner:
Why scare the families of
the world with tales that polar bears are heading for extinction when
there is good evidence that there are now twice as many of these iconic
animals, most doing well in the Arctic than there were 20 years ago?”
Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set
up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species
Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary
report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by
man-made global warming.
...one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay
away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global
warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of
polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as
both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006
he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from
decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19
different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum
levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30
years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is
dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents
bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of
winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice,
supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the
top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The
famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg
was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an
emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the
photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska
coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global
warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were
standing on made such a striking image.
Dr. Taylor signed the Manhattan Declaration, a statement by 500 scientists stating that climate changes are not due to C02, but are natural - occurring from changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents.
The point is, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has silenced the many, many voices of experts. We know now, that the IPCC members are certainly not experts and their interest is monetary.
One last thought: Some of the scientists quote above do not dispute global warming from natural causes. They do dispute man-made global warming. I wonder what they think, now that they know, that the world's weather monitoring stations have been manipulated to show warming, and some stations in very cold areas, Siberia and Artic regions, have been dismantled.
You will love this video below of a mother polar bear and her cubs. Beautiful scenery - watch them slide down snowy hillsides and then disappear into a snowy hole.
Yet another counterfeit claim in the UN's IPCC 2007 report on climate change, now known to be ClimateGate, and it just may "invalidate all claims that the last decades were the hottest ever," said a Dutch official. The IPCC report is used to make national climate policy in the Netherlands, and at least one error has Dutch officials enraged. In the US American researchers are also pointing out that satellite weather stations show the earth's temperature cooling for the last 9 years.
The IPCC report claimed that 55 percent of the Netherlands are below sea level, when the Dutch say only 20 percent meets that criteria:
The incorrect figures which date back to 2007 were revealed on Wednesday by the weekly Vrij Nederland.
The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency told reporters that the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) added together two
figures supplied by the agency: the area of the Netherlands which is
below sea-level and the area which is susceptible to flooding. In fact,
these areas overlap, so the figures should not have been combined to
produce the 55 percent quoted by the IPCC.
We have to ask how so many data points in the United Nation's work can be so wrong. The answer seems to be that officials simply lie. Their deception is extraordinary, but then the money they receive for proving global warming is also extraordinary:
Questions are being asked on a broader scale too about
climate-change data. US researchers Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts,
quoted in Dutch daily De Telegraaf, say the perceived global temperature rise may be an result of changes in the measuring methods.
There used to be 6,000 measuring posts, they say, but now there are
just 1,500. A number of weather stations in colder areas like Siberia
and the Arctic were dismantled, while the remaining stations were in
more moderate zones. As a consequence, data from colder areas was no
longer used in the calculations.
Satellite weather stations have reported the temperature of the earth has actually fallen slightly since 2001, but "earth-based" weather stations, where the hand of man can manipulate as he pleases, has reported increased warming.
Questions are being asked on a broader scale too about
climate-change data. US researchers Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts,
quoted in Dutch daily De Telegraaf, say the perceived global temperature rise may be an result of changes in the measuring methods.
There used to be 6,000 measuring posts, they say, but now there are
just 1,500. A number of weather stations in colder areas like Siberia
and the Arctic were dismantled, while the remaining stations were in
more moderate zones. As a consequence, data from colder areas was no
longer used in the calculations.
This time, we go to data for mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa, having already thoroughly discredited data on the Himalayans. Our source today is a geography student's dissertation for a Masters equivalent in Switzerland, and a mountain climbing magazine article written with anecdotal data from "mountaineers." The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) liked what it read, and decided to use them both as "authoratative assessment[s] of scientific evidence on climate change." Update see new GlacierGate video below.
But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this
information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that
research published in scientific journals must undergo....
Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in
mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their
axes and crampons.
Recently, it was revealed the IPCC used "unsubstantiated" data on the Himalayans, some coming from the casual comments of an Indian scientist, and some coming from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The WWF is an advocacy group and use of such data is forbidden for the supposedly, strictly regulated science data needed to prove that the earth is warming. Perhaps you've noticed the WWF ads on television recently on the declining numbers of polar bears (contrary to the opinion of many, many experts).
WWF data was also used to illustrate "reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest," and that data was borrowed from an article in the journal Nature.
Rajendra Pauchari, the Director of the IPCC, cannot be shamed. There are calls for his resignation, but he is resisting.
Take a minute for a few laughs and watch the video below: GlacierGate set to the popular Hitler videos making the rounds. Thanks to reader Mr. Xyz.
The lies and deceptions pile on, as Dr. Murai Lal admits unverified data was included in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. No only was the date unverified, but it was included after protests from other experts in the field of glacierology.
Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the
melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to
withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.
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.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey
literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it
was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by
any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to
which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
Another glacier expert tried to tried to raise a warning flag last year:
Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in
Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said
the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt
by a factor of about 25.
‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.
But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It
doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going
to help solve it.’
...an authoritative report published last November by the Indian
government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited,
especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.'
Rajenda Pachauri, the UN's Chairman of the IPCC called the November report mentioned above "voodoo science." In other words, he said the Indian government had no credibility. Now, Pachauri has been forced to apologize for claiming the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. Did he apologize for including information to exert "political pressure" on the world? No. He blamed Dr. Lal who denied any culpability.
The director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Benny Peiser, said the IPCC's "review process" is "skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments."
Environmentalist Alton Byers said the panel’s credibility had been
damaged. ‘They’ve done sloppy work,’ he said. ‘We need better research
on the ground, not unreliable predictions derived from computer models.’
The following links provide more on climate change fraud at the UN and around the world:
FAIR USE: This blog may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner or may be authorized or licensed for publication at this site only. Permission to copy, republish or reproduce such material must be obtained from the original copyright owner.
Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Important Notice
Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP. Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited. The fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
![Twitter](<a href="http://www.twitter.com/maggiesnotebook"><img src="http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/follow_me-b.png" alt="Follow maggiesnotebook on Twitter"/></a>){kind=small}
