The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen experts,' he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
Claims such as 2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous,' the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.'
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia the university of Climategate fame is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK's most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC's co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on Climate scenario development' for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.
#1
This article is typical denialist propaganda; in fact one of the worst cases of outright lying by omission. Mike Hulme is simply being quoted out of context, as a little research will show.
Posted by: Jim C. ||
06/15/2010 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Perhaps Professor Hulme was indeed quoted out of context, Jim C. dear. However, he has a bit of a problem as the head of an institute whose most famous climate researcher has been shown to have invented most of his data out of whole cloth, except where he merely normalized it to reach results not at all supported by what little raw data that can actually be found, having "misplaced" the rest.
And yes, I'm sure that 2,500 of the world's scientists did reach the consensus as claimed. The problem is that so many of them are not working anywhere near the field, and so their opinion is no more valid than is mine, given that I'm a little housewife in the American Midwest, completely lacking an impressive string of letters after my name. No doubt you're aware of the shocking number of key claims had to be repudiated in the latest U.N. report, because the data was either falsified, non-existent, or resulting from transposed digits or operation signs not caught in the proofreading.
I am the child, wife, and friend of scientists, Mr. C., not to mention having worked briefly in the field. I am insulted that such a travesty of the scientific method is paraded in front of us by the "climate change" proponants, never mind that demands that we change our ways and spend funds we as a society do not have based on it.
#3
Oh, PIMF. Let me restate, now that I've calmed down a tad. Perhaps I shouldn't have hit Submit on the previous, for which I apologize.
There is a big difference between "2,500 scientists", most of whom work far from the field in question and whose opinion is therefore no more valid than mine, and "a few dozen experts". It would have been useful had Professor Hulme compared the number of experts who support the IPCC conclusions, and the number of experts in the field who consider the IPCC work to be a disgraceful corruption of science and therefore illegitimate.
As for the IPCC being rendered vulnerable to outside criticism, Professor Hulme and his supporting colleagues have a good deal to worry about beyond an exaggeration of the number of scientists qualified to support the conclusions. There is the concern that they will be prosecuted for taking government funds under false pretenses, for instance, and lose not only their jobs, and their careers, but their very freedom as a result.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/15/2010 16:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Jim C, Global Warming Climate Change is soooo yesterday. Didn't you get the memo? Biodiversity is the new political correctness.
Gee, getting you bed-wetting alarmist on message is harder than herding cats.
The economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a major report for the United Nations will declare this summer.The Stern report on climate change, which was prepared for the UK Treasury and published in 2007, famously claimed that the cost of limiting climate change would be around 1%-2% of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be 5-20 times that figure
#6
To say 2,500 scientists supported the consensus is an outright lie as I have pointed oout for years. We don't know how many of those 2,500 scientists supported the IPCC's conclusions and to what extent they supported them.
However, it is a matter of record that there were over 5,000 objections by participating scientists to the IPCC's conclusions (1st or 2nd report, I don't recall which).
And tipper is correct. The global warming hysteria has caused the worst environmental damage of my lifetime, mostly from insane biofuels policies and the fact agriculture causes far and away the worst environmental damage.
#9
maybe so, since the entire IPCC report and supporting documentation seems to have been created "tongue in cheek"
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/15/2010 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I took Jim C's comment seriously. It was first and not from a regular. It shows how worried the warmists are about the sceptics. Notice that he has not returned. Troll. They are on the run and they know it.
Is King Abdullah aiming this at the junior and senior princes who've been such large donors to Al Qaeda and other groups?
When terrorists in the Middle East attack innocent civilians, observers in the West often ask a pained question: Where's the outrage in the Muslim world? Why don't Islamic religious authorities speak out more forcefully against the terrorists and their wealthy financiers?
It remains a potent issue: Terrorism has damaged the Islamic world far more than the West, and too many Muslims have been cowed and silent. But a powerful and so far largely unreported denunciation of terrorism emerged last month from Saudi Arabia's top religious leadership, known as the Council of Senior Ulema.
The Saudi fatwa is a tough condemnation of terror, and of the underground network that finances it. It has impressed senior U.S. military commanders and intelligence officers, who were initially surprised when it came out. One sent me a translation of the fatwa, and Saudi officials provided some helpful background.
"There is no gray area here," said a senior Saudi official. "Once it has come out like this, from the most senior religious body in the kingdom, it's hard for a lesser religious authority to justify violence."
The fatwa begins with a clear definition of terrorism, which it calls "a crime aiming at destabilizing security" by attacking people or property, public or private. The document goes on to list examples of this criminal activity: "blowing up of dwellings, schools, hospitals, factories, bridges, airplanes (including hijacking), oil and pipelines." It doesn't mention any geographical area where such actions might be permissible.
Do non-Muslims count as people? Do Israelis? How about non-Saudis? Does this apply only to the territory of Saudi Arabia, to Dar al Islam, to Dar al Harb?
What's striking is that the fatwa specifically attacks financing of terrorism. The Muslim religious council said it "regards the financing of such terrorist acts as a form of complicity to those acts ... to bring a conduit for sustaining and spreading of such evil acts."
The fatwa goes on: "The financier of terrorism is more often than not more dangerous than the actual terrorist, since without funds, schemes fail and things do not take place," said Fahd Al-Majid, the secretary-general of the Senior Ulema Council, in a May 23 interview with Asharq al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic daily.
Given the role that wealthy Saudis have played in financing radical Islamic groups in the past, the fatwa has a significant potential impact. For Muslims in the kingdom, it has the force of law and it will provide a strong religious and legal backing for Saudi and other Arab security services as they track terrorist networks.
It will be harder, too, for renegade clerics to issue rival fatwas that contradict the Saudi Ulema. The signatories are guardians of the conservative Wahhabi school of Islam, which to observers has sometimes seemed to sympathize with the Muslim extremists. The fatwa, dated April 12 but issued publicly in May, was approved unanimously by the 19 members of the council. To implement the fatwa, the Saudi Shura council is drafting a counterterrorism finance law.
Saudi sources say that King Abdullah initiated the process that led to the fatwa, by asking for a ruling on terrorist financing. His push on the issue contrasts with the royal family's traditional wariness of challenging or offending the clerical establishment, on which its legitimacy rests.
What matters in Saudi Arabia and most other Muslim countries is what its political and religious leaders say to their own people, in Arabic. By that measure, there's a new voice for moderation coming from the Muslim clerical establishment.
It's Saudi Arabia. Let's not forget the scare quotes around "moderation", given that the fatwa doesn't demand a change in the curriculum to at least tone down the hatred for unbelievers -- especially Jews -- and the call to jihad.
Citing evidence from the Koran and the Hadith, the fatwa stipulates that funding terrorism is forbidden not only in Muslim countries but everywhere, and that those who aid terrorism are just as culpable as those who actually carry it out. The fatwa sets a precedent by setting out a legal definition of terrorism, calling it a crime aimed at harming property and lives by targeting buildings and facilities, hijacking airplanes, etc. However, the fatwa does not specify the penalty for perpetrating these crimes.
According to the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia intends to use the fatwa as a legal basis for fighting domestic terrorism, and also intends to promote international laws against the funding of terrorism and to submit initiatives on the matter at international forums.[1]
#1
here is the next to last bit of the Fatwa per Memri),
"...We beseech Allah to [bless] this good country of Saudi Arabia, and all the Muslim lands, with righteousness, justice, providence and unity, and to improve the state of mankind as a whole, so as to carry out justice and spread righteousness."
Key point is that whatever else may be in this, this section seems to allow continued terrorism (or as they call it "active resistance") in non Muslim lands.
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/15/2010 0:30 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Citing evidence from the Koran and the Hadith, the fatwa stipulates that funding terrorism is forbidden not only in Muslim countries but everywhere, and that those who aid terrorism are just as culpable as those who actually carry it out.
Seems like I've heard that sometime before...maybe in 2001.
Analysts at the French financial group AXA see a serious likelihood that the eurozone will break in half or disintegrate, dismissing Europe's 750bn (£623bn) rescue package for Club Med debtors as a stop-gap measure that misdiagnoses the problem.
#3
Greece is almost entirely shut out of the capital markets. Private investors are believed to have offloaded 25bn of Greek debt on to the ECB as it steps in to shore up the market, shifting the credit risk on to tax payers.
These taxpayer bailouts of reckless lenders will only end when governments default on the debt they have taken on to pay for the bailouts (or hyper-inflation).
#4
DRUDGEREPORT > NIGHTMARE VISION FOR EUROPE [Eurozone = EZ] AS EU CHIEF [Jose Barraso] WARNS DEMOCRACY COULD DISAPPEAR/COLLAPSE IN GREECE, SPAIN, + PORTUGAL, due to Poor Economy-induced LOCAL REVOLUTIONS OR POPULAR UPRISINGS.
and
* CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > BELGIUM MAY SPLIT INTO TWO COUNTRIES? | SEPARATIST PARTY WINS BIG IN BELGIAN ELECTION.
#5
PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > [UK] MUSLIM PROTESTERS BRAND WAR HEROES [returning UK soldiers] AS "MURDERERS" [ + GTH, "Butchers, etc. obscenities] AS HOMECOMING PARADE TURNS VIOLENT.
"MUSLIMS AGZ THE CRUSAGE" Group, versus "ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE" Group + locals.
Posted by: ed ||
06/15/2010 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Admitting you were wrong is the first step towards wisdom and changing your life. Mistakes aren't a bad thing as long as you learn from them. We will see what Mr. Journalist learned.
Posted by: No I am The Other Beldar ||
06/15/2010 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Now go commit seppuku to atone for your sins.
And take your hopey-changey voting friends with you.
OK, we don't (necessarily) want you to kill yourselves in penance. But it would be nice to see something like a Million Moron March in Washington where you all stood together and shouted "What were we thinking?"
#7
From the author blurb: Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999.
He did not/could not vote in the last election because he was not an American citizen. As a member of the European parliament, his opinion pieces in the Telegraph influenced no one who could vote in the last election, either; he merely provided justifications for those who already believed that Barack Obama would be the first European president of America.
And he still likes everything about President Obama except his domestic fiscal policy.
#9
A lot of people bought the Yugo thinking it was a Rolls Royce. There is more buyer's remorse, I suspect, than people still believing in the b*llsh!t hopey-changy thing that was part of the original sale.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
