UN IPCC faked scary financial costs of climate disasters: "It turns out the graph [part of a Nobel Prize winning report] was, in fact, wholly invented by the authors of the IPCC report. (See the graph at the bottom of page 4 here. Read more about this ‘mystery graph’ here.)"...
- Incitement of hatred and accusations of mass murder via 'climate crime' were easy to come by:
------------------------------
4/10/12, "Disasters and the IPCC," No Frakking Consensus, D. Laframboise
"Will a load-of-nonsense IPCC press release be corrected?
A little more than two years ago the UK’s Sunday Times ran a headline that read: UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters. (A screenshot may be seen here. The full text of the article is backed up here.)
The very next day, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a press release. It accused the newspaper of running “a misleading and baseless story” which it further characterized as “a baseless attack” on a section of its 2007 report.
The section in dispute dealt with the question of whether an increase in the financial costs associated with natural disasters can be blamed on human-induced climate change. The vast majority of published scientific literature rejects this idea. It finds that the increased costs associated with hurricanes, for example, can instead be explained by the fact that more people now live in hurricane-prone areas – and that their houses are larger and therefore cost more to repair.
According to the IPCC’s press release, its 2007 report is correct and nothing is amiss:
Yesterday Roger Pielke Jr. – an environmental studies professor who specializes in natural disaster research – took another look at that press release. He’s familiar with this controversy because the single paper on which the IPCC relied to make the case that climate change can be linked to increasing disaster costs was prepared for a workshop he helped organize.The tone is balanced, and the section contains many important qualifiers. In writing, reviewing, and editing this section, IPCC procedures were carefully followed…
With the benefit of two years of hindsight, Pielke’s assessment is a harsh one:
This means that the IPCC relied heavily on a non-peer-reviewed, grey literature, pre-publication version of a paper to support a claim that the vast bulk of published research contradicts. When that paper was finally publishedWe now know that the “study” that was cited by the IPCC (a white paper from a workshop that I had organized) did not contain any analysis of trends…When the miscited paper actually did appear in the [published] literature
- it said this:
“We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.”
- it didn’t say what the IPCC says it does.
Despite chairman Rajendra Pachauri’s solemn declaration that his organization’s 2007 report “was based on scientific studies completed before January 2006,” this paper didn’t see the light of day until May 2006 –
- and wasn’t published until two years afterward.
Adding another layer of notoriety to this matter, the IPCC report includes a graph it attributes to this same paper. But
- that graph didn’t appear in the 2006 version of that document.
- Nor did it appear in the 2008 version.
It turns out the graph was, in fact, wholly invented by the authors of the IPCC report. (See the graph at the bottom of page 4 here. Read more about this ‘mystery graph’ here.)
In Pielke’s view, it is the IPCC’s press release (which remains on its website) that is profoundly inaccurate. He thinks that, if this organization wants to be considered a dependable source of information, the release needs to be corrected.
In his words:
The IPCC did not follow its procedures for citing grey literature, for following its own deadline for publications, for proper citation of source material and included a graph that cannot be found in any literature anywhere. The IPCC press release was thus wrong again – the procedures were ignored, not “carefully followed.”
How many years will it take the IPCC to set the record straight – to admit that the exact opposite of its version of events is closer to the truth?
The rules were not properly followed. And it was the press release itself that amounted to
- a “baseless attack” – against
- a factually correct newspaper article.
Read Pielke’s full blog post here".
--------------------------
------------------------------
1/24/10, "UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters," TimesOnlineUK by Jonathan Leake
"THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to
- an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters
- such as hurricanes and floods.
It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny —
- and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.
- has since become embedded in political and public debate.
It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations
- blamed for creating the most emissions.
such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming.
- Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."
The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.
The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".
It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming
- and cited the unpublished report, saying:
"One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."
The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim
- had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
- Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month.
It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.
- The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn."...
-----------------------------------
Here's some global warming sales promotion by state-owned BBC (helped by pals in the US) and its employee Richard Black and the picture they chose to go with their article timed for the opening of the 2009 Copenhagen climate 'summit.' Instead of blaming corrupt African dictators, the corrupt UN, or hand-chopping Muslims, you're invited to think the US (mainly) is guilty of mass murder and war. Both the BBC article and the report is was based on were such jokes that on Sept. 6, 2010, another BBC article (posted below by Mark Kinver) and PNAS study came out discrediting the earlier one but the damage was done. (Obama added fuel to the fire at Copenhagen and elsewhere saying American behavior was unfair and unacceptable).
Thousands of people expected a US president to fly in, apologize for global warming done by the greedy US, and turn over the paychecks of the few remaining Americans who have jobs.Daily Beast: "Angry delegates from small developing countries have wanted an apology since the talks began....The only real plea small countries made this week was “Show us the money.”"...(ie, give all the output of US workers' efforts to the UN).
ap picture from bbc article. Anyone would want to help this person, but the BBC wants this picture to expedite transfer of billions of US tax dollars to the UN. The UN may or may not give the money to an African dictator but in any case it will not reach the suffering.
11/24/2009, "Climate 'is a major cause' of conflict in Africa," BBC, Richard Black
"Climate has been a major driver of armed conflict in Africa, research shows - and future warming is
- likely to increase the number of deaths from war.
US researchers found that across the continent, conflict was about 50% more likely in unusually warm years.
Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), they suggest
- strife arises
- when the food supply is scarce in warm conditions.
Climatic factors have been cited as a reason for several recent conflicts.
One is the fighting in Darfur in Sudan that according to UN figures has killed 200,000 people
- and forced two million more from their homes."...
======================
Sudanese diplomat below said failure to give him 'climate' money amounted to 'holocaust:'
12/19/2009, Above Sudanese diplomat di-aping at Copenhagen global warmingconference saying that
- lack of climate 'financing' would lead to
- 'holocaust' and incineration in Africa.
Distraught African diplomat at Copenhagen global warming conference, 12/19/09, berlingske.
- "The Darfur conflict in Sudan was linked to climate shifts'." top, getty via BBC
--------------------------------------------
12/12/09, "Copenhagen protest turns violent, hundreds arrested," Huffington Post
Who paid for the police overtime, repairs and cleanup?
------------------------------
BBC contacted authors of Nov. 2009 flawed PNAS study but so far had "yet to receive a response."
9/6/10, "Climate shifts 'not to blame' for African civil wars," BBC, by Mark Kinver
"Climate change is not responsible for civil wars in Africa, a study suggests.It challenges previous assumptions that environmental disasters, such as drought and prolonged heat waves, had played a part in triggering unrest.
- Instead, it says, traditional factors - such as poverty and social tensions - were often the main factors behind the outbreak of conflicts.
The findings have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in the United States.
"Climate variability in Africa does not seem to have a significant impact on the risk of civil war," said author
- Halvard Buhaug, senior researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo's (Prio) Centre for the Study of Civil War....
He added that it was not too hard to find examples of where
- politicians were publicly making the link
- between the projected impact of climate change and the associated security risks.
Margaret Beckett, when she held the post of British Foreign Secretary,
- tabled a debate on climate change at the UN Security Council in 2007.
Ahead of the gathering, the British delegation circulated a document that warned of "major changes to the world's physical landmass during this century", which
- would trigger border and maritime disputes.
In his paper, Dr Buhaug questioned the findings of research that appeared in PNAS in November last year.
The 2009 paper suggested that climate had been a major driver of armed conflict in Africa, and that future warming
- was likely to increase the number of deaths from war.
US researchers found that across the continent, conflict was about 50% more likely in unusually warm years....
- "My article points to the fact that there has been
too much emphasis on single definitions of conflict and single definitions of climate.
"Even if you found that conflict, defined in a particular way, appeared to be associated with climate,
- if you applied a number of complementary measures - which you should do in order to determine the robustness of the apparent connection -
then you would find, in almost all cases,
- the two were actually unrelated."
Dr Buhaug explained that there were a variety of ways to define what constituted a civil war....
- "I tried quite a few different and complementary definitions of conflict," said Dr Buhaug.
- and historic political and economic instability.
"These factors seemed to matter, not so when it came to climate variability," he observed....
When it came to politicians and policymakers, many of the adopted positions were
- "speculative", he added....
He also said that the end of the Cold War also seemed to have had a impact on civil unrest in African nations.
"You did see a shift in the focus of quite a few conflicts during the 1990s, when the ending of
- the supply of arms saw some groups lay down their arms, while others sought alternative forms of funding,
- such as diamonds."
However, he concluded, the uncertainty about the link between conflict and climate did not mean that global climate mitigation and adaptation measures did not matter.
"Targeted climate adaptation initiatives, such as those outlined in various UN (strategies), can have significant positive implications- for social well-being and human security.
"But these initiatives should not be considered a replacement for traditional peace-building strategies....
- BBC News has approached a number of co-authors on the PNAS November 2009 paper, but we have yet to receive a response."
Hillary Clinton in Copenhagen, ap - P.S. Suffering people in Africa and elsewhere are in desperate need of help but won't get it as long as corrupt leaders in the US, UN and Africa put themselves first. ed.
2007, "Security Council takes on global warming," BBC
12/8/09, "Blindfolds are hiding the crucial issues at Copenhagen," UK Telegraph, Cristopher Booker
Munich Re global warming cash. Who's going to stop them?
11/10/10, "Munich Re, a leading corporate proponent of catastrophic warming, is again cited for blatant falsehoods," from C3Headlines.com
- scientific truth and empirical evidence.
- Munich Re is such a corporation.
- go with bogus falsehoods
- despite their
- own in-house scientists concluding differently.
In terms of actual evidence there is none that supports the lying-hype of Munich Re."
Reference, 11/10/10: "Mixed messages from Munich Re," by Roger Pielke, Jr.
===========================
Insurance, Reinsurance, CO2 trading, and global warming cash. Greenpeace profiteer Jeremy Leggett started this angle in 1992.
Munich Re asked others to live up to Rio.
7/24/09, "Insurance and reinsurance in a changing climate," 'Insurance and response to climate change risks,' EOEarth.org, Lead authors The Canada Institute of the Woodrow, Virginia Haufler
"Most insurers, particularly American ones, have been reluctant until recently to link their own business to the risks of climate change. Climate activists recognized in the early 1990s that the insurance sector would be significantly affected by natural disasters and should have an interest in preventing climate change. It has taken time, but insurers are finally recognizing the potential threat to their business posed by changing weather patterns. They have been prodded to act by a series of extreme weather events, increasing scientific evidence, targeting by climate change activists, changes in government policy, and by the early acceptance by major international reinsurers of the need to act...
Jeremy Leggett of Greenpeace International was one of the first to make the link between insurance losses and global warming. In 1992, he began to urge the insurance industry to take action against global warming, making numerous presentations at industry conferences. He published a widely noticed article citing those earlier insurance studies and linking their results to climate change in an effort to mobilize insurers."...
=================
12/18/09, "Grading Obama's Copenhagen Speech," Newsweek, Daily Beast, Daniel Stone
via Tom Nelson
No comments:
Post a Comment