Source:  UK Mail

• Tree ring study gives first accurate climate reading back to 138BC
• World has been slowly cooling for 2,000 years
• World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now
• Study of semi-fossilised trees in Finland

Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.

It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia. (more…)

Source:  Dennis Avery

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/bigs/nssl0123.jpg

Source:  Tom Nelson Blog

 Don’t miss this devastating criticism of the IPCC from a guy who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports: “I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)…I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes”

Source: No frakking consensus

Pachauri, who has filled those shoes since 2002, is far from circumspect. If it was suddenly discovered, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that global climate change is 99.9% due to natural factors, nothing about his demeanor suggests Pachauri would a) believe such a finding or b) take pleasure in announcing it.We’re told the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body that conducts objective scientific assessments. But if that were the case there’s no way Rajendra Pachauri would be its chairman.

In other words, nothing about this man suggests genuine scientific impartiality. (more…)

Source:  The Global Warming Policy Foundation

CCNet – 3 November 2011

The Climate Policy Network

 New Research Reveals IPCC In Bed With Green Lobbies

A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. –Perry Chiaramonte, Fox News, 2 November 2011 (more…)

Source:  NFC

I’ve been writing about how the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) systematically recruited scientists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to join its own, parallel, panel. Between 2004 and 2008 the WWF signed-up 130 scientists – most of whom, it said, were members of the IPCC (please see my earlier posts here, here, and here).

The fact that these scientists were incapable of understanding that it was wildly improper to join an organization with a climate change axe to grind at the same time that they were supposed to be making careful, impartial, objective decisions about climate change tells us that advanced degrees aren’t everything.

All the education in the world is no substitute for good judgment. And, sooner or later, the chickens do come home to roost. (more…)

Source:  NFC

There was a time when I believed the marketing spin. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was comprised of the world’s top scientists. These men and women were providing a service to humanity. Rather than golfing or sailing they were volunteering their weekends. Objectively assessing the available scientific evidence, they were writing careful, impartial reports on whose integrity we could all depend.

But that was before I did some basic fact-checking. Before I discovered that this organization is riddled with activists. (more…)

Source: NFC

October 1, 2011

In a sensible universe, the list that appears below would be sufficient to vaporize the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – now and forever, once and for all.

Beginning in 2004 (around the time that work was beginning on the 2007 Climate Bible) the activist World Wildlife Fund (WWF) systematically began recruiting IPCC scientists. By late 2008 it says it had persuaded 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively from” the IPCC to join its parallel initiative called the Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel.

The scientists whose names appear below have not only been examining one of the world’s most important questions for the IPCC. They have a documented, public relationship with professional lobbyists who have a strong interest in influencing this matter. (For readers who are just tuning in, the WWF believes it is “nearly impossible to overstate” the threat posed by climate change – see here, backup link here.)

The people on the list below either played some role in the 2007 Climate Bible or are helping to write the next IPCC report which is expected to be completed in 2013. In many cases, they’re doing dual duty.

On this list are 23 coordinating lead authors – those the IPCC placed in charge of an entire chapter. The list also includes Osvaldo Canziani. Having served as Working Group 2 co-chair for both the 2001 and 2007 reports, he is one of the IPCC’s most senior officials. (more…)

Source:  No Frakking Consensus

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), appears to be on a media tour intended to rehabilitate both his own reputation and that of the organization he leads.

rajendra-pachauri

Yesterday’s article in the UK’s Telegraph may turn out to be one of a series of similar stories (backup link here). Unfortunately, there’s every indication that these accounts will be written by shockingly uninformed journalists who’ll continue to give Pachauri the benefit of the doubt.

In this instance journalist Peter Stanford falls for Pachauri’s claim that he’s being targeted in a shoot-the-messenger scenario. According to this narrative, the public doesn’t want to confront the danger of climate change so the person delivering the unwelcome news gets attacked.

Oh, please. Pachauri has systematically misled the entire world about how his organization writes its reports. He has insisted that these reports are based only on peer-reviewed literature when this is simply not the case. (more…)

Source:  Heartland

In testimony yesterday before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology, forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania called on Congress to cease funding global warming research, programs, and advocacy organizations.

Referring to an analysis he conducted with Kesten C. Green of the University of South Australia and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Armstrong told the subcommittee, “We approach the issue of alarm over dangerous manmade global warming as a problem of forecasting temperatures over the long term. The global warming alarm is not based on what has happened, but on what will happen. In other words, it is a forecasting problem. And it is a very complex problem.”

The three researchers audited the forecasting procedures used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose “procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles,” Armstrong noted. (more…)

Source:  Forbes

Sitting in on a March 1 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) press conference regarding global warming and heavy snowfalls, I couldn’t help feeling like the chairman of the Senate committee questioning mafia capo Frank Pentangeli in Godfather II. The chairman, listening incredulously as Pentangeli contradicts a sworn written statement he had earlier given to the committee, waves the written statement in the air and protests, “We have a sworn affidavit — we have it — your sworn affidavit…. Do you deny that confession, and do you realize what will happen as a result of your denial?”

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report was as straightforward as Frank Pentangeli’s earlier confession that he had killed on behalf of Michael Corleone. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported. (more…)

Source:  SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

Donna La Framboise has an excellent piece on Dr Rajendra Pachauri and highlights the emergence of a new UN body similar to the IPCC, but in respect of Bio-Diversity. This is of course another objective that was decided at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and is now being brought of the cupboard.

Mr. Chairman, Your Carriage Awaits January 28, 2011, Donna La Framboise

“According to some people the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a marvelous organization – so marvelous it should be regarded as a prototype. A month ago, therefore, the UN General Assembly formally created the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

As the press release explains, this body will be an “IPCC for Nature” which will:

…in many ways mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has assisted in catalyzing worldwide understanding and governmental action on global warming.

There’s just one problem. The IPCC model is utterly dysfunctional. It is a screeching, flashing, billboard-sized example of influence without accountability. For proof of this statement, one need look no further than the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.” (more…)

Source:  http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/

UPDATE: After finishing the Q & A, do check out the comment thread where Judith Curry is actively engaged with readers.

Last week, a single blog comment by Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, outraged the proprietors and readers of Real Climate. Curry had mentioned the IPCC and the term “corruption” in the same sentence. I then discussed the brewing firestorm here, and that triggered a spirited exchange in the comment thread, of which Curry was an active participant.

As this exchange was playing out, I sensed that Curry was expanding on her recent controversial critique of climate scientists, while also putting forth a contrary view of the two recent probes that have exonerated scientists of wrongdoing in the affair known as Climategate.  So I asked her if I could follow up with a few questions to clarify some of her recent statements. She immediately accepted and what follows is a short Q & A, conducted via email, and reproduced in its entirety. (more…)

Source:  The Climate Policy Network – Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation

Companies that fail to register their energy use by next month will be hit with fines that could reach £45,000 under the little-known rules. Those that do participate in the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) initiative by declaring their energy use will face charges for every ton of greenhouse gas they produce. These payments are expected to average £38,000 a year for medium-sized firms, and could reach £100,000 for larger organisations. –James Kirkup, Harry Wallop and Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 11 August 2010 (more…)