The Nobel Prize-winning international scientific panel studying global warming is seeking independent outside review for how it makes major reports.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it’s seeking some kind of independent review because of recent criticism about its four 2007 reports.
Critics have found a few unsettling errors, including projections of retreats in Himalayan glaciers, in the thousands of pages of the reports.
Here is the statement:
Rep. Mike Noel, the Legislature’s chief climate-change skeptic, declared Thursday that global warming is a conspiracy to control world population.
The House Natural Resources Committee then approved a resolution that expresses the Utah Legislature’s belief that “climate alarmists’ carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures.”
The resolution, sent to the House on a 10-1 vote, would urge the Environmental Protection Agency to drop plans to regulate the pollution blamed for climate change “until a full and independent investigation of the climate data conspiracy and global warming science can be substantiated.”
The resolution is a smorgasboard of anti-science rhetoric, coal-industry talking points and nonsensical fearmongering. Here are some lowlights of the claims the resolution makes:
WHEREAS, global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years
How could global temperatures have declined in some areas? Global temperatures are, by definition, an average of temperatures globally. Temperatures in one particular geographical location tell us absolutely nothing about global temperatures. Either way, the claim is false.
WHEREAS, emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe, referred to as “Climategate,” indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate “tricks” related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome;
I’m glad to see governmental bodies buying into ridiculous conspiracy theories.
WHEREAS, there has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global warming from being reviewed and published;
Imagine that. Scientists responsible for reviewing scientific papers don’t recommend the publication of anti-science and plainly inaccurate papers.
WHEREAS, the climate change “gravy train,” estimated at more than $7 billion annually in federal government grants, may have influenced the climate research focus and findings that have produced a “scientific consensus” at research institutions and universities;
There is far more money to be made in the climate denial industry than there is practicing legitimate climate science. The oil and coal industries pay top dollar to shills willing to lie to promote their agendas. This is extremely well documented.
There is plenty more insanity where those quotes came from. Here is the full resolution, as passed yesterday by the Utah House Natural Resources Committee:
hjr012 –
Update — This KSL TV in SLC has some good video footage of the committee debate.
A major trade group for the insurance industry is warning that it is “exceedingly risky” for companies to blindly accept scientific conclusions around climate change, given the “serious questions” around the extent to which humans cause atmospheric warming.The assertion was made in a letter to insurance regulators, who will administer the nation’s first mandatory climate requirements on corporations in May. Large insurers will have to answer about a dozen questions related to the preparations they are taking to safeguard themselves from climatic hazards.
Here is the letter:
Learn more about Swifthack here.
It is a well-known fact that powerful vested interests and those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible.The Centre for Public Integrity in the US has found that some 770 companies and interest groups have hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence America’s federal policies on climate change in the past year, just as the stakes became higher with the prospect of far-reaching climate legislation in the US. That translates into more than four lobbyists for each member of Congress in Washington DC.
The climate sceptics have also been active in other ways. Take the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia and the use of private communications between the scientists involved to discredit the science contained in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which I chair. These scientists are highly reputed professionals, whose contributions over the years to scientific knowledge are unquestionable.
Audio of Guardian’s interview with Pachauri is available here.
This isn’t a new problem. As far back as the late 1990s, before the news cycle hit such a frenetic pace, some science officials were lamenting that scientists had never been trained in how to talk to the public and were therefore hesitant to face the media.“For 45 years or so, we didn’t suggest that it was very important,” Neal Lane, a former Clinton administration science adviser and Rice University physicist, told the authors of a landmark 1997 report on the gap between scientists and journalists. “. . . In fact, we said quite the other thing.”
The scientist’s job description had long been to conduct research and to teach, Lane noted; conveying findings to the public was largely left to science journalists. Unfortunately, despite a few innovations, that broad reality hasn’t changed much in the past decade.
Go read the whole thing. And while you are at it, read Chris’ blog The Intersection.
But a new poll released by the National Wildlife Federation is revealing that Swifthack has failed to move the needle with voters…… Among those who said they had read or seen something about the stolen emails, 53% said it did not affect their view at all. The remainder was largely split — 26% said it made them less likely to support the U.S. taking action to reduce global warming while 20% said it made them more likely to support action.
Even a harshly framed attack about the emails failed to influence voters in any significant way … 63% still say they believe global warming is happening.
Here are the full results of the poll:
It’s absolutely baffling to me that as I present & participate in sessions on the latest cutting-edge climate science, the international media has gone hook, line & sinker for a distraction about hacked emails pushed by polluters and science deniers. But it’s a sad reflection of the disconnect between the scientific debate here in San Francisco and the political debates happening in Washington and Copenhagen.
And here is the schedule of previous and remaining diaries in this weekend-long event:
Climate Change Reality Blogathon: Dedicated to our dear friend Steve of JohnnyRook’s Climaticide Chronicles
Saturday December 12 (All times Pacific)
2:30a Philip Radford,President Obama: Now is the the time for climate action!
4:00a A Siegel, Climate Change Reality: THE Progressive Crisis
7:00a Senator Jeff Merkley,
Climate Change Reality: The Stakes in Copenhagen
8:00a Senator John Kerry, Climate Change Reality: The Senate Debate
9:00a Pete Altman, Climate Change Reality: The Voices of Reason are Prevailing over ClimateGate
10:00a Keith Schneider, Big Copenhagen Climate Demonstration — Noisy, Colorful, Insistent — Pushes Negotiators to Act
2:00p RLMiller, Climate Change CLEAR Unreality: We’re all Alaskans now!
4:00p Jill Richardson, The sad truth about the future of food
5:00p rb137, They aren’t listening to usSunday December 13 (All times Pacific)
4:00a A Siegel
8:00a DrAmandaStaudt
9:00a Pete Altman
9:30a Richard Graves
10:00a Keith Schneider
10:30a Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
11:00a RLMiller
12:00p Daniel J Kessler
1:00p Mike MacCracken
2:00p Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
3:00p Bruce Nilles
4:00p oke
5:00p boatsie
“My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails,” said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann’s earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.
“In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown,” North said.
Pew Research Center for People and the Press:
About one-in-five Americans (19%) have heard a lot about the international meeting to discuss climate change in Copenhagen that is now underway. About as many (17%) say they have heard a lot about the disclosure of private emails between prominent climate scientists regarding global warming data. Fewer have heard a lot about the White House job summit that took place a week ago (11%) or about Comcast’s plan to buy NBC Universal (11%).There is virtually no difference in awareness of the Copenhagen climate-change meeting by party. About six-in-ten Republicans, Democrats and independents have heard at least a little about the gathering; that includes 20% of Republicans, 19% of Democrats and 18% of independents who have heard a lot about it.
Republicans, however, are more likely to have heard about the climate-related email controversy: 23% have heard a lot about this, compared with 11% of Democrats. Among independents, 17% have heard a lot.
A new analysis debunks two of the principal myths generated by the manufactured scandal surrounding stolen climate science emails from the University of East Anglia. The staff analysis, written by the majority staff to Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, explains how two of the key phrases used by climate deniers to trumpet their views have previously been explained in publicly-available, peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Here is the analysis:
