Global Warming, what a joke!!!!

[TheBeast]

Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda - washingtonpost.com

Mark Landsbaum: What to say to a 'warmer' - Opinion - The Orange County Register

CRU's Former Head Phil Jones: Well, I Guess Maybe There Hasn't Been Any Warming Since 1995, And Oh Yeah, Maybe The Medieval Warm Period and Subsequent Periods Were Warmer Than Things Are Now

Michelle Malkin The global warming scandal of the century deepens

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02...on_hurricanes/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7026317.ece


And as a result of the gw nonsense we get this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/1...-drilling-ban/

[CoeburnCane]

You have a Michelle Malkin article in there. Ever heard what they say about one rotten apple spoiling the whole barrel? Yeah...that.

[TheBeast]

I called ClimateGate ?the global warming scandal of the century? back on November 20. Deeper and deeper it goes. Over the weekend, University of East Anglia global warming cultist Phil Jones conceded that there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years:

The academic at the centre of the ?Climategate? affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ?keeping track? of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ?not as good as it should be?.

The data is crucial to the famous ?hockey stick graph? used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now ? suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ?statistically significant? warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia?s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Anthony Watts sums up the Jones Q&A:

Specifically, the Q-and-As confirm what many skeptics have long suspected:

* Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
* There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2?C per decade.
* The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.
* This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.
* The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
* The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
* There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.

The MSM persists in minimizing the systemic academic fraud perpetuated by the AGW cult. Here?s the Washington Post using the weasel term ?missteps? to describe the lies and cover-ups:

With its 2007 report declaring that the ?warming of the climate system is unequivocal,? the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won a Nobel Prize ? and a new degree of public trust in the controversial science of global warming.

But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel?s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel?s methods and mistakes ? including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level ? give doubters an opening.

It wasn?t the first one. There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. But in the past year, a cache of stolen e-mails, revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors, has sullied their image as impartial academics. The errors in the U.N. report ? a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt ? are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat, instead of the new question of how to stop it.

More on the latest embarrassment:

The U.N. panel of climate experts overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level, according to a preliminary report on Saturday, admitting yet another flaw after a row last month over Himalayan glacier melt. A background note by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers.

The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe.

?The sea level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions,? the IPCC note dated February 12 said.

Skeptics say errors have exposed sloppiness and over-reliance on ?grey literature? outside leading scientific journals.

?Skeptics say?? The mounting evidence and exposures say it all: The science is not settled. It has been warped, corrupted, and manipulated systemically. There needs to be a probe of the U.N. ? and not by the U.N.:

The UN body that advises world leaders on climate change must investigate an apparent bias in its report that resulted in several exaggerations of the impact of global warming, according to its former chairman.

In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.

Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.

The errors have emerged in the past month after simple checking of the sources cited by the 2,500 scientists who produced the report.

The report falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 when evidence suggests that they will survive for another 300 years. It also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim.

The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level.

Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: ?The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.?

And more: IPCC warnings about African crops also bogus.

Oh, and Donald Trump is right: Al Gore should return his Nobel Prize.

Eco-hysteria doesn?t deliver world peace. It threatens it.

[R13]

You do know it's not been unproven the least bit, right?

[NotSoSilentBob]

You do know it's not been proven the least bit, right?

Do you?

[Counts]

You do know it's not been unproven the least bit, right?

I think the point is that some have played fast and lose with the data.......

To me it looks like the main warming/cooling force by far is the suns activity level

[TheBeast]

You do know it's not been unproven the least bit, right?

You do realize something that hasn't been proven to even exist doesn't have to be unproven. You see all those links I posted actually show that it doesn't/hasn't ever existed.

[Gotch]

I think the emails have been effectively downplayed. They do contain evidence of tampering with scientific models, data altering, computer program tampering, and other substantial fraud.

[R13]

You do realize something that hasn't been proven to even exist doesn't have to be unproven. You see all those links I posted actually show that it doesn't/hasn't ever existed.

Pretty strong consensus in the scientific community that it does exist and that it is mostly caused man. And I seen the Malkin link and the hotair link, then see it's the same bullshit you post regularly, how can anyone take you seriously? Constant righty sites or righty authors/bloggers.