Climategate Mafia and don Corleone

Published 25th November 2009 - 9 comments - 3150 views -

The Godfather: "I'm gonna make him an offer, he can't refuse."

This is how climatology science was done in IPCC in the last generation. Publish (what we want) or perish.

 

DIRTY METHODS

From the e-mails which leaked in November 2009 in the Climategate case, we learned, that the IPCC alarmist scientists (Mann, author of the Hockeystick graph is one of them) do very dirty things to silence down the climate sceptics. In the e-mails they...

• describe methodology tricks (cheats), how to get rid of inconvenient results (Mick's Nature trick ... to hide the decline).
• ask colleagues to delete the data, which somebody is asking for according to FoIA (Freedom of Information Act).
• describe, how the Greenpeace activists help them to write "scientific" declarations for the media.
• discuss methods, how to destroy a science journal, which published a climate-sceptical article.
• discuss methods, how to kick the inconvenient editor of the journal  Climate Research out of job
• helping a Russian scientist with tax evasion
• conspire, that they will not publish anything in a journal (Royal Met. Soc.), which insists on publication of the used source data.
• in 2005 Steve McIntyre published an article, unpleasant for the alarmists. The scientists agreed that the editor of the journal (GRL) must be kicked out of job for this. In which they later succeeded.
• they mention a political pressure to create evidence about "unprecedented warming"
• celebrate the death of the climate denier John Daly.

(read the e-mails here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html)

Some alarmists cannot believe, that manmade/CO2 caused warming was just a hoax. They say that alarmist science is based on work of thousands of independent scientists. But is it really so?

Or is Climategate just a TIP OF THE (MELTING) ICEBERG?

 

ONLY ONE BUS OF PEOPLE

• Total 2500 people worked on 2007 AR4
• Chapter 9 deals with, what causes the climate change
• Chapter 9 had 44 contributing authors
• Chapter 9 had 62 reviewers

When you hear, that 2500 people worked on the IPCC report, it sounds big. But most of these people did not work on the question of whether climate change is manmade. Only 44 people wrote this chapter. This is one bus of passengers.

•  IPCC Chapter 9 Contributing Authors going by a coach to a picnic: “We represent the consensus. If this bus crashes, the majority of world climatologists will die.”

 

LA FAMILIA

 

No overt climate sceptic can get into IPCC. It is a closed group.  The members are selected according to their opinions. Only seldom somebody unbiased sneaks in. And even if so, they do not let him work on the key issues.

There are thousands and thousands of scientists, who know a lot about climate, paleoclimatology, geology and astronomy. Only the Prague University climatology department has some 20 people (http://floodserv.natur.cuni.cz/hydro.php?akce=tym&lang=eng). And there are thousands of such teams worldwide.

Yet almost all IPCC authors come from one single group. They are old friends and colleagues, who co-author or review each other’s work.

Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9. 

Hadley Centre deserves special note because not only did it supply nine authors but also 9 of the 62 reviewers of this chapter. (Hadley Centre are partners to the Climategate impostors from East Anglia University).

• “Hi Joe.” “Hi, Bill.” “Come with me into IPCC.” “OK, but you must come to my BBQ party next week.”

 

COMPUTER GAME ADDICTS

IPCC does not do any own research.

 The whole modern climatology is based on computer simulations. In other words – they are just computer game players, who lost the ability to distinguish between virtual reality and true reality.

 Most of the IPCC authors were climate modellers unwilling to admit that their models are neither accurate nor complete. This is the case of most climatologists. Their "science" is based on Microsoft Windows computer models plagued with bugs and errors. Equations full of unknown variables. Nobody knows all the positive and negative feedbacks in climate. How much is (0.8 + x + 2.001 - y), if you do not know, how much is x and y?

 

IGNORING THE INCONVENIENT TRUTHS

 IPCC is a censorship bureau. It decides, which scientific papers are compatible with the AGW dogma. Inconvenient truths are not allowed to become a part of the canon ("consensus"). Heretic papers become apocryphic and are not a part of the Holy Scripture.

 What scientific papers did Chapter 9’s authors cite? Often, their own.  Of the 534 papers cited in chapter 9, some 213, or 40 per cent, had appeared under the name of at least one chapter author. 

 Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. They ignore anything, they does not fit into their beliefs.

  Dr. Vincent Gray, a long-term expert for IPCC was frustrated by this ignoring of comments. “Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.“ (see at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32)

  From the 2500 contributors, many  disagree with IPCC summaries and reports. Their papers are quoted, but it does not mean, that they agree with the Summaries for Policymakers. For example the Czech climatologist Jan Pretel worked for IPCC (see him in the list at http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/extremes-sr/extremes_participants.html), but he does not believe, that Kyoto Protocol can affect warming. (see 6). "It is very bold to say, that manmade emissions are to blame... The Kyoto Protocol cannot save us at all... The money invested into futile CO2 reduction measures should be rather invested into adaptation measures." But IPCC ignored his opinion, yet he is counted among the "brave 2500".

•  “We thank you for your comments. But they contradict to the greenhouse hypothesis. We cannot accept comments that go against the scientific consensus, sorry.”

 

OMERTA

The Mafia has a wide network of friends, believers and accomplices. Some do it for faith, some do it for money, some do it out of fear.

Let us listen what Richard Lindzen writes about that: " In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism."

"At Science and Nature, (climate sceptical) papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest."

"Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited."

 

  IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 Those, who should supervise (the reviewers) are often in conflict of interest.

 Two of the Hadley Centre’s contributing authors – Jones and Thorne – were among the reviewers of the chapter that they had themselves written!

 Of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interests (being employees of governments that already had decided on the outcome, for example), leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

 The IPCC appointed as review editor for chapter 9 a person who was not only a coordinating lead author for the corresponding chapter of the previous assessment report but had also authored 13 of the papers cited in chapter 9 and had co-authored papers with 10 authors of chapter 9 including both coordinating lead authors and three of the seven lead authors.

•  A review: “This paper was written by myself. It is a rubbish! My god I was such an idiot. Wrong methodology. Missing bibliography… I demand that you kick me out of my job.”

  

NOBEL PRIZE FOR SALE

 In 2007 this bus was awarded a Nobel Prize from their friends. It is a worldwide Mafia of colleagues and friends of friends. The fact that they got Nobel Prize for politics and not for science speaks clearly – IPCC is not a scientific, but a political body. A UNO committee. Now they are in the  same closet with Mr. Arafat, another Peace Prize holder and well known murderer. Good career.

They should return the Nobel Peace Prize. Or the prize should be renamed. Nobel Fraud Prize for the best cheaters.

•  “I am  pleased, that I can announce this year’s Peace Nobel Prize laureate. It is… myself. After a long and objective pondering I had to conclude, that I deserve it. Thank you.”

  

RECOMMEND “THIS” TO ME 

 The leading authors of IPCC are selected and appointed by governments. That is by fat corrupt politicians in suits. The bureaucrats and politicians have the last word  - they decide about the wording of the “Summary for Policymakers.”

 So the politicians decide, what the scientists should recommend to them. Thus the random political decision can get the noble label of "science-based policy" to get more credibility among the voters.

 Dr. Richard Lindzen worked for IPCC. “Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored," he told the United States Senate committee on environment and public works in 2001 (see: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0)

•  PM: “Doctor professor, I want you to write, that according to the latest scientific surveys I should be given more power and money. Or else Planet is doomed… Otherwise I will stop financing your lab.”

 

SCIENTISTS AGAINST IPCC

The religious AGW mafia has infiltrated science and converted many scientists to their faith.

As you see the scientific standards in IPCC are pretty low. No wonder, that honest scientists have been long protesting against these swindles. Heidelberg Appeal, Oregon Petition and others.

In 2007 the very president of the World Federation of Scientists signed an open letter to the UNO secretary Ban Ki-Moon with a protest against the alarmist frauds and IPCC methods. (read here:http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/12/open-letter-to-bali-give-up-futile-attempts-to-combat-climate-change/)

Please, let us save science from this dirt. Without science we would have nothing - no cell phones, no green revolution in food production, no transplantations, no space program, no computers. We need science to survive.

 

FALCONE

I suggest we establish a global parallel to the DCSD (Committee of Scientific Dishonesty) to cleanse science and get rid of the mafia.

We need some new judge Falcone to carry out a global climatic "Clean Hands" investigation.

(read more: http://globalsociology.com/2008/04/14/life-without-the-mafia/)

 

 

References:

1) John McLean. Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings. [Retrieved 21 Nov 2009] Available at <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf> 

2) Tom Harris and John McLean. Opinion – true nature of climate change “highly uncertain” [Retrieved 21 Nov 2009] Available at <http://www.newsletter.co.uk/3425/OPINION-True-nature-of-climate.4488683.jp?articlepage=1> 

3) List of papers criticizing IPCC: <http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm> 

4) In 2008 Lawrence Solomon wrote a book “Deniers – the world renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud”. This is a collection of newspaper articles published and available at <http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/pages/the-deniers.aspx > [Retrieved on 25 Aug 2009]

5) AR4 2007, Chapter 9 <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf>

6) Jan Stejskal: Jan Pretel - Kjótský protokol nás žádným způsobem zachránit nemůže  (2003) [Retrieved 25 August 2009] Available at <http://www.ekolist.cz/zprava.shtml?x=146537 > Interview with the Czech IPCC author Jan Pretel, skeptical about Kyoto Protocol.

7) Hacked e-mails available for download at the Czech physicist's blog: http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html

8) Richard Lindzen. Climate of fear [Retrieved on 25 Aug 2009] Available at <http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220>

 

 

Category: Climate Politics, | Tags: ipcc,

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Vitezslav Kremlik
Czech Republic
Translator

I have a M.A. in history. I specialised in how regular solar cycles cause climate change again and again over history. This then affects humans, causes mass migrations, brings social movements to life (like environmentalism) etc. After CLIMATEGATE I launched a website www.klimaskeptik.cz, which has an English section as well.

Visit website
View all posts

Often imitated. Never duplicated. TH!NK ABOUT IT is a project by the European Journalism Centre.