Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 16:48
Good Afternoon, Mr Prime Minister,
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 16:45
Dear Editor,
NIWA's Principle Climate Scientist Brett Mullan claims that all the IPCC's computer models agree on a large number of basic aspects of climate change. (20 March "letters").
The facts are as follows. There has always been an enormous variation of predictions about the earth's rising temperature, from these models. The IPCC has tended to use averages, and provide a range of possible scenarios. Over the 20 years so far that these models have been operating, even the "lowest" prediction has been too high, and the other models predictions have ranged upwards from there.
And they assure us that what they are telling us now about climate 100 years hence, will be right? It is now far too late for the IPCC's media cheerleaders to preserve any of their own credibility, let alone protect that of the IPCC. It is also time for NIWA and other scientific organisations to get their houses in order, considering the inevitable repercussions once proper commissions of inquiry have been held.
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 16:27
Foxnews.com
8 February 2010
NEW YORK — Before the United Nations can save the planet, it needs to clean up its own house. And as scandal after scandal has unfolded over the past decade, from Oil for Food to procurement fraud to peacekeeper rape, the size of that job has become stunningly clear.
But any understanding of the real efforts that job entails should begin with a look at the long and murky career of Maurice Strong, the man who may have had the most to do with what the U.N. has become today, and still sparks controversy even after he claims to have cut his ties to the world organization.
From Oil for Food to the latest scandals involving U.N. funding in North Korea, Maurice Strong appears as a shadowy and often critically important figure.
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 16:23
An Open Letter from Scientists in the United States on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Errors Contained in the Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
[Note: Over 250 scientists have already signed this open letter and signatures are still being collected. For a full list of signers please
visit this page. On March 13, 2010, the letter was sent to federal agencies. The vast majority of the signers are climate change scientists who work at leading U.S. universities and institutions. They include both IPCC and non-IPCC authors. Additional signers include professionals from related disciplines, including physical, biological and social scientists. If you are a scientist wishing to sign the letter, please fill out the form on the this page. If you have any questions, please contact the letter's authors, contact information is below.]
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 16:01
Dr Nick Smith
Minister of Environment and Climate Change issues
Hello Dr Smith
This data is from the prominent NZ Climate scientist who was refused entry to your meeting with Rodney Hide. (by whom?)
The Key government needs to do better than that - much better - the people expect due dilligence on the science and will start demanding it.
Any effort to prevent a robust debate on the science and economics will result in a loss of public support for National.
Regards,
Ken S
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 15:54
National has a goal to lift the productivity of NZ. Putting the ETS into place will work against this goal.
Comments made by John Key & Tim Grosser suggest that the main reason for our continued pursuit of an ETS is so that NZ does not become isolated from its trading partners.
This is weak. An ETS should be considered based on good scientific data. If this is not available, then an ETS should not be considered.
I voted for National at the last election because I was of the opinion that National was staffed by thinking people. National had stood against the ETS.
If the ETS is implemented, I and many others WILL NEVER VOTE FOR NATIONAL AGAIN.
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 15:33
Telegraph.co.uk 3 April 2010
The Commons committee seemed unable even to understand the evidence, says Christopher Booker
To anyone who watched or read the hearings of the Commons committee looking into "Climategate", the scandal over leaked documents from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, two things might have been obvious. The first was that all but one of the MPs (Labour's Graham Stringer) were hopelessly out of their depth in their efforts to understand this not very complex story. The other was that their chief purpose was to find that the CRU and its director, Professor Philip Jones, had done nothing wrong and that the case for man-made global warming remained intact.
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 15:24
TIADaily.com March 30, 2010
Top News Stories
Commentary by Robert Tracinski
1. Runaway Congressional Majority
The passage of the health care bill has broken the dam, and we can now expect a new flood of attacks on our liberty. The Democrats have discovered that they have the raw power to pass legislation by virtue of the sheer size of the majority that American voters foolishly gave them. And I think they already realize that they're going to lose that majority in November—so they'd better ram through statist legislation while they still can.
Thus, newspapers are reporting that passing legislation with no Republican votes is the new model for how our runaway congressional majority will operate, and that the Obama administration is adopting a more "confrontational" approach.
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 15:11
"The Guardian," London, 26 March 2010 -- David Adam, environment correspondent
IPCC chair accuses politicians and sceptics of portraying scientists as 'criminals' through attacks on their credibility.
The head of the UN's climate change panel has accused politicians and prominent climate sceptics of "a new form of persecution" against scientists who work on global warming.
In a strongly worded article published on the Guardian website, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hit out at those in "positions of power and responsibility" who try to portray "dedicated scientists as climate criminals".
Pachauri also accused critics who have used an error in the 2007 IPCC report to question the scientific basis of climate change of "an act of astonishing intellectual legerdemain [sleight of hand]". Scientific knowledge of climate change, he says, is "something we distort and trivialise at our peril".
Pachauri's comments come after repeated attacks on the credibility of the IPCC following the high-profile discovery of a mistake about melting Himalayan glaciers in its report. The mistake has prompted calls for Pachauri to resign and forced the IPCC to convene an international panel of experts to review the way it operates.
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 07/04/2010 - 14:50
Pages
