As IF Times

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report – Times Online.

Enough of these kinds of stories have surfaced recently that should make rational people at least question the claims made by the Anthro weather crowd if not dismiss the entire notion once and for all.  The persistent retort by the weather chicken littles has always been that “science has verified these conclusions” and to deny them made you a flat earther. 

It turns out that the ground zero of evidence of glacial melting in this story is not a roomful of meticulously collected data, analyzed objectively and mapped out using complex mathematical and predictive models, but on an interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.  Upon learning this, to their great embarrassment, the IPCC panel admitted to poorly substantiated predictions.

!!!

One of the inconvenient facts gleaned from this study was the minor statistic involving the size of glaciers under scrutiny.  One of the most glaring errors in the study claims:

“…the total area of Himalayan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035…”

Only problem is, there are only 33,000square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas. 

This kind of stuff happens I suppose; a fat finger press of the buttons on the calculator and all of a sudden, an area the size of the moon will melt into the ocean etc etc.  But when the results of the analysis of the data are so controversial, you would think, certainly as scientists, that a check of the data and techniques are in order.  At least that’s what they told us in first year science. 

The truly disturbing part of this article is this passage from Dr. Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist whose interview formed the basis of these series of conclusions is now suspect:

He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.

“…He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time. “I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?…”

What kind of operation is the IPCC?  Is it run like the Mafia where ‘omerta’ is the code and someone will break your legs if you point out an inconvenient fact?  Is there a history of this kind if thing with IPCC? Do horse’s heads wind up in people’s beds?

It’s all fun until someone loses an eye is the old saying and in this case some serious damage has been done.  This kind of ‘science’ has contributed to the great bogus industry and worldwide political handwringing over dealing with global warming.   This oversight led to the butterfly effects of scaremongering. In an article from The Register exactly one year ago, Dr. John Theon the NASA scientist who supervised James Hanse, the man widely credited for inflicting global warming hysteria states:

“…My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.

“They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

Hmm, evidence of faulty or fraudulent data.  I think what we need here are forensic lawyers.  We need the vast army of under utilized legal talent to audit, verify and hold those responsible for foisting this junk science on the world.  After all, much damage has been inflicted on all societies.  There have been  unneccesarily increased taxes, destroyed industries, the laughable cap and trade schemes and most dastardly, the conning of young people to bow to the cause.  Let the lawyers loose.  Let them figure out who has been complicit with the whole charade.  Hey, in the legal world, someone’s always responsible.  When they figure it out, send them all to Antarctica to re-study the scientific method shod only in flip flops and flowered shirts.

link  US accused of ‘occupying’ Haiti as troops flood in – Telegraph.

Even in the midst of a great humanitarian operation, there’s still room for politics and political sensitivities.  Alain Joyandet, a French minister in charge of their relief effort,  in a fit of exasperation, accused the American contingent of an occupying operation and not a mercy mission.

While certainly preposterous, given the expeditious and generous response of the Americans compared to any other nation, this shows again how America cannot be the good guy in the eyes of the world.  The eloquent and charming Hugo Chavez expressed these same sentiments a few days ago as well.  France however, notionally an ally, should know better.

From way back in the late 1400’s when Chris Columbus and his gang showed up claiming things for Spain, to the French who started occupation in the early 1600’s to the late 1800’s, Haiti has had a long sordid history of slavery, of confiscation of resources, extinction of much of the native people and almost permanent poverty.  The short time that the U.S. occupied Haiti in the early 1900’s was a blink in time.

It’s widely known as a matter of fact,  that for all the years the European occupiers were there, no one thought to build any roads.  You’d think someone would think of this as they were carting away all the resources.  When the Yanks showed up, they put in the most extensive system of roads the nation had ever had.  Unfortunately, this was by mostly slave labor, but at least there was some attempt to build infrastructure.  So, for 20 some odd years, the Americans were in there, the French for over 200 and someone yelps “l’occupation!” As if.

But Americans are sensitive to this perception, heck the article even says that U.S. Marines are coached to carry their weapons discreetly and in an unthreatening way so as not to arouse historic sensibilities.  Really? Someone with serious wounds, no water and no food is going to complain about a guy with a gun providing security from looters and gangs?  Only cynical pinheads for whom politics is always paramount in their mentality can think this.  For their part, the Americans are acting like parents who have been accused of child beating so often, they go out of their way to be seen to act properly, walking on eggshells instead of just getting the job done.

In any event, why exactly would the Americans be interested in occupying Haiti?  It’s a country in a permanent state of chaos.  At the moment, even more than usual, there is anarchy.  The people are illiterate.  They are poor.  The big bull market in spices has come and gone.  There’s not even a lot of land involved. To step in would be to take ownership of the enormous challenges involved in bringing Haiti to decent modern standards, which means billions and billions of dollars as Carl Sagan used to say.  The only real advantage is to get a closer platform to slingshot spitballs at Hugo.

It would be nice to see France and Spain, two genuine former occupiers send in some real help to rebuild the country.  Send aid and money and maybe croissants, pass on the rhetoric.