Climategate. Another exaggeration?

This was reported in the Dutch newspaper, Vrij Nederland. The paper picks up on some distorting of facts in Chapter 12 of the WG11 report.

The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced.

In fact, as the newspaper tells us, these figures are far too high.

 The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) states that only one fifth of the Netherlands is below sea level and that only 19 percent rather than 65 percent of the GDP generated is generated in that area.

It would seem that the IPCC is deliberately exaggerating in their literature in order to have a maximum propaganda effect.

As EU Referendum considers. "Is this deliberate fraud?"

 

Ref: Climate Audit

Talk about back stabbing.

 

When I saw this picture I was amazed.

 

Apparently this young woman was stabbed by a mugger. What is so astonishing is that she didn't realise that she had a six inch knife still stuck in her back.

I must admit I'm as credulous of the truth of the original article in a Russian tabloid, as The Daily Mail is. How could you not feel it? (Ouch)

Climategate. The BBC puts the boot in.

Newsnight covers it last night.

Newsnight

Oh and Melanie Phillips wades in as well

How embarrassing.(Again).

 

There's this.

The UN IPCC is facing more humiliation today after revelations that a "peer reviewed' study relied on in its Working Group 1 report contained "worthless" and fake data.

It's the first time climate skeptics have landed a direct blow on the prestigious WG-1 report, which outlines the 'scientific' case for climate change and which was used as the basis for the Summary for Policymakers given to world leaders ahead of Copenhagen. Ironically the fatal stab has come from the warmist-leaning Guardian.

In section 3.2 of WG-1, the UN IPCC discounts the influence of Urban Heat Island Effect based on a study by the University of East Anglia's Phil Jones, who gave the first official confirmation in the world that the Climategate emails were genuine.

The problem for the IPCC is the story in today's Guardian newspaper, which reveals the 1990 Jones study was based on made-up data that Jones knew was unreliable.

And this

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.

In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature.

“The only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,” said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC.

It really is a house of cards slowly collapsing

Well I never heard of such a thing.

Click to see full size

Oh look. It would seem that someone at the BBC has their finger in the pie of climate change.

The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the BBC is a climate change fanatic, and he is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in 'climate change' schemes. He's called Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the £8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis about their investments. Mr Dunscombe, who addresses conferences about 'ethical investments', is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members and manages four trillion euros' worth of investments; yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many 'climate change' investment opportunities as possible:

I would really laugh my head of if the Beeb got burnt by this man's fanatism with climate change.

Then again I suspect the government would just allow the BBC to raise their license fee to cover it.

H/T to Biased BBC

Are the Cornish a different race?

Having read over the weekend how the Cornish have failed in their attempt to have rude jokes about them stopped in law. I bring you this justification that they are no different to you or I.

• According to some American academics, the Cornish are racially distinct because they are descended from two Celtic tribes, the Dumnonii and the Cornovil.

This is hogwash, of course. A young man born in 1975, say, is descended from two parents. Those parents were probably born about 1950 to two sets of parents, so our young man is descended from four grandparents. He has eight great-grandparents born around 1925, and 16 great-great-grandparents born in 1900. If you keep going at a rate of four generations per century, by the time you get back to the year 950 (shortly after King Athelstan decided that civilisation began at the Tamar) our young man has 4,398,046,511,104 ancestors, which is about eleven thousand times the population of the entire world at that time.
What this probably means is that we are all related and share a common ancestry, and to talk of any one group of people (the Corns) being descended exclusively from any other group of people (the Dumnonii and the Cornovil) is complete and utter rubbish. Mind you, it's a rather unsettling thought that I am therefore related to, say, Jade Goody. And don't tell me I shouldn't pick on her because she's dead. Most of my ancestors have been dead people. Many of them still are. What is this spurious sensitivity about dead people? Does being dead make you a better person?

At it again. Smoking is now cast as an epidemic.

Although smoking rates are declining, the epidemic is far from solved

The Health secretary is at the forefront of a campaign to stop smoking in Britain completely.

Why is it that they want to stop a perfectly legal pastime for millions?

maybe it's the money it costs the NHS?

Smoking costs the NHS £2.7 billion a year

Nope it can't be that. From HMRC website, the tax take last year is £10.3 billion (Vat included). Now that is nearly 4 times as much as the cost to the NHS. If we eradicate smoking altogether it will mean that a typical family of 4 will have their tax go up by £500 per year. You anti-smokers are going to love that, aren't you?

No, just more control freakery.

 

SOURCE

Who said this?

 

In any area of new knowledge, historically the world has witnessed a number of people who remain sceptics and resistant to change in conventional ways and customs. Today, the power of sceptics has become extremely high because economic interests which resist change support them on a substantial scale. The Center for Public Integrity in Washington D.C. issued a report in March 2009, in which it reported that 770 companies had hired an estimated 2304 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change. That represented a 300 per cent increase in numbers in just five years, amounting to four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress. As it happens, this enormous economic power and manifestation of vested interest is not confined to Washington alone, and the lobbyists and the sceptics are flexing their muscles right from Australia to Britain to North America. The current situation is reminiscent of the brutal no-holds-barred campaign carried out by the tobacco lobby when scientific evidence on the link between smoking and cancer became overwhelming and was seen as a threat to their profits.

Of course it was our old friend Dr. R.K. Pachauri.

It would appear, that he  thinks that there is a concerted act, by vested interests such as "Big Oil", to scupper his religious crusade.

He might be advised to have a look around the Blogosphere and then he might appreciate that there is a groundswell of individual criticism of the bogus science pedaled by the IPCC.

Just look at the comments to articles in the MSM concerning AGW. It usually is, 95% against and a meager 5% for. And that includes the Guardian.

SOURCE

Is it legal?

Ed Miliband declares war on climate change sceptics.

Hope you've got a UN resolution on this one Ed?