Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN January 19, 2021 Just a month or two prior to the 2020 Covid era with all its madness, and then the Biden Campaign, James Corbett and Marc Morano got together to Re-Bunk all the hype about Manmade Climate Change in December 2019. While many people have pointed out that there was obvious election fraud taking place during November 2020, but the fraud of manmade climate change is much more brazen with in-your-face lies along with massive censorship by the media, Big Tech and governments around the world. It would be wise to question “Why the Elite Rich and Powerful of the World are pushing this narrative agenda?” Exposing a Decade of Climategate Lies – December 2019 https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1500-marc-morano-debunks-a-decade-of-climategate-lies/ It's been a decade since the leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia exposed the lies, obfuscations and dirty tricks behind the climate change orthodoxy. But although the conversation has long since moved on, there's still a lot we can learn from the lessons of "Climategate." Joining us today to reflect on a decade of Climategate lies and where the debate stands today is Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com. (48 minutes) https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1500-marc-morano-debunks-a-decade-of-climategate-lies/ SHOW NOTESClimategate coverage on The Corbett Report ClimateDepot.com The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change Don’t Let Media Whitewash Climategate! Read Chapter excerpt revealing the truth behind scandal 10 years later Information Commissioner: Climategate Scientists Broke The Law YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World Climategate is Still the Issue The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file Polar bear numbers not declining despite media headlines suggesting otherwise UN Military Action to Enforce Climate Agenda? It May Happen, Says Academic EXCERPTS FROM... https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/11/18/dont-let-media-whitewash-climategate-read-chapter-excerpt-revealing-the-truth-behind-scandal-10-years-later/ ...The UN IPCC reports are often used to claim the science is “settled.” New Scientist magazine once dubbed the IPCC “the gold standard of consensus on climate change science.” Well, if there was any doubt before, Climategate exposed the IPCC to be fool’s gold. But even before Climategate, there was good reason to realize that the UN IPCC was more political than scientific. On July 23, 2008, more than a year before the Climategate emails were leaked, John Brignell, an engineering professor emeritus at the University of Southampton who had held the chair in Industrial Instrumentation, accused the UN of censorship. “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. ‘Peer review’ soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship,” wrote Brignell. “As [the] Wegman [report] demonstrated, new circles of like minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list.” In 2007, Australian climate data analyst John McLean did research into the IPCC’s peer-review process. McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process, which he called “an illusion.” “More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 (‘Understanding and Attributing Climate Change’) of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other,” McLean found. “Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.” According to McLean, “Governments have naively and unwisely accepted the claims of a human influence on global temperatures made by a close-knit clique of a few dozen scientists, many of them climate modellers, as if such claims were representative of the opinion of the wider scientific community.” As McLean explained, “To sum up, the IPCC is a single-interest organisation, whose charter assumes a widespread human influence on climate, rather than consideration of whether such influence may be negligible or missing altogether. For example, the IPCC Summary had asserted that “it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” But as McLean discovered, “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Many UN scientists have publicly rejected the IPCC’s methods. (The following material on UN scientists who have turned on the UN has been adapted and updated from a speech I wrote for Senator Jim Inhofe in 2007, while working at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.) “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” noted South African nuclear physicist and chemical engineer Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil…. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, has claimed, “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” UN IPCC expert reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lamented that many “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” In fact, “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed…. Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change.” Hurricane scientist Christopher W. Landsea, formerly of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was an author for the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1995 and the Third Assessment Report in 2001, but he resigned from the Fourth Assessment Report, accusing the IPCC of distorting hurricane science. “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns,” Landsea wrote in a January 17, 2005, public letter. “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” Landsea is currently with the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. The process in which UN IPCC documents are produced is simply not compatible with good science. The UN IPCC’s guidelines stipulate that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the media-hyped Summary for Policymakers.... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN January 20, 2021 January 20th - Wednesday morning in the U.S. I'm Blocked From Uploading to GooTube (and Other News) (7 minutes) 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surrept33 + 609 st January 27, 2021 This guy doesn't like he knows basic practices in physics re: debiasing older measurements. I recommend this (free) book by David MacKay: http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html It's a bit dated as Dr. MacKay unfortunately passed away from cancer right after he published it, but he wrote it for a very wide audience using correct, but dejargonified physical principles (he also wrote one of the seminal books on information theory (and the links to machine learning) and communication theory in the 2000s, also free): http://www.inference.org.uk/mackay/itila/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members