National Hurricane Center Chief Resigns from IPCC due to lack of confidence in them

[kokonut]

The National Hurricane Center chief scientist Christopher Landsea resigned from the IPCC over what he cited as lack of confidence in the science.

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.

Here's the full copy below:

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 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.


With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights”, as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation – though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements – would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

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. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely, Chris Landsea

Here's the link to his resignation letter.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/ipcc-correspondence.pdf



In other words, what the IPCC is doing is a sham in the attempt to perpetuate the biggest science hoax of the century through a disinformation campaign that man's CO2 contribution has directly caused Earth to warm up. There is no proof or evidence that this is the case. And it is nothing more than a washed up theory that has long deserved to be shelved already.

The IPCC is currently in their initial stages of implosion. Supernova comes next.

 

[netrox]

Thanks for sharing with us, we know you'll do anything to deny the global warming theory. You said, "In other words, what the IPCC is doing is a sham in the attempt to perpetuate the biggest science hoax of the century through a disinformation campaign that man's CO2 contribution has directly caused Earth to warm up."

You are NOT comprehending the letter well. Chris was resigning for a simple reason: he said there is NO relationship between global warming and hurricane and Dr. Tenberth was promoting the idea that hurricanes has to do with global warming. Not once did Chris said that man did not cause global warming, only that he said there's NO relationship between global warming and hurricanes. Scientists have debated on that issue and it does NOT mean they don't believe in global warming. Chris mentioned NOTHING about CO2. Also, note that IPCC asserted no realtionship as well a couple of times at least.

It's like creationists saying, "even evolutionists argue over evolution so evolution is false!" They aren't saying that evolution doesn't occur, they do believe it but they're arguing over mechanics behind evolution.

You are nothing but a global warming denier with creationist leanings. It's no secret that many creationists are geologists - they're just dumb as rocks.

 

[kokonut]

Thanks for sharing with us, we know you'll do anything to deny the global warming theory. You said, "In other words, what the IPCC is doing is a sham in the attempt to perpetuate the biggest science hoax of the century through a disinformation campaign that man's CO2 contribution has directly caused Earth to warm up."

You are NOT comprehending the letter well. Chris was resigning for a simple reason: he said there is NO relationship between global warming and hurricane and Dr. Tenberth was promoting the idea that hurricanes has to do with global warming. Not once did Chris said that man did not cause global warming, only that he said there's NO relationship between global warming and hurricanes. Scientists have debated on that issue and it does NOT mean they don't believe in global warming. Chris mentioned NOTHING about CO2. Also, note that IPCC asserted no realtionship as well a couple of times at least.

It's like creationists saying, "even evolutionists argue over evolution so evolution is false!" They aren't saying that evolution doesn't occur, they do believe it but they're arguing over mechanics behind evolution.

You are nothing but a global warming denier with creationist leanings. It's no secret that many creationists are geologists - they're just dumb as rocks.

No. You don't get it about that letter. You see, it was written in 2005 in the effort to tell the public about the IPCC's refusal to make clear to the public that there is no connection between global warming and hurricane activity (which blows a serious hole into this whole global warming claim). In fact, this is a letter in the attempt to highlight the fact about the IPCC's disinformation campaign and their lack of transparency.

Let's flash forward to today's interview by one of the IPCC scientists.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

And it gets worse............

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.
‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.

‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’

One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’

When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’.

Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.

It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’

Read more: Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online

Netrox, if you haven't figured it out by now it wasn't just a "simple mistake" that was caught and corrected. It was a mistake caught by other people and they made it quickly known to the public. The IPCC was caught with their pants down. And they're trying to do damage control at this point. The implosion continues and it'll go supernova soon.

Though you seem to be panicking by using ad hominem attacks (e.g. "global warming denier," "creationist," "dumb as rocks") in place of making sound, reasoned arguments. All I can say is that you've been duped in the biggest science hoax on Earth.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Lucy?

 

[DGirl101]

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.
‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.

‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’

One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’

When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’.

Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.

It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’



Couldnt read the yellow text so I bolded it for others to read it too....

 

[netrox]

No. You don't get it about that letter. You see, it was written in 2005 in the effort to tell the public about the IPCC's refusal to make clear to the public that there is no connection between global warming and hurricane activity (which blows a serious hole into this whole global warming claim).

And it gets worse............

You said, "that man's CO2 contribution has directly caused Earth to warm up."

Where did it say CO2? It's discussing hurricanes and if global warming will worsen hurricanes. Never did it mention about CO2.

"Netrox, if you haven't figured it out by now it wasn't just a "simple mistake" that was caught and corrected. It was a mistake caught by other people and they made it quickly known to the public. The IPCC was caught with their pants down."

Oh please, IPCC made them accountable.. what part of English don't you understand?

"According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.... Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures. "

They did NOT follow the IPCC procedures as required. IPCC was not caught with pants down, it was a scientist being caught with pants down. It's like saying, "A worker at Walmart stole a watch.... Walmart got caught with pants down!" You don't blame a store for stealing a watch, do you?

 

[kokonut]

You said, "that man's CO2 contribution has directly caused Earth to warm up."

Where did it say CO2? It's discussing hurricanes and if global warming will worsen hurricanes. Never did it mention about CO2.

"Netrox, if you haven't figured it out by now it wasn't just a "simple mistake" that was caught and corrected. It was a mistake caught by other people and they made it quickly known to the public. The IPCC was caught with their pants down."

Oh please, IPCC made them accountable.. what part of English don't you understand?

"According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.... Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures. "

They did NOT follow the IPCC procedures as required. IPCC was not caught with pants down, it was a scientist being caught with pants down. It's like saying, "A worker at Walmart stole a watch.... Walmart got caught with pants down!" You don't blame a store for stealing a watch, do you?

You forget. The IPCC lives for anything about the increase on CO2 and the perceived "damage" it may cause on earth, including increase in intensity and frequency of hurricanes which have been disproved a while back.

IPCC was caught with their pants down which is why I used a 2005 letter where Dr. Landsea explained his reason for leaving because of IPCC insistence on making it into a political issue and not a neutral one. And I combined this with a recent article that shows how the IPCC continued with their insistence on making this entirely a political one and not a scientific one by ignoring proper science protocols as seen by Dr. Lai's statement (note the two bolded sections in making my point here).

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

IPCC was caught with their pants down by going ahead, knowingly so, that this glacier thing had no teeth to begin with (no data, no peer review studies, nada!) yet included them as a way to try and put political pressure on politicians to do something. Kind of like the "fake but accurate" kind of response except that the "accurate" part never existed. They knew. It took somebody on the outside and expose them to the public. And now the IPCC is back-tracking furiously.

 

[netrox]

Once again, you're making a fool out of yourself, kokonut.

Let the readers be alert that IPCC is actually conservative with its estimates and its projections were UNDERESTIMATED!

"On February 1, 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.[74] The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection, and the actual sea level rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection."

And let me also remind you that Bush administration hated IPCC's conservative estimates and kicked out the leader to replace more freindly oil leader:

"Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly."

Himalayan glaciers disappearing? Don't tell me... what actually happend was this:

This projection was not included in the final summary for policymakers. The IPCC has since acknowledged that the date is incorrect, while reaffirming that the conclusion in the final summary was robust. They expressed regret for "the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance". The date of 2035 has been correctly quoted by the IPCC from the WWF report, which has misquoted its own source, an ICSI report "Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale".

It was NEVER used in a final summary for policymakers.

And let me remind readers that kokonut is a geologist and it's no secret that a geologist is more likely to be a creationist and a global warming denialist (actually, it's my observation, I noticed many creationists and global warming denialists are geologists - they're interested in rocks and oil; go figure!).

 

[femfacalifornia]

can you show me how this negates the over-all assessment that global warming is happening? i would try calling and talking to scientists about the matter. they all laugh when they hear people denying it. all of them. not just this dr. lal who blew it by trying to coerce his country into taking action because he is afraid for his country. that is inexcusable and Lal should be fired and never work in the scientific community again for his deception. but even if you delete every word he added to the ipcc report there are millions of volumes of reviewed science that ARE in the report that clearly support, and show, for anyone with even a tiny bit of intellectual curiosity, that global warming is happening and it is caused by humans. the glaciers all over the world are melting at accelerated rates, this stupid dr. lal didn't have to exaggerate in order to manipulate his government. so my suggestion to you is to stop reading global warming denier sites that never quote any peer reviewed science. stop believing opinionated talking heads on the tee vee who don't direct you to some peer reviewed science and/or scientists. don't be fooled by the non-scientific community into believing the biggest and most dangerous lie of all, that we are not affecting our atmosphere. we're affecting it just like our corporations are destroying our lakes and rivers and oceans with hundred mile long dead zones where nothing lives anymore (i won't swim in one again for as long as i live. i lived at the lakes and rivers when i was a kid.)like oil and coal are polluting our air. like chemical plants are destroying our soil and water. it is these groups that make up this HOAX that global warming isn't happening because they don't want to have to change their dirty habits. they're getting filthy, and i mean "filthy" rich off of what they do and they're spending a LOT on faux news to convince the least intelligent people in the country that global warming isn't happening and that THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
so my suggestion again. call a scientist. any climate scientist will do. they don't all work for the ipcc. and none of them work for al gore.. geeze, i can't believe the level of some of the people i've read here. you can find climate scientists in just about any university. try woodshole at mit. or university of southern ms. or louisiana or california.. scripps in california.. excellent place to call. but don't call and tell them global warming is a hoax, you'll get laughed off of the phone. there is not a scientists on the planet that has published a peer reviewed paper disclaiming global warming. NOT ONE. i challenge any of you to fine me one peer reviewed paper denying global warming. just one. i'll show you millions supporting it. do we have a deal?
pointer, pinky, thumb.

 

[kokonut]

Once again, you're making a fool out of yourself, kokonut.

Let the readers be alert that IPCC is actually conservative with its estimates and its projections were UNDERESTIMATED!

"On February 1, 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.[74] The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection, and the actual sea level rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection."

And let me also remind you that Bush administration hated IPCC's conservative estimates and kicked out the leader to replace more freindly oil leader:

"Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly."

Himalayan glaciers disappearing? Don't tell me... what actually happend was this:

This projection was not included in the final summary for policymakers. The IPCC has since acknowledged that the date is incorrect, while reaffirming that the conclusion in the final summary was robust. They expressed regret for "the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance". The date of 2035 has been correctly quoted by the IPCC from the WWF report, which has misquoted its own source, an ICSI report "Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale".

It was NEVER used in a final summary for policymakers.

And let me remind readers that kokonut is a geologist and it's no secret that a geologist is more likely to be a creationist and a global warming denialist (actually, it's my observation, I noticed many creationists and global warming denialists are geologists - they're interested in rocks and oil; go figure!).

IPCC never had so much a "conservative estimates" nor was it ever "underestimated" but delved into the realm of exaggerated claims time after time. Afterall, their agenda has been entirely a political one rather than on pure science basis and proper science protocols.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MLKEEMay2008.pdf - HAS THE IPCC EXAGGERATED ADVERSE IMPACTOF GLOBAL WARMING ON HUMAN SOCIETIES?

As you can see, they have a history up to the present of using data or information that was never peer reviewed and even questionable (e.g the Himalayan glaciers, malaria claims, etc).

Check out Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) work on what she found in just one day of looking.

There is No Frakking "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming: More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report

Below is a list of documents that were created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this "Nobel-winning" IPCC AR4 report:

Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: WWF UK - for a living planet filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]

Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.

Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.

Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. WWF-Australia -- WWF-Australia publications/acg_solutions.pdf

Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as "Allianz" above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]

Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November

Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf.

Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions
/business_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm

Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal

Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.

Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf

WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. Welcome to WWF's global network
WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.

Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland.

The IPCC is heading for an implosion.

I'm not a geologist.
Not a creationist in the sense that Earth was created in 6,000 years.

I do not accept the theory that man is causing Earth to warm up and "boil over," and that we're soley responsible for it. Laughable. Especially when CO2 only make up .038 percent (.00038) of the total volume of Earth's atmospheric gases, and that we have an incredibly complex Earth system coupled with an outside system that includes cosmic rays, magnetic fields, and the sun's changing energy output.

Getting desperate or what, Netrox?

 

[kokonut]

Here's another example of IPCC's exaggerated claims when they cited a study on severe weather event frequency that wasn’t complete yet and when the study was complete it had an entirely different conclusion. Rose wrote on what she found,

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters - Times Online

See the problem folks? IPCC has a political agenda here and lacks any scientific transparency.

 

[kokonut]

I feel here is the appropriate place to put this news out.

We are discontinuing our early December quantitative hurricane forecast for the next year and giving a more qualitative discussion of the factors which will determine next year’s Atlantic basin hurricane activity. Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill. Reasons for this unexpected lack of skill are discussed.
.
.
.
Relationships between predictors and predictands which once seemed quite strong may fail to work in future years due to a phenomenon known as the ‘siege of time’. It is the failure of these once-promising relationships which requires the forecaster to demand as much understanding of linkages between predictors and predictands as possible.
.
.
.
We have developed a new way of assessing next year’s activity in terms of two primary physical parameters:
1. the strength of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC)
2. the phase of ENSO.
.
.
.
We strongly believe that the increases in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the 20th century have had little or no significant effect on Atlantic basin or global TC activity as extensively discussed in our many previous forecast write-ups and recently in Gray (2011). Global tropical cyclone activity has shown no significant trend over the past thirty years.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2011/dec2011/dec2011.pdf

Ahhhh......

 

[kokonut]

And almost 2 years later....

"We have moved past the 3/4 point of the Atlantic hurricane season which has been the quietest since 1994 and 5th slowest since 1950 in terms of a metric called Accumulated Cyclone Energy or ACE. Compared to historical ACE records, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is 71% below normal. While Hurricane Ingrid is the 8th named storm, the overall season has been characterized by short-lived and generally weak systems. The formation of Hurricane Humberto just beat the clock by a matter of hours to keep 2013 from going into the record books for the latest-forming first hurricane. Seasonal forecasts clearly overestimated the number of major hurricanes with some scientists blaming African Saharan dust layers drying out the tropical Atlantic atmosphere.

Globally, the Pacific Ocean is the king when it comes to tropical cyclones which are called typhoons, hurricanes, or cyclones depending upon your ocean location. My research has highlighted the dramatic multi-year downturn in global hurricane activity beginning in 2007 which slightly recovered before dropping even further here in 2013. Overall, global tropical cyclone ACE has significantly droppped in the past 6-years and 2013 looks like a continuation of that downward trend." Dr. Ryan Maue

WeatherBELL Models | Premium Weather Maps

And we're almost at 400 ppm on CO2 concentration. With what Al Gore has been saying for years about this so-called "global warming" and hurricanes is that we should've been seeing hurricanes forming left and right every year. But natch, that was never the case. You see, IPCC sole purpose was politics before science and way to somehow extract more money from people in the form of taxation and fees. Sorry, Netrox. Learn to realize that there is no "global warming theory" but simply a "global warming hypothesis." And that IPCC is biased politically.

More....

Remember "Hurricane Sandy" that was billed as "Superstorm Sandy"? The only problem was that when Hurricane Sandy came ashore it stopped being a hurricane and instead became an post-tropical storm. Yet, there were a lot of heavy breathing by global warming adherents (read: nutty people).

A few hours before slamming into the East Coast, flooding basements, splintering boardwalks, and destroying whole communities, Hurricane Sandy did something that crucially changed the national response to the storm—it stopped being a hurricane.

It didn't matter that Sandy was a gigantic (expletive) storm. It had combined into something more like a nor'easter. Technically, it was a post-tropical cyclone, a name that surely has less connotative meaning than "hurricane."

And then the bureaucracy got in the way. Yes, it appears not even the weather is free of red tape. Below, see how the hurricane-warning model looked when Sandy came ashore. When the storm became "post-tropical" (and therefore not technically a hurricane) as it approached land, it dropped out of the National Hurricane Center's purview.

Red Tape and Bureaucracy Bungled Hurricane Sandy Warnings - NationalJournal.com

Oh, btw, Hurricane Sandy came ashore as a post-tropical storm on October 24, 2012. We're still in the hurricane season with a little more than a month to go. Anything can happen. We could see 10 hurricanes in October. Or more likely, hardly any.

 

[kokonut]

Yeah...hurricane prediction has so far been a bust. The Atlantic hurricane season this year has been the quietest in 45 years.

The strongest storm so far was just a pitiful Category 1 hurricane. Hurricane season ends Nov 30th and things could change in November but not likely.

 

[caz12]

we expecting the worse weather in 30yrs in next few hours,i know of one hurricane in uk 1987 that was awful so tonight going to be rough...we got treat this planet with more care it really is fragile as i about to find out as wind has started

 

[kokonut]

we expecting the worse weather in 30yrs in next few hours,i know of one hurricane in uk 1987 that was awful so tonight going to be rough...we got treat this planet with more care it really is fragile as i about to find out as wind has started

Worse weather in 30 years? So what? We get all kinds of record weather events.