The state of ClimateGate today, Jan 27 2010. [krakatoa]

(A series of weekly-ish roundups of the day's Climate news and commentary.)

This is by no means a comprehensive recap. The stories come from a variety of sources, and I highly recommend exploring the linked sites for more breaking news.

(after the break...)

Anthony Watts & Joe D'Aleo have released a new paper reviewing worldwide surface temperature recordings, prompting JoNova to wonder:

Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse for the cult of the carbon scare.

Now we need to ask if the world has even warmed?

From the press release:

...leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.

LauraW forwarded this link from some chap named Tom M. In it, we learn that the IPCC may have developed something of a habit of including non-peer-reviewed material in their official reports as more evidence that the science is settled.

Experts appointed by the United Nations said rising temperatures were to blame for an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

But it has emerged that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the statement, made in 2007, on an unpublished report that had not been properly reviewed by other scientists.

Perhaps the habit is an addiction?

Ben Pile, guest blogging @ Roger Pielke Jr., finds yet another non-peer-reviewed finding written by non-scientists that somehow made its way into the IPCC report.

Steve McIntyre @ Climate Audit discusses how these non-peer-review findings, coupled with the incestuous peer-review process that the IPCC used to cook the books, fail to meet the standards required by the EPA in using scientific findings to create policy.

One of the more interesting knock-ons of the opportunistic IPCC reliance on WWF and similar “authorities” is that it may compromise the ability of the U.S. EPA to argue that IPCC peer review meets the statutory standards required of EPA peer review.

Any bets on whether the EPA lets a little thing like the scientific method get in the way of its desire to regulate plant food?

So you know those nature shows where a member of the pack is injured so the rest of the pack attacks and devours him?

IPCC chairman and Cricket enthusiast Rajendra Pachauri has come up lame, and the rest of the pack is circling.

When a guy who authored chapters of IPCC's 2007 report and described its contents as...

“[it] isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.”

now says this...

There has been some “dangereous crossing” of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.

and this...

"I think the IPCC needs a fundamental shift."

...one can only marvel at the obliviousness, and take bets on the timing & success of the coup to come.

Read more of Weaver's comments here.

I'm all for a rededication of the IPCC towards the scientific method. I have no illusions that such a thing is possible. The UN is by nature a political animal. It was inevitable that its failings would taint the IPCC, and will do so always.

Can the IPCC be objective and independent of UN political maneuvering? Yes.

Will it be? Magick 8 ball sez "You should invest in NY bridges instead."

The state of ClimateGate today, Jan 27 2010. [krakatoa]&bodytext=(A series of weekly-ish roundups of the day's Climate news and commentary.) This is by no means a comprehensive recap. The stories come from a variety of sources, and I highly recommend exploring the linked sites for more breaking news....&topic=world_news"> posted by xgenghisx at 11:51 AM

| Access Comments