Protest Info:
Author Points To “Climategate’s Perry Mason Moment”
Posted by sakerfa on November 26, 2009
(SteveWatson) – IPCC assessment on climate change must be rejected as a valid scientific publication
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Nov 26, 2009
Author Steve Milloy hits on another smoking gun to emerge from the “ClimateGate” emails scandal today, referring to it as a “Perry Mason moment”.
Milloy, publisher of the website Junkscience.com, reveals that in 2007 he privately surveyed some of the scientists involved in the scandal with interesting results in light of their leaked communications.
Kevin Trenberth, one of the lead authors of the UN’s IPCC report on climate change was one of those who responded to the survey, Milloy notes:
One question asked:
Which best describes the role of manmade CO2 emissions in climate change?
Trenberth checked off the following answer:
Manmade CO2 emissions drive climate change, but other natural and human-related factors are also important.
Milloy notes that this is interesting given that Trenberth’s now exposed private emails reveal a different opinion.
In an October 14 email to fellow alarmist Tom Wigley, Trenberth plaintively writes:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
“So — while in October 2007 Trenberth seemed pretty convinced that he understood energy flows in the climate system, two years later he underwent such an about-face that he is now trying to get his colleagues to admit, at least privately, that they really don’t know squat.” Milloy writes.
Milloy has gathered his fair share of detractors over the years as a skeptic of the anthropogenic global warming theory, mainly due to the fact that he has some organizational ties to ExxonMobil. However, the raw data of his revelations speaks for itself.
The IPCC’s most recent assessment report, to which Kevin Trenberth prominently contributed, was completed in 2007, concluding that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.”
That report still stands as the centerpiece driving government policy on climate science worldwide. It has forged a direct and incontrovertible move toward the implementation of carbon taxes and cap and trade systems, to be further actioned at the upcoming the Copenhagen talks.
Trenberth’s emails show him to be at best morally and professionally culpable for allowing unproven theory to be written up as “unequivocal” scientific fact. At worst they reveal him and his colleagues to be criminally involved in an agenda to influence government policy through distortion of the facts and outright lies.
In either case the IPCC’s report should be immediately rejected as a valid scientific document in the light of the ClimateGate revelations. Instead it seems that it will continue to be upheld as the pivotal force behind climate related negotiations and legislation.
“They have no shame, and they will not go away. So our struggle against them will continue.” Milloy concludes, “The difference now is that we are no longer The Skeptics. We are The Vindicated.”
Jaime Frontero said
Not that you’re likely to post this…
…but I fail to see how these two statements:
“Manmade CO2 emissions drive climate change, but other natural and human-related factors are also important.” …and:
“How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
..are at all contradictory.
No climate scientist of repute will say that we know where all of the energy in earth’s system is going to. But we know how much is going in – to a fair nicety. And what that will inevitably mean on a macro scale.
I find in Mr. Trenberth’s statements – both of them – a refreshing lack of hubris.
And now, in the recently released Copenhagen Diagnosis, it becomes clear how overly-conservative and careful the IPCC reports have all been.
In Mr. Milloy’s statements above, per usual, I find only politics and money.
JF
rbw152 said
” it becomes clear how overly-conservative and careful the IPCC reports have all been”
Really? So it’s estimates of sea level rise have all be ‘conservative’ have they? And it’s estimates of temperature rise v CO2 emissions have been conservative too? And what about figures regarding malaria spreading to northern climes, those are conservative as well? Crikey, maybe that’s why Gerd Leipold of Greenpeace feels it necessary to ‘exaggerate’ his climate change claims – because the IPCC is being too ‘conservative’!
Jaime Frontero said
Yes, the IPCC estimates of sea-level rise have been *very* conservative. Try reading them. Then read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.
As for your statement: “… it’s [sic] estimates of temperature rise v CO2 emissions…” – I’m not sure what that means, other than that you are obviously not terribly involved with science.
Ahh. Gerd Leipold? What does he have to do with science? He’s a political activist with a pre-determined agenda; no different than James Inhofe. At least he doesn’t lie about who’s paying him.
Put your ax down and try to grasp the science, sonny. We’ve got big problems.
JF