By MATT PATTERSON

If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world’s governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium — and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to “save the planet.”

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of “the best scientists and engineers worldwide” (as the group’s own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give “high-quality advice to international bodies,” has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices — and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC’s much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false — yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Then there’s the IPCC’s earlier prediction in 2007 — which it claimed to have “high confidence” in — that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.

Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’ to the statements.” The critics note “many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges ‘were not adequately considered,’ the InterAcademy Council’s investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report.”

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn’t based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data — but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, “[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion’s share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers.”

Thus, the Times concluded, “EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus.”
All this comes on top of last year’s revelation of the “Climategate” e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.

Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that “the debate is over” — that the science was “settled.” That claim is now in shreds — though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous “cap and trade” anti-warming bill.

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the “right” results.

The warming “scientific” community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other’s papers — and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it’s a travesty.

In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists’ reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.

Matt Patterson is editor of Green Watch, a publication of the Capital Research Center .

Is there any doubt about the real motivation behind Soros and Obama when they talk ‘climate’?  There shouldn’t be.  From Bloomberg:

By Alex Morales and Jim Efstathiou Jr. – Nov 5, 2010

At least $65 billion might be raised by taxing foreign-exchange transactions and auctioning pollution permits, a United Nations panel said today in a report recommending ways to finance aid for fighting global warming.

The panel, which includes billionaire investor George Soros and Larry Summers, director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said selling carbon-emissions permits would generate $38 billion and a financial transactions tax an additional $27 billion, according to the report released today.

The findings are intended to guide envoys at UN climate talks that start this month in Mexico as they seek ways to pay for $100 billion in climate aid that was pledged by 2020 to poor nations at last year’s summit in Copenhagen. The report found that the goal is “challenging but feasible” to achieve.

“Without agreement on finance, we will not be able to reach agreement on other issues for climate change,” Jens Stoltenberg, Norway’s prime minister and co-chairman of the advisory group, said at a press conference in New York. “Now we need the political will to take the decisions.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed the panel, called the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, in February. It’s led by Stoltenberg and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. The 21-member group also includes Soros, Summers and Deutsche Bank AG Vice Chairman Caio Koch- Weser.

The report didn’t specify what financial transactions would be covered by the tax beyond saying the focus would be on international currency sales.

‘Court Of Government’

“The ball is really now in the court of governments to move forward on generating these resources,” David Waskow, senior adviser on climate finance for the development charity Oxfam International, said in a telephone interview from Washington. “One can raise substantial public finance from public sources and do it in a way that’s not going to place additional pressure on national budgets and taxpayers.”

The findings would add to the weight behind calls for a tax on financial speculation, sometimes termed a Tobin tax after James Tobin, the Nobel Prize-winning U.S. economist who first suggested the idea in 1971.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and labor groups including the U.K. Trades Union Congress have supported the idea. President Barack Obama’s administration opposes it. A tax of 0.05 percent on financial transactions may raise as much as $700 billion a year, according to WWF, a Washington-based global environmental activist group.

A financial transactions tax would be “difficult to implement universally” and therefore “only feasible to implement among interested countries,” the panel said in its report.

‘Most Exposed’

Developing nations are “the most exposed” to the impacts of warming, Nicholas Stern, former chief adviser on climate change to the U.K. government and a member of the advisory panel, said in a statement. The UN in 2007 found that while developing countries have contributed the least to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they’re the most at risk from the effects of climate change, especially small, island states and nations in Sub-Saharan Africa.

“As Africans, we’ve contributed virtually nothing to the environmental mess our planet is in,” Meles said at the press conference by telephone from Ethiopia. “We will, however, suffer the most.”

The panel assumed a carbon price of as much as $25 a ton on emissions in the levy it suggested. An additional $5 billion might be gained from a tax on carbon offsets in the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, which polluters buy to make up for emissions elsewhere, according to the study. Private offsets may generate as much as $14 billion.

‘Necessary Transformation’

“Concerted global action and a carbon price of at least $25 is required to achieve the necessary transformation in the global economy,” U.K. Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said in a statement. Huhne is a member of the advisory group.

An additional $12 billion would come from a levy on shipping and aviation, the report showed. Waskow said the levies on transportation need to be structured so as not to harm developing nations.

Sources of finance identified in the report included direct contributions from government budgets, a measure it said may generate the full $100 billion while being politically “challenging.”

The panel also looked at a “wires charge” on electricity generation, which it said might provide $5 billion; the removal of fossil fuel-subsidies, which may raise $8 billion; and a carbon tax, which would garner $10 billion. Private finance could provide a net $24 billion, it said.

Soros Proposal Shelved

A proposal Soros made at last year’s climate summit in Copenhagen, that the richest nations use $100 billion of foreign-exchange reserves to help developing nations fight climate change, was deemed not “politically acceptable” by the panel. The money is denominated in what are called special drawing rights, the IMF unit of accounting based on the dollar, yen, pound and euro.

Special drawing rights, created in 1969 to replace gold for large cross-border exchanges, are used by the IMF and other international organizations to account for financial transactions in different countries.

“We are simply asking those who created the problem to stop before it becomes too late,” Meles said. “The prospects for sanity and justice do not appear good, but I refuse to give up.”

Alarmist warnings about the planet are falling flat, according to Washington Times’ editors.

The editorial below from the Washington Times nicely summarizes the state of the current debate over global climate change.  Thank goodness for history!  How fun it will be to look back on Gore’s ‘inconvenient truth’ and marvel at the folly of humanity– that half of a country’s population can be taken in by a politician posing as a scientist… a politician whose hypocrisy is on full display.  “How did he do it?” people will say…. 

The shame is that Gore and and his friends on the Left will likely find a way to convince the media that they NEVER predicted all of those things…  that is what the left usually does, changing stance with the wind and lying about former positions.  I’m keeping ‘inconvenient truth’ around– for laughs.  The article:

Switching terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” to newly favored “global climatic disruption” was supposed to help revive the environmental left’s plunging poll numbers. It hasn’t worked. Nature has, inconveniently, failed to cooperate, with dire predictions of upcoming catastrophes falling flat. Desperation pervades a propaganda effort that has finally gone too far.

The radical green movement is all about scaring the public into adopting unpopular policy initiatives, such as hefty taxes on important sources of energy and increased government direction of our lives through regulation. The Chicken Little strategy can work if the possibility of major disruptions such as a devastating Katrina-style hurricane push people into embracing protection from Washington. Unfortunately for the scaremongers, the disruptions just aren’t happening.

On Thursday, Florida State University researcher Ryan N. Maue updated his index of tropical cyclone activity to reflect the fact that worldwide hurricane activity has reached a 33-year low. The Western North Pacific has seen tropical cyclone activity at a level 78 percent below normal, proving those seas haven’t been calmer since detailed records were first kept in 1945. Accurately describing this period of global climatic tranquility isn’t going to compel action.

That’s why British screenwriter Richard Curtis released a video on Sept. 30 for the “10:10″ campaign, which is intended to encourage people to cut their personal carbon-dioxide emissions by 10 percent per year starting in 2010. The short “No Pressure” film used techniques right out of a horror flick to depict a schoolteacher blowing up two children who failed to show any interest in pestering their parents to install insulation or squiggly light bulbs to “keep the planet safe for everyone.”

The 10:10 campaign issued an apology for the shocking video, which critics now dub “Splattergate” in reference to the film’s excessive gore. The incident highlights the degree to which supposedly mainstream environmentalists think mankind is a blight on the planet. This is the same radical ideology that motivated last month’s hostage-taking incident at the Discovery Channel.

No less than President Obama’s own top science adviser, John P. Holdren, is a long-term adherent to this strange doctrine. In 1969, Mr. Holdren co-authored an article for the journal BioScience entitled, “Population and Panaceas: A Technological Perspective,” which essentially predicted we’d run out of food by the year 2000. He warned that “man’s present technology is inadequate to the task of maintaining the world’s burgeoning billions, even under the most optimistic assumptions.” Just to stay even, Mr. Holdren calculated global food production would have to double or triple – an impossibility, he claimed, requiring a mass-sterilization plan.

Mr. Holdren’s dire prediction never came true, as none of the left’s self-indulgent fantasies do. The clock is indeed ticking; time is running out for the alarmists in academia, Hollywood and the White House.

From the Washington Times:

Noticeably absent from President Obama’s latest economic-stimulus package are any further attempts to create jobs through “green” energy projects, reflecting a year in which the administration’s original, loudly trumpeted efforts proved largely unfruitful.

The long delays typical with environmentally friendly projects – combined with reports of green stimulus funds being used to create jobs in China and other countries, rather than in the U.S. – appear to have killed the administration’s appetite for pushing green projects as an economic cure.

After months of hype about the potential for green energy to stimulate job growth and lead the economy out of a recession, the results turned out to be disappointing, if not dismal. About $92 billion – more than 11 percent – of Mr. Obama’s original $814 billion of stimulus funds were targeted for renewable energy projects when the measure was pushed through Congress in early 2009.

Even some of the administration’s liberal allies have expressed skepticism over the original stimulus package’s use of green investments as a way to spur quick employment growth at home.

“Spending on renewables is slow to get out of the door. Leaks to foreign companies is an inadequate driver of jobs and growth and may not create a strong exporting industry,” said Samuel Sherraden, an economic analyst at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based progressive think tank.

Only about $20 billion of the allotted funds have been spent – the slowest disbursement rate for any category of stimulus spending. Private analysts are skeptical of White House estimates that the green funding created 190,700 jobs.

The Department of Energy estimated that 82,000 jobs have been created and has acknowledged that as much as 80 percent of some green programs, including $2.3 billion of manufacturing tax credits, went to foreign firms that employed workers primarily in countries including China, South Korea and Spain, rather than in the United States.

Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland, said much of the green stimulus funding was “squandered.”

“Large grants to build green buildings don’t generate many new jobs, except for a few architects,” he said. “Subsidies for windmills and solar panels created lots of jobs in China,” but few at home.

In one of several embarrassing disclosures for the administration, a report last fall by American University’s Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 11 U.S. wind farms used their grants to purchase 695 out of 982 wind turbines from overseas suppliers.

That report raised alarms in Congress. Leading Democrats insisted that the money be spent at home, but restrictions on the funds proved impossible without the specter of a trade war.

While lawmakers fumed, economists were not surprised that green energy companies used the funds to purchase inexpensive Chinese wind turbines. Renewable-technology firms are under the gun to bring down costs so they can compete with cheaper traditional fuels, such as gas and coal, for electricity customers.

But without restrictions that prohibit the funds from being diverted overseas, Mr. Morici said, any further spending on green energy would only continue to enrich foreign producers. Chinese manufacturers in particular have taken the lead in making renewable-energy components, just as they have come to dominate many other industries because of advantages derived from state subsidies and the country’s abundant pool of cheap labor.

In a trade complaint against China on Thursday, the United Steelworkers union charged that Beijing is trying to corner the market on green jobs by showering billions of dollars of subsidies on domestic producers and discriminating against foreign firms and goods.

With growing proof that green jobs are heading overseas, even administration sympathizers and environmental advocates have largely abandoned the idea of pushing green funding as a way to stimulate the economy.

While he requested no additional stimulus funding for renewable-energy projects this week, Mr. Obama now portrays his green-energy agenda as good for the economy and jobs in the long term, as the government assists the private sector in evolving away from dependence on oil and coal.

“We see a future,” he said in a speech Wednesday in Cleveland, “where we build a homegrown clean-energy industry, because I don’t want to see new solar panels or electric cars or advanced batteries manufactured in Europe or in Asia. I want to see them made right here in the U.S. of A. by American workers.”

Time magazine recently reported that the White House last year saw the stimulus bill as a vehicle for enacting the president’s ambitious, long-term environmental program, knowing that most of the economic effect would be felt years from now rather than immediately when the economy needed it.

The New America Foundation’s Mr. Sherraden said it was “unwise” of the administration and congressional Democrats “to rely so heavily on the renewable-energy sector to drive the recovery.”

The progressive think tank and other allies urged the administration to refocus its efforts on traditional road and transit projects, which economists say are more likely to provide quick jolts to the jobs market. The administration appears to have followed that advice in advancing a $50 billion program for building roads, transit and rail as the centerpiece of its latest stimulus plan.

“Green-energy projects in the United States are unusually slow to roll out because the industry is small and rife with political and market uncertainty,” Mr. Sherraden said.

Despite the massive infusion of government funding in recent years, renewable technologies have captured only a tiny share of the energy market and remain heavily dependent on government funding to be viable. Because of the need to constantly renew government funding, private investors remain skittish about committing to new projects.

Mr. Sherraden said the problem with job leakage overseas promised only to get worse, because governments in Europe and Japan – which in years past spent lavishly on renewable energy – now are drastically cutting back their green subsidies as they try to pare enormous budget deficits.

With the United States left as the only major developed country still flooding the market with government funding, competition from overseas suppliers promised to be more fierce than ever, Mr. Sherraden said.

“It is impossible to guarantee that clean-energy stimulus is not leaked abroad,” he said. “We have to recognize that we are funding job-creation programs in Germany, Spain, Japan and China.”

Even if the green-energy funding is viewed as a long-term investment to replace dwindling reserves of oil rather than as pure economic stimulus, advocates have greatly exaggerated the benefits, said Kerry Lynch, senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.

“For all the hype over wind and solar, the reality is that they contribute very little to our energy supply,” she said, saying that wind accounts for less than 1 percent of total U.S. energy production and solar power for just one-tenth of 1 percent. “Together, they could power the country for all of three days a year.”

Today Drudge linked to an opinion piece by Froma Harrop of the Providence Journal, where she dragged out HER favorite scientist and explained why we all had better listen.  I have noticed since the advent of blogging that the world can be divided into two groups of people– blog writers and blog readers.  The same thing holds true for editorial writers;  they spend more time writing in support of their own opinions than reading anything that risks challenging those opinions.    I looked over her other opinion pieces over the years and had no trouble seeing her politics.   As a scientist (yes, Froma, with a real PhD) I instantly realize that view is good for little in regard to education–  but I read it anyway, as that is the only way to come to an accurate conclusion– that is, to challenge one’s self to new opinion on a regular basis.

Harrop says that HER expert on climate science coined the term ‘global warming’ way back in the 1970′s, which is interesting, given that anyone who was anyone in climate circles back then would have dismissed her expert faster than Hollywood dismissed Michael Crichton after ‘State of Fear’ was published!  Over on the web site you can read the Newsweek article from 1975 or see the graphic from Time Magazine from 1974, both from a time when the world’s climate scientists were warning us about impending disaster from global COOLING.  In fact, the articles described the recent spike up in tornadoes, and the shortened growing seasons in Europe, as evidence that the cooling was already having horrible effects on the earth.  The site mentions the controversial idea of covering the polar ice caps with soot to try to absorb more of the sun’s heat, musing whether that would be a bad idea.  Hmmm…..   makes you wonder what people will say about US in 30 years!

Read this report and more at WarmalGlobing.com

Harrop mentions the newspaper ad taken out awhile back signed by almost 100 climate ‘scientists’– a group of straw men for her expert to knock down.  She does NOT mention the fact the many of the original proponents of global warming or ‘anthropomorphic climate change’ have abandoned their earlier opinions or research, which is why one rarely hears scientists talking about the subject anymore.  Now all we hear from are the politicians and their ‘true believers’ (and of course teenagers, who always think that whatever THEY are doing is the most important thing in the world– so this MUST be a critical age for climate!).

Neither does Harrop mention the petition by well over 30,000 scientists that can be read at the Oregan Institute on Science and Medicine (I haven’t seen it for awhile, so it might have many more by now!).

Realize that scientists are slow to come around for at least two reasons.  First, ‘warming’ is where the money is- if you want funding, you don’t go out asking for funds to look at global cooling!  In fact, since most of the cash for research comes from advocacy groups (including the largest advocacy group of all, the US government– which has thousands of bureaucrats who rely on the hundreds of programs that ‘save the planet’), a researcher BETTER come up with the ‘correct’ findings– or good luck getting funded next year!!  The second reason for scientists to embrace ‘warming’ is because they have seen what happens to their colleagues who didn’t.  There is no news when a PhD fails to make tenure– but it happens all the time.  Universities tend to have a ‘with us or against us’ spirit on the inside, despite the claims of academic freedom to the outside.  It is not a coincidence that your children all become bleeding hearts by the end of four years of college!   And if the folks on the tenure committee don’t take you down, the media will get hold of one sentence that sounds absolutely crazy when placed in the wrong context, and down you’ll go!

It is so nice, by the way, to have John Stossel out there again.  He was viewed as brilliant by his media ‘friends’ until he started saying the WRONG truth– and suddenly ABC didn’t find his stories as interesting.  I’m glad we have one network left where the reporters are not taking marching orders from the government!

The worst thing about people like Harrop and the stories they write is that they are the reason that we get things wrong so often.  Had Newsweek and Time had their way years ago, we would now have black spots on each end of the planet.  Now we have the equivalent with writers like Harrop, the major networks, and Obama and the US government– three interest groups with power over our future, all with no knowledge of science.  Even worse, none of these groups even know how to critically evaluate science!  REAL science does NOT need cheerleaders like Harrop–  real science can take care of itself, and allow the truth to prevail.  The reason policies to control ‘global warming’ are floundering is because the science behind it is fatally flawed.  The public got a look at climate-gate last week– at least those members of the public who read newspapers outside of the United States!  We all saw the extent that true believers will go to promote their beliefs– and to be sure of a new round of funding!

Cooler Heads Prevail