IPCC's Doomsday Prediction of Rising Seas 'Was Wrong'

Credibility washed away

Remember all that crazy talk about sea levels rising from nonexistent global warming? Well, it was all nonsense. Of course a lot of us said so at the time, but we were called deniers.

Alarming predictions that global warming could cause sea levels to rise 6ft in the next century are wrong, it has emerged.

The forecast made by the influential 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which would have seen cities around the world submerged by water, now looks ‘unlikely’.

A Met Office study also rules out the shutdown of the Atlantic Ocean’s conveyor belt, which would trigger Arctic winters in Britain like those seen in the film The Day After Tomorrow.

So now that the IPCC is relegated to joke status, they have no credibility or authority, right? Guess again.

However, the report says the IPCC was right to warn of a sea level rise of up to 2ft by 2100, and that a 3ft rise could happen.

Could happen. Not will, but could. I could also start dating Miss America tomorrow, but chances are slim.

The 2007 analysis was criticised last year after it was found to have wrongly claimed Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

The Met Office analysis comes as world ministers fly to Cancun, Mexico, for the second week of UN climate change talks. u

One week of parties and sun just isn't enough for these blockheads.

Independent Investigation Slams IPCC Climate Scammers

The Great Global Warming Hoax took another one on the chin today. Not much left to this scam as their credibility has been close to zero since the ClimateGate emails first came to light late last year. Now that the clowns at the IPCC have een ordered to disclose their outside financial interest, expect a lot of sudden retirements.

An independent investigation into the UN’s climate change body has warned it to stop lobbying and to restrict its role to explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature.

Senior officials at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have also been ordered to disclose their outside financial interests to avert any allegations that they may have profited from policies to tackle global warming.

New controls should also be introduced to ensure that the scientific claims made in influential international reports are robust in future.

The independent inquiry which delivered the rebuke was ordered after the IPCC admitted it had exaggerated the pace at which Himalayan glaciers were melting. Several other errors in its recent report were also uncovered.

The admission threatened to undermine the scientific basis used by Governments around the world to justify spending billions of pounds tackling climate change.

A more blunt assessment:

Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”

Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”

Dutch Agency: Our Climate Report is Riddled With Errors, But Global Warming Exists Anyway

If these clowns worked in the private sector they'd be laughed out of business. But since they're living off the government dime they still get to promote this hoax even though their work has been thoroughly discredited since they're aided and abetted by an uncritical media.

A leading Dutch environment agency reported Monday that the seminal 2007 U.N. scientific report on climate change is too generalized and has even more errors than discovered so far — including one contributed by the agency itself.

But the review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency claimed the errors had no effect on the fundamental conclusion by U.N. panel of scientists: that global warming caused by humans already is happening.

Glaring mistakes discovered in the 3,000-page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year fed into an atmosphere of skepticism over the reliability of climate scientists who have been warning for many years that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases could have catastrophic consequences, including rising sea levels, drought and the extinction of nearly one-third of the Earth's species.

The errors put scientists on the defensive just as a major conference on climate change in Copenhagen, attended by some 120 world leaders, met with limited success to agree on how to limit carbon emissions and contain the worst effects of global warming.

The Dutch agency acknowledged responsibility for one mistake by the IPCC when it reported in 2005 that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, when only 26 percent is. The report should have said 55 percent is prone to flooding, including river flooding.

"The incorrect wording in the IPCC report does not affect the message of the conclusion," that the Netherlands is highly susceptible to sea level rise, it said. "The lesson to be learned for an assessment agency such as ours is that quality control is needed at the primary level."

The second previously reported error claimed the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, which the Dutch agency partly traced to a report on the likely shrinking of glaciers by the year 2350.

The review, which lasted six months, also found several other errors in the IPCC report on regional impacts of climate change — one of four separate IPCC reports in 2007 — although it said they were inconsequential.

The original report said global warming will put 75 million to 250 million Africans at risk of severe water shortages in the next 10 years, but a recalculation showed that range should be 90 million to 220 million, the agency said.

Another error it found involved the effect of wind turbulence on anchovy fisheries on Africa's west coast.

The Dutch agency said it examined 32 conclusions in the summary that the IPCC produced as a guideline for policy makers on the impact of climate change in eight regions.

Some conclusions were based on "insufficiently founded generalizations," and it found instances where the scientific references were unclear.

UN Orders 'Independent' Panel to Review IPCC Procedures

Raise you hands all of you who think for a second this will be anything but a whitewash?

In an apparent slap at the embattled chief of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has ordered a newly formed outside scientific panel to review its "procedures and practices" -- and more significantly, its management.

The hastily assembled panel will be headed by Prof. Robbert H. Dijkgraaf, head of the Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and co-chairman of the InterAcademy Council. The investigation will be carried out by the Council and will be composed of unpaid volunteer scientists. The panel's formation, it was acknowledged at a press conference Wednesday, was a direct reaction to criticism of the way the IPCC put together its last report on climate change.

Of course this "independent" panel won't have anything to do with all the junk science already promulgated by the discredited IPCC.

So what's the point?

But the IPCC has faced a torrent of criticism since November, when leaked e-mails raised doubts about its handling of data and its fairness. At least five significant errors have been reported in the panel's findings, and its credibility has been severely undermined both among scientists and the public.

On several occasions during Wednesday's press conference, Dijkgraaf said that the mandate of the new panel is not to look at past mistakes but to ensure that the IPCC's next report, its fifth, on the state of climate science will be accepted by the public and the scientific community.

Without admitting their previous reports were bogus, do they really expect people to accept their next report? Oh, and don't expect skeptics to be included in this "independent" report.

The assessment is to be completed by late August so that the findings can be used at the Oct. 5 meeting that will begin the effort to put out the latest report. Dijkgraaf admitted it will be a hurried task since no other members have been appointed and there still isn’t a budget for the panel.

Asked if there will be an effort to include climate change skeptics in the internal debates over which data are used, Dijkgraaf declined to answer.

"All scientists are skeptics," he said.

Can you say whitewash, boys and girls?

Climate Hoaxer to Face 'Independent' Inquiry

Somehow I doubt anything will come of this, but it appears the unusually hairy climate hoaxer and Al Gore pal Rajendra Pachauri will be facing an inquiry into his junk science.

Environment and Climate ministers meeting in closed session in Bali last night insisted that an independent review should be carried out following the publicising of mistakes in its last report, and a row surrounding Dr Pachauri's robust response to his critics. If his management is found to be at fault his position could become untenable.

Participants in the unprecedented meeting – held at the annual assembly of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) Governing Council in Bali – were sworn to secrecy over the decision and it is only expected to be announced after its detaled scope and composition have been worked out by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation, the two UN agencies that oversee the IPCC's work.

How nice of these climate hoaxers to fly to Bali while the rest of the planet is freezing their asses off.

Amazingly, this scammer thought he could get to decide who performed the inquiry. Man, he's got bigger stones than Algore.

The ministers – led by Hillary Benn, the Environment Secretary,and his counterparts from Germany,. Norway, Algeria and Antigua and Barbuda – refused to allow Dr Pachauri to decide who would carry out the review, insisting it must be completely and demonstrably independent of the IPCC.

The two agencies are expected first to approach national academies of sciences and to ensure that it examines the management of the organisation as well as its scientific procedures.

The review is to report by August to allow time for its conclusions - and Dr Pachauri's position – to be assessed before the IPCC meets for its own annual assembly in Korea in October.

Any objective inquiry can result in only one thing: Pachauri's dismissal. A criminal prosecution and being stripped of the Nobel Prize would also be nice.

Head UN Climate Clown Now Authoring Soft-Porn Novels

From climate porn to soft-porn

The head of the UN's pack of climate liars has moved on from authoring absurd junk science reports to a ridiculous novel that may well make him even more of a laughingstock that he already is.

As the UN's climate change chief, Dr Rajendra Pachauri has spent his career writing only the driest of academic articles. But the latest offering from the chairman of the UN’s climate change panel is an altogether racier tome.

Some might even suggest Dr Pachauri’s first novel is frankly smutty.

Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India earlier this month, tells the story of Sanjay Nath, an academic in his 60s reminiscing on his "spiritual journey" through India, Peru and the US.

On the way he encounters, among others, Shirley MacLaine, the actress, who appears as a character in the book. While relations between Sanjay and MacLaine remain platonic, he enjoys sex – a lot of sex – with a lot of women.

In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.

The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has "endangered the fragile ecosystem".

But talk of "denuding" is a clue of what is to come.

By page 16, Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital. "She then led him into the bedroom," writes Dr Pachauri.

"She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed... Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.

"May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.

"Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’."

More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: "Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before ... He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts."

Sadly for Sanjay, writes Dr Pachauri, "the excitement got the better of him, before he could even get started".

While teaching meditation to women in the US, Sanjay can once more barely contain his ardour. Again, breasts – usually heaving or else voluptuous – are thrust to the fore.

"He enjoyed the sensation of gently pushing Susan’s shoulders back a few inches, an action that served to lift her breasts even higher," writes Dr Pachauri. "He was excited by the sight of her heaving breasts, as she breathed in and out deeply."

A friend of Susan is taken to a motel by Sanjay but only after he has fondled her breasts – "which he just could not let go of" – inadvertently sounding the car horn at the same time.

Other passages in the novel involve group sex and more risqué sexual practices.

The novel was launched amid much fanfare with Bollywood stars and wealthy industrialists in attendance, a reflection of Dr Pachauri’s esteemed status in the country.

He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the acknowledgement of his novel, Dr Pachauri admits to writing the book while flying around the world between meetings as IPCC chairman or else in his capacity as head of a research institute in Delhi.

But with calls for him to resign over academic blunders in the reports he presides over, some critics will question whether he should have devoted more time to scrutinising the science behind the reports.

Some will also wonder whether just a little bit of Dr Pachauri is reflected in Sanjay, although there is no suggestion Dr Pachauri has ever lusted after women quite so readily.

Yes, there's certainly no mistaking this guy as the Warren Beatty of the climate delusion set.

He Lied

I must say, one thing about ClimateGate and all the fraud surrounding the global warming junk science has at least driven Al Gore underground. It should also drive this guy into hiding at the very least as well.

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.

Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.

He much prefers junk science instead.

Speaking of Algore, I'm wondering whether he'll be denouncing Osama bin Laden for co-opting his talking points or announcing a lecture series with the two of them? Wouldn't it be amusing if a dog-eared copy of Earth in the Balance was found in bin Laden's cave, just as it was with the Unabomber?

UK Science Advisor: Hey, Maybe We Should Listen to Those Deniers

As their world melts around them and they scurry for cover, the climate hoaxers are now desperately trying to cling to their jobs and precious funding that keeps them in business. Today's news is sure to send the warmers into a state of panic, as the UK's chief scientific advisor admits the time has come to listen to the skeptics of the junk science. Sure, good idea, considering the skeptics have the truth on their side.

Prof John Beddington admitted the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and condemned climate researchers who refused to publish data which formed the basis of their reports into global warming.

In an interview, Prof Beddington, called for a new era of honesty and responsibility from the environmental community and said scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.

Prof Beddington said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

''I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,” he said.

“Science grows and improves in the light of criticism.

“There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.”

His comments come after the United Nations’ climate science panel admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was forced to apologise after the prediction in its benchmark 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 – was revealed to have been based on unsubstantiated claims.

It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when leaked e-mails appeared to suggest that scientists at the University of East Anglia had manipulated climate change data.

This is all well and good but the horses have left the barn and aren't coming back. The credibility of these people has been irrevocably shattered and their fundamental dishonesty all these years has destroyed any shred of credibility they cling to.

When ClimateGate first erupted their first reflex was to lie, hide the decline and lash out at critics. They've engaged in one of the greatest hoaxes in history and it's they who need to repair their image, apologize for the fraud they're perpetrated, reveal all their data and be prosecuted if they indeed are found culpable. It's not time to make nice with the folks they've likened to Holocaust deniers. That's a bit too late.

They're the deniers. Deniers of the truth.

Climate Clowns Fess Up to Even More Errors in Bogus Himalayas Study

The other day we noted that Nobel Prize winning report by the IPCC that now they admit is full of errors. Now it just keeps getting worse as they cop to even more errors.

e Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

No, can't be shooting from the hip. Like, say, dismissing critics by calling them deniers when you know full well your report is nothing more than a hoax.

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.

They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani, an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment.

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.”

He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the report, who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese.

If the Nobel committee had the slightest bit of integrity and credibility they'd rescind the Nobel Prize immediately or at the very least investigate. But they'll never do that since our preening moral superior, Al Gore, shared the prize with this pack of frauds.

Hot Air links. Thanks!

IPCC: The Bernie Madoff of the Science Community

Today the British paper The Daily Mail has an exhaustive article on just how far the scientists at University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and then by extension the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the UN went to promote their fairy tale of the end of civilization as we know it now derisively referred to as Global Warming went.

Among some of the revelations revealed are these.

In the words of one, David Rind from the US space agency Nasa, it ‘looks like there were years around 1000AD that could have been just as warm’.

That is a time long before automobiles and factories.

In other cases they simply hid or stopped using data that did not fit their narrative. One such example is the use of the data obtained from tree rings. In 1961, when the data started showing a decline in temperature, they simply quit using it and hid the information in their flashy Powerpoint® slides.

The CRU and the IPCC did so much manipulation of the data that I no longer believe that any serious scientists can accept their conclusions, and by doing so they have discredited the entire scientific community.

This suggested that average temperatures had risen there by about two degrees Celsius. However, the raw data had been ‘adjusted’ in a series of abrupt upward steps by exactly the same amount: without the adjustment, the Darwin temperature record would have stayed level.

In 2007, McIntyre examined records across America. He found that between 1999 and 2007, the US equivalent of the Met Office had changed the way it adjusted old data.

The result was to make the Thirties seem cooler, and the years since 1990 much warmer. Previously, the warmest year since records began in America had been 1934.

Even in light of all this damning evidence and the continuing unraveling of this scientific hoax, the progressives all across the globe will continue to push their political agenda using this work of fiction as the justification.

UPDATE: 12/14/2009 Seems the CRU has now taken the data related to the Briffa Tree Rings off of their website. Can you say coverup boys and girls?

Uh-Oh

Something told me to bring along my laptop to the med center I get to spend a good part of today at. The "something" ends up being that wireless is now available. Pretty cool since there's a major shitstorm swirling amidst the 'global warming' community.

Hackers target leading climate research unit
The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

"We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated.

"Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.

"This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.

"We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry."

Researchers at CRU, one of the world's leading research bodies on natural and human-induced climate change, played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, which is considered to be the most authoritative report of its kind.

'Inside information'

Graham Cluley, a computer security expert, suggested that December's key climate summit in Copenhagen, which has made headlines around the world, could have increased the university's profile as a possible target among hackers.

"There are passionate opinions on both sides of the climate debate and there will be people trying to knock down the other side," Mr Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos, told BBC News.

"If they feel that they can gather inside information on what the other side is up to, then they may feel that is ammunition for their counterargument."

Mr Cluley added that universities were vulnerable to attacks by hackers because some many people required access to IT systems.

"You do need proper security in place; you need to be careful regarding communications and make sure your systems are secure.

"I trust that they will now be looking at the systems, and investigating how this happened and ensuring that something like this does not happen again."

Via The Beeb

Now, if anyone would be interested in going through the files, you can download your very own copy (62 meg file). Might make the perfect winter holiday gift for your favorite al-Gorista.

Law of Unintended Consequences Or Just Old Eugenics?

They're going to starve the children and kill all of the old people!

Not the Rethuglians, though. al-Gore, along with his cadre of schmuck scientists and hysterical psychophants.

UN chief calls for review of biofuels policy

• Ban Ki-moon speaks out amid global food shortage
  
• 33 countries facing unrest as families go hungry
  

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has called for a comprehensive review of the policy on biofuels as a crisis in global food prices — partly caused by the increasing use of crops for energy generation — threatens to trigger global instability.

"We need to be concerned about the possibility of taking land or replacing arable land because of these biofuels," Ban told the Guardian in Bucharest while attending this week's Nato summit. But he added: "While I am very much conscious and aware of these problems, at the same time you need to constantly look at having creative sources of energy, including biofuels. Therefore, at this time, just criticising biofuel may not be a good solution. I would urge we need to address these issues in a comprehensive manner."

How about a simple, straightforward German analysis? No sense in wasting any more time.

Climate change has been a priority for Ban since he took over from Kofi Annan, and he has embraced the potential of biofuels, derived from plants, as a long-term substitute for fossil fuels. But as food prices have soared — driven by rising demand, high fuel costs, and climate change — the cultivation of biofuels has come under fire for diverting fertile land from food production.

Some of the loudest criticism has come from within UN food agencies, which are struggling to keep up with commodity prices. Last month the World Food Programme issued an emergency $500m appeal to donors to help it meet its existing commitments to the world's hungry.

WFP officials say 33 countries in Asia and Africa face political instability as the urban poor struggle to feed their families.

There are also mounting concerns over the benefits of biofuels to the environment. They generally burn cleaner than fossil fuels, but fuels such as grain-based ethanol are energy-intensive to produce, and tropical rainforests have been cleared to produce palm oil for use as a fuel.

The role of biofuels is under review in Britain pending an inquiry into the indirect impact of their cultivation by the Renewable Fuels Agency.

How about considering these reviews? No sense in wasting any more time — or money.

Against this backdrop some senior UN officials are pushing for a change of policy, and attack Ban in private. "Ban is just out of touch," one said. " He doesn't know what is really going on in our agencies."

Ya nitwit! Why do think the movers and shakers nominated him?

The UN's own special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, called biofuels "a crime against humanity", and called for a five-year moratorium.

Let's see if anyone in The Hague has balls enough to at least investigate al-Gore for crimes against humanity. Profiting from the misery he's visiting upon the Third World and urban poor, it's not as if he can't afford a lawyer.

Better yet, just sue the bastard.

Ban rejected that proposal. "At this time I wouldn't make any definitive judgment or definitive plans, in particular vis-à-vis these biofuels," he said. "I know there are some concerns raised by certain quarters about biofuels. But biofuels are a renewable source of energy when we are experiencing extreme difficulties [with] resources."

But Ban conceded that there was a food supply problem and said the primary Millenium Development Goal of halving global hunger by 2015 looked harder to reach than ever. "This steeply rising food price is a new phenomenon," he said. "We have only seven years left to meet the target of 2015. This is very serious."

It was all forseeable, asshat. It's called supply and demand.

He said he was overseeing a multi-agency investigation of the issue involving the UN Energy Programme, the UN Development Programme, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the World Food Programme. "They are all working on this issue," the secretary-general said.

So were the UN's Oil for Food folks.

Via The Guardian.

When asked if man was ruining Earth, Czech President Vaclav Klaus replied, "Perhaps only Mr. Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing.... For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature — by eliminating private ownership and similar things — much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago."

Ouch. ;-)

Ratcheting Up the Climate Hysteria

Now it's "unequivocal" and will have "abrupt and irreversible" impacts.

Forget the fact this is a total scam; these nitwits have an agenda, and no amount of facts can stop them.

A UN panel has agreed a landmark report on climate change, and says the world must act hastily to prevent the worst predicted effects coming to pass.

After arduous talks in Valencia, Spain, scientists agreed a document they hope will shape debate on the next phase of the fight against climate change.

It declared the fact of global warming "unequivocal", and said it may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts.

The text will be officially launched by UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Saturday.

Delegates to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarised thousands of pages of scientific analysis, bringing together elements of the three reports already released this year, on the science of climate change, impacts and adaptation, and options for mitigating the problem.

"This is the strongest report yet by the IPCC - but says that there is still time to act," Bill Hare, an Australian climate scientist and one of the authors, told Reuters.

Among the report's top-line conclusions are that climate change is "unequivocal", that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% likely to be the main cause, and that impacts can be reduced at reasonable cost.

A reasonable cost? Sure. And guess who's going to foot the bill for this farce?

UPDATE: More here. Just what the people need: Another tax to fund this scam.

H/T: RadicalRon.

Climate Hysteria in Overdrive

What better way to tug on your heartstrings and get you to go along with the global warming hysteria that to show a panda stuck in a tree, subliminally pleading for you to do something!

This way, all over the world at the public indoctrination centers (formerly known as schools), teachers can whip the kids into a frenzy and have them demand we take action now before it's too late.

This report is so far over the top.

Almost a third of the world's species will face extinction if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, a United Nations report will say this week.

A draft copy of the report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) also warns that if temperatures rise by more than 2C now expected before 2050 20 per cent of the world's population will face a great risk of drought.

With that level of temperature rise, other parts of the world will face increased flood risk from rainfall and there will be a decrease in cereal harvest in some regions.

There will also be a rise of flooding, particularly around deltas in China and Bangladesh and low Pacific islands.

The report is compiled by a UN panel of 2,500 climate change scientists which won the Nobel peace prize this year with the former US vice-president Al Gore. It says that most of the increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is "very likely" to be the result of greenhouse gas emissions.

They can never say any of this nonsense is a certainty. It's always very likely, or it could happen unless we take immediate action, which of course means submitting to UN doctrine and wrecking our economy because an insane blowhard like the discreited Al Gore says so.

It's a moral crisis!

Naturally, such breathless reports ignore the fact global warming is the greatest scam ever.

The study will warn that if emissions continue to rise without action being taken until 2050 then global average temperatures would rise by up to 5C.

Such an average rise would cause "significant extinctions" around the world, a decrease in cereal harvests everywhere and the flooding of about 30 per cent of coastal wetlands.

As scientists gather in Spain to agree to the summary of the report, environmentalists say they fear that it plays down the need for deep cuts in emissions.

I notice a recent rend where they keep putting off this devastation until 2050, or well enough into the future, probably figuring by then everyone will have forgotten this nonsense while in the meantime kooks like Gore and his ilk come up with another risky scheme with which to empty our wallets.

Now in 43 years when there will likely be mroe species than ever and the absurd claim that a third of the world's species will be extinct will be completely debunked, what will the hysterics have to say?

Or will they MoveOn to another scam by them?

H/T: RadicalRon.