ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC

Post Reply
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 18766
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 1, 2019

Opinion: On NOAA, Contrived Science and the IPCC


Special Opinion by Paul Plante.

For those unfamiliar with the term “IPCC,” it stands for the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” which is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations supposedly dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options, and I use the word supposedly on purpose, because the horse**** coming into Our House of Representatives on September 18, 2019 in the form of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 is anything but an objective, scientific view of climate change, because first of all, the IPCC itself is not objective; it has a definite agenda, and more to the point, the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself, rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources, so in a word, it does not know what the **** it is talking about, and that is a fact.

As to the underlying agenda, we can see it at least strongly hinted at, if not clearly stated in the following from the REMARKS BY THE MINISTER OF WATER AND CLIMATE HONOURABLE OPPAH. C.Z. MUCHINGURI-KASHIRI (MP) AT COP 23, to wit:

The Zimbabwe Government views climate change as a serious issue and a matter that needs urgent attention.

end quotes

At the same time, we have this concerning Zimbabwe from the Reuters article “Zimbabwe fires 211 striking doctors as economy worsens” on November 8, 2019, as follows:

HARARE (Reuters) – Zimbabwe on Friday fired more than 200 public sector doctors who have been on strike for more than two months demanding better pay to protect them from soaring inflation.

Other public workers say they cannot go to work because they have no money.

Police on Wednesday blocked a handful of public sector workers from marching to government offices with a petition demanding better pay.

Junior and middle level doctors from state hospitals have been on strike since Sept. 3.

They want their pay indexed to the U.S. dollar to stop their earnings being eroded by triple-digit inflation.

Patients are being turned away from hospitals because there are no doctors to treat them.

The board plans to call in 516 of the government’s 1,601 doctors for disciplinary hearings.

Tawanda Zvakada, spokesman for Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association, said he could not immediately comment.

The government said last month it had doubled doctors’ salaries.

They said that was inadequate, as it would only increase their monthly salary to about 2,000 Zimbabwe dollars ($130).

Zimbabweans are bearing the brunt of the worst economic crisis in a decade, with shortages of foreign currency, fuel, power and medicines.

The crisis has been worsened by a drought that has left more than half of the population in need of food aid and forced the government to scramble for scarce dollars to import grain.

Mnangagwa has asked for patience while his government tries to fix the economy.

But hope has dimmed that he can end years of economic troubles that were a hallmark of the rule of the late Robert Mugabe, who was ousted in an army coup two years ago.

end quotes

So, they need money and lots of it, and as a result, we now have a contrived climate crisis to shake that money loose, as we see by going back to those remarks by the MINISTER OF WATER AND CLIMATE HONOURABLE OPPAH. C.Z. MUCHINGURI-KASHIRI of Zimbabwe, as follows:

My country has ratified the Paris Agreement and now a Party to this crucial treaty.

We view the Paris Agreement as a stepping stone towards tangible action in addressing the climate change challenge facing the world today.

end quotes

Except as we are going to see from the real science, there is not a “climate change challenge” facing the world today, which takes us back to his remarks as follows:

We need to move with speed to finalise the development of the rulebook for implementation of this Agreement.

Access to climate finance remains a challenge to Zimbabwe and most of the developing world as the Green Climate Fund which is the main funding mechanism of the UNFCCC, remains slow in processing applications and the disbursement of resources.

Our GCF Readiness Proposal was approved more than a year ago, but up to date, GCF has not released the funds.

We need to see a change in the way these funds are handled and simplification of the GCF projects approval and funds disbursement processes.

end quotes

Yes, it is all about getting access to the money, people, and that money is supposed to flow from us to them, which is a great deal for Zimbabwe, and a real lousy deal for us.

Getting back to the IPCC, it was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and was later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly with membership open to all members of the WMO and UN.

With respect to the IPCC having an agenda, it produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, which is about “social justice and equity” as core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change per Chapter 5 of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018.

Now, contrast that with this statement from the propaganda concerning the IPCC:

The objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.

end quotes

Except the term “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” is more bull****, as we can see by examining the real science, not this bogus “science” contrived by this IPCC crowd, which is the purpose of this essay.

With respect to that contrived science, which is based on thin air, we have as follows this hysteria-mongering from AP NEWS entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:

NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.

Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.

It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.

“The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

“The changes are accelerating.”

The dire effects will be felt on both land and sea, harming people, plants, animals, food, societies, infrastructure and the global economy.

“The world’s oceans and cryosphere have been taking the heat for climate change for decades.”

“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

end quotes

Except that is not true, as we clearly see by consulting the real science this IPCC crowd is attempting to bury under a huge mountain of bull**** from the IPCC, to wit:

From CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition by H.H. Lamb:

COOLING IN THE ARCTIC

The cooling of the Arctic since 1950–60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the present century, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans but also in the Norwegian—East Greenland Sea.

In some places, e.g. the Franz Josef Land archipelago near 80°N 50–60°E, the long-term average temperature fell by 3–4°C and the ten-year average winter temperatures became 6–10°C colder in the 1960s as compared with the preceding decades.

It is clear from Icelandic oceanographic surveys that changes in the ocean currents have been involved.

Indeed a greatly (in the extreme case, ten times) increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current, bringing polar water southwards, has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years (fig. 97): in April–May 1968 and 1969 the island was half surrounded by the ice, as had not occurred since 1888.

Such ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production.

In the 1950s the mean temperature of the summer half year in Iceland had been 7.7°C and the average hay yields were 4.3 tonnes/hectare (with the use of 2.8 kg of nitrogen fertilizer); in the late 1960s with mean temperature 6.8°C the average hay yield was only 3.0 tonnes/hectare (despite the use of 4.8 kg of fertilizer).

The temperature level was dangerously close to the point at which the grass virtually ceases to grow.

The country’s crop of potatoes was similarly reduced.

The 1960s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years.

At the same time the changes in the ocean have produced changes in the spawning grounds and seasonal range of migration of fish stocks — a not much publicized aspect of the international wrangles and ‘cod wars’ of recent times.

With the fall by over 1°C in the mean sea surface temperatures off west Greenland from the peak years in the 1920s and 1950s, the cod fishery there declined by the early 1970s to a tiny fraction of what it had been in those times.

The Greenland cod migrated to Iceland waters, and for a few years (1967–71) offset the declining stocks there; but since 1974 the spawning stocks in Iceland waters have been only a tenth of what they were in the late 1950s and the total stocks have fallen by almost a half, the decline being probably attributable to combined effects of the change in water climate and over-fishing.

Similarly, herring stocks have moved from Iceland waters to the wider reaches of the Norwegian Sea farther east, south and north and to the North Sea, while a southward shift of the southern limit of cod seems to have led to increased catches in the North Sea since about 1963.

An interruption of the colder regime introduced by the 1960s affected Europe and Iceland, part of east Asia and the eastern United States in the early-mid 1970s and was perhaps too hurriedly hailed as a reversal of the trend.

Most of Europe and parts of the other regions named experienced between 1971 and 1977 four to seven mild winters in a row, largely thanks to repetitive occurrences of anticyclones in positions which gave them southerly or southwesterly winds.

One or two of these winters produced extreme phenomena such as the roses still blooming in the parks in Copenhagen in late January.

But much of the remaining areas of the northern hemisphere, in Asia and Africa and including the polar region and the two great oceans as well as eastern Canada, had a straight run of colder than usual winters in the same years.

As the pattern depended so largely on the positions of stationary (‘blocking’) features in the wind circulation in middle latitudes, no great surprise should have been caused when conditions were reversed again in many of these regions in the immediately following years later in the decade.

By the end of the decade in Iceland, as in other regions of the Arctic fringe, it had to be concluded that the colder regime which set in in the 1960s seems to be continuing; and after notably cold years in 1979 and 1980 the widely debated expectation of global warming setting in as a result of the impact of the man-made increase of carbon dioxide on the world climate is being called in question in these countries.

end quotes

That, people, is the real science that is being buried by the contrived science of this IPCC crowd, with aid and assistance from the NOAA in this country.

This essay asks the essential existential question as to why that is – why is this IPCC crowd lying to us, and why is the United States House of Representatives foisting those lies on us as if they were the truth?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... -the-ipcc/

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 18766
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:40 p

NOAA

Ko Barrett named NOAA Research deputy assistant administrator


Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Craig McLean, NOAA’s assistant administrator for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), has named Ko Barrett as the deputy assistant administrator for OAR Programs and Administration.

In this leadership position, Barrett supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, and the execution of NOAA programs including the Climate Program Office, Ocean Acidification Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration and Research, and the Office of Weather and Air Quality research.


“Ko has many valuable skills that made her a sound choice for this leadership position, not the least of which are her experience in and knowledge of OAR and NOAA, a savvy sense of organizational and policy issues, and a willingness to challenge the status quo in unselfish and constructive ways,” said McLean.

Barrett comes to this position from seven years of serving as deputy director of OAR’s Climate Program Office, which oversees and coordinates climate activities across NOAA, addressing climate observations and monitoring, research and modeling, and the development and delivery of climate services.

For over 15 years, Barrett has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body created to review and assess the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide that is relevant to understanding climate change.

She is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.

Barrett currently serves as one of three vice chairs of the IPCC.

Prior to joining NOAA in 2005, Barrett was the director of the Global Climate Change program at the US Agency for International Development and oversaw climate activities in more than 40 countries.

She has won multiple awards for contributions both to NOAA and the nation, notably NOAA Administrator’s Awards in 2010 and 2015, the U.S. Department of State Meritorious Honor Award in 2011, and a Nobel Peace Prize shared with members of the IPCC in 2007.

Barrett has a bachelor of science degree in environmental studies from the University of North Carolina Asheville, where she was named University Scholar as well as Distinguished Research Scholar, and elected a member of the Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society.

Barrett will assume the full duties and responsibilities of her new position on July 18, 2016.

For more information, please contact Monica Allen, director of public affairs for NOAA Research at 301-734-1123 or by email at monica.allen@noaa.gov

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMI ... inistrator

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 18766
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC

Post by thelivyjr » Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 1, 2019 at 7:43 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, NOAA!

According to its propaganda page in Cyberspace, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, is the agency of the United States federal government responsible for monitoring our climate and our environment, and taking steps to preserve them.

According to its website, NOAA’s tasks include:

Environmental Assessment and Prediction:

• Improving short-term warning and forecasting services

• Forecasting climate trends and changes

• Promoting safe navigation

Protecting Natural Resources While Helping Develop Them:

• Building sustainable fisheries and recovering protected species

• Sustaining healthy coastal ecosystems

• Observing the environment

end quotes

NOAA enters this discussion on several levels, starting with an AP News article entitled “NOAA scientist: agency likely broke science integrity rules” by Jay Reeves and Seth Borenstein on 9 September 2019, as follows:

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — The acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said his agency likely violated its scientific integrity rules last week when it publicly chastised a weather office that contradicted President Donald Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama.

Two top NOAA civil servants not so quietly revolted against an unsigned agency press release issued late Friday rebuking the Birmingham weather office for saying Alabama was safe.

The agency’s top scientist called Friday’s release “political” and the head of the National Weather Service said the Alabama office “did what any office would do to protect the public.”

“My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political,” acting chief scientist and assistant administrator for ocean and atmospheric research Craig McLean wrote to staffers Sunday night.

In the email, first reported by The Washington Post, McLean said he is “pursuing the potential violations” of the agency’s science integrity policy.

McLean said that the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology.”

end quotes

Which takes us back to the hysteria-mongering from AP NEWS entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:

NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.

Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.

“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

end quotes

And there, right before our eyes, thanks to the integrity of the Cape Charles Mirror, is a clear-cut case of a violation of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” because it is clear that the allegiance of Ko Barrett, deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is to the IPCC, which is a political organization with an ideology foreign to American values.

As to who this Ko Barrett is, the IPCC informs us thusly:

People Profile: Ko Barrett, Vice-Chair, IPCC

Ko Barrett is the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise.

In 2015, Ko Barrett was one of the first women elected to serve as a vice chair of the IPCC.

For over 15 years, she has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the IPCC.

She has also served for over a decade as a lead negotiator for the United States on the United Nations treaty on climate change.

Ko Barrett is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.

end quotes

Clearly, her agenda is driven in large part by what the IPCC wants from her, given that the IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, whose objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.

Which then takes us back to this hysterical statement from her, as follows:

“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

end quotes

To which I respond by saying, “based on what?”

What is the scientific basis for that sensationalist statement of hers that “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” because I took the trouble to pose this question to the Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory, to wit:

Q: Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?

On Monday, September 23, 2019, 7:10:37 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote:

Frankly, I do not know.

end quotes

Nor does Ko Barrett!

So why then is she engaging in hysteria-mongering for the IPCC?

And why is NOAA with its vaunted Science Integrity Policy turning a blind eye to it?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-202756

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 18766
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 3, 2019 at 10:27 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, contrived science, people, where the word “contrived” is taken to mean “having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, as in a contrived plot,” and here I am focusing in on this hysterical and frankly, quite stupid statement from the IPCC in the AP NEWS article entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:

It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.

end quotes

Wetter hurricanes?

Other nastier weather systems?

Are you kidding me here?

What exactly is a “wetter” hurricane, given that I have yet to hear of one that was dry?

And how about these “other nastier weather systems?”

Nastier that what?

And that is not “science,” people, because scientists do not use such terms as “nastier weather systems” – only hysterical people who can’t think straight do, or those who are dishonest.

But I want to stay with the subject of the IPCC’s “contrived science,” or “science” having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, which takes us back to CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition by H.H. Lamb, to wit:

A more serious reversion to colder climate came with the year 1879, a year well within the class of the 1690s.

Through December 1878 and January 1879 the temperature in England stayed mainly below the freezing point, and it was very snowy; the spring was cold, with May colder than many an April; the summer was the wettest and one of the seven coldest in the long instrument records for England; it was followed by a notably cold autumn and another near freezing month in December.

The cold wet weather delayed the ripening of the harvest, so that even in East Anglia in some places the corn had not been gathered in by Christmas.

end quotes

Now, if one were to calmly and rationally think about what “nasty” weather might be like, I would certainly put that forth as a real good example of the nasty weather we have already experienced on this earth of ours, and that had nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide, which takes us back to the real science, to wit:

But the effects of 1879 and the difficult years with cold winters and wet summers which followed were not confined to England.

The peak emigration of people from the countries of northern, central and western Europe was in the 1880s.

The years 1876–9 also brought droughts, monsoon failures and famine in China and India.

The old stories of medieval Europe’s famine situations of outbreaks of cannibalism and children sold into slavery repeated themselves in these years in the Far East.

end quotes

Those are the times these fools on this IPCC want to take us back to with their cry that the United States must go to zero CO2 emissions by 2030.

Moving right along:

The temperature records in China (fig. 86) and indicators such as the freezing dates of Lake Suwa in central Japan (fig. 90) show that this was one of the severest phases of the Little Ice Age in the Far East.

The deaths due to famine in the late 1870s in India and China have been estimated at 14–18 million.

The historical documentary information which begins to be available from the southern hemisphere in the centuries described in this and the previous chapter seems to confirm that there too a colder climate developed during the last millennium.

Glaciers advanced in South America and New Zealand, and there were appropriate changes in the New Zealand forests.

But the timing of the severest phases was different, it seems almost opposite, to that in the northern hemisphere.

We have referred to evidence of this in chapter 3 (p. 39).

Captain Cook’s voyages in the 1770s and others on to the 1830s confirm that the Antarctic sea ice was more restricted and open sea extended farther south, although those were times when the northern polar ice was well forward and troubling Iceland.

Later in the nineteenth century, in the 1850s and around 1900, the southern sea ice extended farther north and there were many accounts from the sailing ships of those days of sightings of the great tabular icebergs calved from the Antarctic inland ice drifting to much lower latitudes, off the River Plate and approaching the other southern continents.

After 1894–5, when there was a good deal of ice on the Thames in London, there was a long respite from severe winters in England and in Europe generally.

Not again was there a month with mean temperature below the freezing point in England until January 1940.

end quotes

When one reads actual climate history, which is based on extensive records that the IPCC has pretty much successfully buried, one can see how the IPCC has contrived its “science” for the purpose of creating fear in people to advance its agenda, which is entirely political, given that the IPCC is a governmental body, not a scientific organization, which again takes us back to the real science, as follows:

Only the winters of 1916–17 and 1928–9 during that interval of forty-five years could be considered in any way severe, the February in both cases coming near to being a freezing month in England and causing some ice to appear on the Thames.

The much more severe winter of 1962–3 (3-month mean temperature in central England −0.3°C, January −2.1° C) never brought the water temperature in London’s river below about 10°C (50°F), owing to all the industrial and urban effluents now passed into the river.

end quotes

Now, if 1962-3 was a much more severe winter, how did that happen, given that the IPCC says it should have been warmer due to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere from dangerous anthropogenic (an invented word that means nothing at all) interference with the climate system?

Let’s go back to the science and see what more we can see:

It should plainly be desirable to update our portrayal in fig. 91a of the course of world-average temperature at the surface of the Earth, as indeed has been attempted in various quarters.

The most authoritative version is due to the (WMO/UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change14 (IPCC for short).

The curve here shown as fig. 91b represents the IPCC figures when looked at as the successive five-year means from 1860 to 1989.

The three-year mean for the remarkably warm years 1990–2 is the last point at the right-hand end of the graph.

The overall shape of this historical curve is the product of successive revisions adjusting the values for urban and industrial warming and any other possibly distorting influences at the observation sites — not least the changes that have taken place in the observing practices at sea with ever bigger ships, changes in the height of their decks above the water, and measurements in recent decades being made within the vessel in intake pipes instead of in open buckets.

This writer is inclined to the belief that, however careful the observing procedures and however carefully studied the adjustments applied afterwards to the observations, to declare a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.

end quotes

WHOA, get that back off the page – publicly declaring that a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.

What could I have been thinking when the IPCC climate crisis crowd says otherwise?

Getting back to the science:

All responsible researchers agree that the temperatures measured must be adjusted for peculiarities of the site and the changes of these peculiarities with time.

All these things have led to revisions of the data.

Urban and industrial influences also change with time, as does the pollution of various kinds which may influence the data.

Also, it is now appreciated that the climates of islands, big and small, differ from those over the open sea as well as from the climate of the nearest extensive land-masses.

Even the inhabited camps in polar wastes create their own climates through the artificially generated heat, smoke and pollution, all of which tend to be trapped locally and held beneath the temperature inversions.

The light wind speeds below the inversion also lead to a strong local concentration of the effects.

Hence, adjustments must be attempted even though they introduce an arbitrary element into the results.

end quotes

So, despite the fact that there is no rational scientific basis for this “global average” temperature, as it truly means nothing, nonetheless the IPCC and their parrots in the media will continue to use the term while shrieking as they did today about how warm it has gotten, as we here to the north of you dig out from under around two feet of snow that obviously failed to get the message from the IPCC and media that it is supposed to be warmer, not colder, which again takes us back to the science, to wit:

It is agreed that the 1880s and early 1890s were a cold time, though not everywhere in the northern hemisphere oceans, and that the twentieth century has been generally warmer.

Warming was rapid from about 1920 to 1940.

The cooling which set in in the 1940s had a wobbly course, but the climatic record continued generally colder in the northern hemisphere until some time after 1970.

In the southern hemisphere, particularly the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic ocean zone, there was a rapid warming going on from about 1950 onwards.

Despite the rapid rise of world temperature after 1975 indicated by our fig. 91b (a graph produced by the IPCC which shows continuous warming for the earth), there has been a noteworthy occurrence — seen, for example, in the Danish temperature record here reproduced in fig. 28a (p. 80) and in other records in North America and Europe of further cold events or some continued colder conditions until 1985 to 1987.

The state of affairs at the time of writing (1994) seems to be that, after truly exceptional warmth in the years 1989–91, there has been some fall of temperature world-wide, which has been attributed by many to the effects of the great volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991.

end quotes

So why is the IPCC, and by extension the media, to include the AP and NPR, trying to concoct a false narrative that the earth’s climate is continually warming, when the earth has climatic zones, not an earth climate?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 18766
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 4, 2019 at 10:03 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, who then is this Ko Barrett who is making these reckless, irresponsible, and frankly from my perspective as an engineer, quite hysterical statements about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them, which demonstrates a decided lack of both integrity and basic common sense which would tell a mature adult that you do not sow panic in a population based on hyperbole and falsehood?

And why have we got an elected official in what is a foreign governing body, the IPCC, serving as a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, and the execution of NOAA programs including the Climate Program Office, Ocean Acidification Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration and Research, and the Office of Weather and Air Quality research, when that very much appears to be a major-league conflict of interest on her part?

And why is she apparently exempt from NOAA’s supposed Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” which she clearly is not doing making such irresponsible and reckless and hysterical comments to AP “science writer” Seth Borenstein about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them.

As to her position with NOAA, since we American citizens are closed out of the proceedings of the IPCC by which she was elected an IPCC co-chair, we are informed of the following from a NOAA press release entitled “Ko Barrett named NOAA Research deputy assistant administrator” on Tuesday, July 12, 2016, to wit:

Craig McLean, NOAA’s assistant administrator for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), has named Ko Barrett as the deputy assistant administrator for OAR Programs and Administration.

“Ko has many valuable skills that made her a sound choice for this leadership position, not the least of which are her experience in and knowledge of OAR and NOAA, a savvy sense of organizational and policy issues, and a willingness to challenge the status quo in unselfish and constructive ways,” said McLean.

Barrett comes to this position from seven years of serving as deputy director of OAR’s Climate Program Office, which oversees and coordinates climate activities across NOAA, addressing climate observations and monitoring, research and modeling, and the development and delivery of climate services.

For over 15 years, Barrett has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body created to review and assess the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide that is relevant to understanding climate change.

end quotes

However, as we know, the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself; rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources, which is to say, it cherry-picks the “science” it wants to support its position that all climate change on earth today is a function of human beings, not natural processes, which according to the IPCC, no longer function, despite having done so for millions of years prior to this.

So it is another falsehood to state that IPCC reports are relevant to understanding climate change, unless you are a true believer in the carbon dioxide theory of the IPCC, which is a perversion of the original science of Svante Arrhenius back in the early-1900s.

Getting back to the NOAA press release:

She is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.

Barrett currently serves as one of three vice chairs of the IPCC.

Prior to joining NOAA in 2005, Barrett was the director of the Global Climate Change program at the US Agency for International Development and oversaw climate activities in more than 40 countries.

end quotes

As to USAID, it’s mission statement reads as follows:

“As the U.S. Government’s principal leader, coordinator, and provider of international development and humanitarian assistance, USAID advances national security and economic prosperity, while demonstrating American values and goodwill abroad.”

“Our investments save lives, foster inclusive economic growth, reduce poverty, and strengthen democratic governance while helping other countries progress beyond needing our assistance.”

end quotes

As to their “vision of success,” we have:

“We anticipate, mitigate, and respond to global challenges, standing together with people affected by poverty and disaster.”

“The people we help achieve their own peace and prosperity and create stable institutions that respond to their needs.”

“We are recognized as the world’s premier development agency.”

“We are highly effective, efficient, accountable, and agile.”

end quotes

So, what has any of that to do with research into climate science, besides nothing, especially since Barrett only has a bachelor of science degree in environmental studies from the University of North Carolina Asheville?

What game is NOAA playing at here?

Stay tuned for more.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 18766
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON NOAA, CONTRIVED SCIENCE AND THE IPCC

Post by thelivyjr » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 5, 2019 at 7:30 pm

Paul Plante says:

And let us stay with NOAA Deputy Assistant Administrator, Programs & Administration Ko Barrett for the moment as one of the key people and prime movers behind this irresponsible and reckless HYSTERIA-MONGERING in the media about a contrived “CLIMATE CRISIS” that is literally making people crazy and berserk with fear, as we were witness to just today in the AFP article “‘Do it for our children,’ parents plead at UN climate meet” on 5 Dec 2019, where we were informed as follows as to just how hysterical people like this Ko Barrett have made the public at large with their own reckless and hysterical statements about a “CLIMATE CRISIS, ” to wit:

Parents from around the globe Thursday said governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid must beat back the threat of global warming to “give our children the future that they deserve”.

end quotes

Beat back the threat of global warming?

Seriously, people, exactly how is that to be done, given that it is the earth that is in charge of what its climate is going to be at any given time and place, and not human beings?

That these people actually are asking these governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid to “beat back the threat of global warming” to “give our children the future that they deserve,” shows just how deluded they are about reality, and that is thanks to HYSTERIA MONGERS like NOAA’s Ko Barret, and this IPCC climate crisis crowd.

Staying with that AFP article, we have further, as follows:

“Our children are being handed a broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown,” they said in an open declaration from 222 associations in 27 countries.

end quotes

A broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown?

What is “climate chaos?”

And where on earth is it that they getting that term from, besides irresponsible hysteria-mongerers like NOAA’s Ko Barrett, because there is no such scientific term as “climate chaos,” which takes us back to the AFP story on just how hysterical NOAA’s Ko Barrett has made people with her irresponsible and reckless blather about a “climate crisis,” to wit:

“At our current rate of emissions, we are dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” the declaration said.

“We are at a turning point in the story of our species, and you, the delegates of this influential UN climate summit, have an opportunity to choose what happens next.”

end quotes

So, people, there you are seeing in real time the results of this propaganda campaign based on contrived science that NOAA and the IPCC are using to make people so crazy with fear so they cannot think straight and thus are easily led down the garden path by a ring in their nose, with that crazy talk about us being “dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” and “We are at a turning point in the story of our species.”

Keep repeating a lie over and over and over, as this IPCC crowd and Ko Barrett have been doing, and as this AFP article clearly shows, you can get the unwitting masses to think anything you want them to think, like the world is going to end and civilization, which was never raveled too tight to begin with, is going to unravel unless they surrender their futures and the futures of their grandchildren to this pack of fools meeting right now in Madrid who can’t even agree on what day it is, and Ko Barrett and the IPCC.

Closing out on Ko Barrett, since she is in many ways the star of this climate crisis show now on-going in Madrid, where of course, little Greta Thunberg and her crowd and marching and shrieking and chanting in the streets and creating clouds of toxic and noxious carbon dioxide each time they exhale, on a site called ZoomInfo, she has posted for herself a Business Profile, where we learn the following about what NOAA considers to be her qualifications to head up NOAA’s so-called “research” efforts despite only possessing a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies, which is a liberal arts survey program, to wit:

Ko Barrett leads the Global Climate Change Team for the US Agency for International Development .

She manages climate-related activities in more than 40 countries and regions around the world that seek to promote sustainable development, while minimizing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and reducing vulnerability to climate change.

Ms. Barrett has held this position for five years.

Prior to working at USAID , she lived overseas for seven years, working on environment policy issues in Egypt and Ukraine.

end quotes

So, how does that then qualify her to be what is in essence NOAA’s top scientist in charge of what research is done, or not done?

A question for our times.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204435

Post Reply