Green ‘smear campaign’ against UN Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol who dared to disown ‘alarmist’ UN climate report – Tol: ‘This has all the characteristics of a smear campaign. It’s all about taking away my credibility as an expert’
Climate Change Dropped From G20 Agenda
Climate Change Dropped From G20 Agenda
http://www.thegwpf.org/climate-change-taken-off-g20-agenda/
Europe is unhappy with Australia’s decision to drop climate change from the G20 agenda and is lobbying the Abbott government to reconsider. Tony Abbott doesn’t want the G20 agenda “cluttered” by topics that would take the focus from his top priority of economic growth.
European Union officials say Australia has become completely “disengaged” on climate change since Tony Abbott was elected in September last year.
They are disappointed with the Prime Minister’s approach, saying Australia was considered an important climate change player under Labor.
One well-placed EU official has likened the change to “losing an ally”.
The EU has a long-running emissions trading scheme which was going to be linked to Australia’s market.
But Mr Abbott has pledged to scrap the carbon price in favour of his direct action policy.
Europe is sceptical of Mr Abbott’s replacement plan.
“You have a huge amount of scientists and economists saying the direct action policy isn’t going to work,” the official, who did not want to be named, said in the Belgian capital Brussels this week.
The well-placed official was particularly critical of Mr Abbott’s decision not to have climate change on the agenda when the leaders of the world’s 20 richest nations gather in Brisbane later this year.
Mr Abbott has said he doesn’t want the G20 agenda “cluttered” by topics that would take the focus from his top priority of economic growth.
Full story
Sent by gReader Pro…
The Hill: UN Climate Report D.O.A. in DC – UN IPCC report ‘landed with a thud in Washington’ – ‘Gap widens in climate change divide under Obama’s leadership’
…Green Guru James Lovelock now says we may ‘enjoy’ global warming: I was ‘led astray’ by the ice cores that seemed to imply changes in carbon dioxide were the dominant cause of changes
Related Links:
Rush Limbaugh Touts Climate Depot on radio: ‘Our buddy Marc Morano, former ‘Our Man in Washington’ from Rush The TV Show, he’s got a website in Climate Depot where he chronicles all of the leftist propaganda’
Related Links:
Rush Limbaugh touts Climate Depot: ‘Our man in Washington’, from my TV show, Marc Morano has a website called Climate Depot. The left hates it. They literally despise it’ — Limbaugh: ‘If you want to see all this, you know, our man in Washington, from my TV show, Marc Morano has a website called Climate Depot. The left hates it. They literally despise it. And what Marc does is simply collect every bit of data that is available all over the world via the World Wide Web, and he links to it, and one of the latest links, ClimateDepot.com, UK Telegraph, headline: ‘Global Warming: Time to Rein Back on Doom and Gloom? Global temperature lull raises the possibility that carbon dioxide may be less potent than has been thought in heating the planet.’
Obama-ordered WHITE ROOFS add to warming and increase energy costs for consumers in Northern regions
http://bangordailynews.com/2014/04/04/opinion/contributors/what-maine-needs-to-know-about-the-myth-of-white-roofs/?ref=OpinionBox…
Frontiers in Psychology vindicates Lewandowsky’s critics
Frontiers in Psychology vindicates Lewandowsky’s critics
http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/frontiers-in-psychology-vindicates-lewandowskys-critics/
Following a number of articles in the media making false claims about the retraction of Lewandowsky, Cook, Oberauer and Marriot’s “Recursive fury” paper, the journal Frontiers in Psychology has issued a statement clarifying the situation. They say that
Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats.
The statement goes on to confirm what critics of the paper said about it in their complaints.
Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics.
We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research. But we also must uphold the rights and privacy of the subjects included in a study or paper.
So they are saying that the paper was not ‘valid research’.
Here is part of what I wrote in my complaint to the journal, a year ago:
“The labelling of named individuals as conspiracy theorists in the text and accompanying table is contrary to the ethics of your field which requires individuals to be treated with respect.
…
Most of the excerpts listed as espousing conspiracy theory are no such thing. They merely point out errors and bias in his procedures. His response to criticism is to label his critics as conspiracy theorists.
…
Labelling individuals as conspiratorial, as this paper does throughout its text and in the accompanying data sheet, is derogatory and does not constitute treating participants with respect, even if such allegations were correct.”
Sent by gReader Pro…
Warmist James Powell’ claim of overwhelming ‘consensus’ rebutted
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-global-warming-nazis-are-getting.html
Geochemist James Lawrence Powell continues to claim, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research.Well, I can tell Mr Powell that climate does change and has changed through all eternity so, to answer his first leg, “YES!” Climate Change is “real.”Is Climate Change caused by human activity. Well, also a qualified “YES!” The question Powell should ask is – “Are Humans’ emissions of carbon dioxide causing catastrophic global warming?” As there has been no significant warming for more than 17 years, the answer to this must be “NO!”Powell claims that he went through “every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013.” This blog before has answered and destroyed these outlandish claims and found them all lacking substance:0.3% Consensus; not 97.1%;Friends Of Science: 97% NON-CONSENSUS with CAGWNuccitelli and Dessler 97% wrong;The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing;97% of people quoting this figure are wrong:Could this be the new consensus;and many more……To check that he was on the right track, he could have done a check with the NIPCC. The NIPCC (“Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change”) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change from a sceptical viewpoint, looking at information which is routinely ignored by the official U.N. body, the IPCC.The NIPCC regularly reviewing the peer-reviews scientific literature and archives those reviews on their website. The second tranch of the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered (CCRll) will be launched Wednesday, April 9, 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. at National Press Club in Washington, DCGeochemist James Lawrence Powell says: “the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research.”If you look at the names behind the NIPCC ( they are found here) all are scientists who have done research and most if not all have published papers.Were their papers included in Powell’s “every scientific study published in a peer-review journal …”You can bet your sweet bippy they were NOT!
Sent by gReader Pro…