Bogus Claims Were Included In The IPCC Report To Advance Political Agendas

More proof that politics trumped science in the UN's IPCC report.

From MailOnline: Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

This is just the tip of the iceberg glacier.

The IPCC report and every other outrageous environmental claim will begin to be rightly challenged. Good science will stand. Politicized science will fail.

UN IPCC Report Included Unsupportable Linkage Between Natural Disasters And AGW

Another indication that the UN IPCC report was a sloppy con from the word go.

TimesOnLine: UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

The AGW con-artists needed the linkage so it was included in the report. They effectively said "fuckall" to the demands and rigors of science because for them, the authority and prestige of the UN IPCC report is just a cover and a stage-prop for their grifting.

(PS - Its the Sun that you guys need to be looking at. You know, that great big energy pump in the sky. Its kind of important.)

Hugo Chavez Will make Barrack Obama pay dearly for the Nobel Peace Prize

Hugo Chavez only looks stupid. He is not stupid. His is response to Obama's hollow Nobel Peace Prize is proof of just how sharp he is.

Chavez, who has mixed praise for Obama personally with criticism of his government's "imperialist" policies, said he thought it was a mistake when he read the U.S. leader had won.

"What has Obama done to deserve this prize? The jury put store on his hope for a nuclear arms-free world, forgetting his role in perpetuating his battalions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his decision to install new military bases in Colombia," Chavez wrote in a column.

"For the first time, we are witnessing an award with the nominee having done nothing to deserve it: rewarding someone for a wish that is very far from becoming reality."

Hugo Chavez knows American liberals like the back of his hand. He knows that they are suckers for the “victims lashing out” routine. He knows that if he sucked up to Obama, he would almost certainly get nothing for his efforts. But if he were to insult him, he could have Obama eating out of his hand.

Moon Dust and Nobel Peace Prizes

I woke this morning to the news that Nasa has bombed the moon and that Barrack Obama has Won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Reality is just so weird. My dreams last night seemed to be more solidly based on reality than what I was hearing over the radio.

To be fair, I had heard about the Moon Bombing before hand. Ironically, one of the first semi-political websites that I happened across long ago had campaigned for bombing the moon. The site advocated using Nukes over simple kinetic systems like what Nasa used today. Well, I guess you have to start somewhere. Today the moon, tomorrow, the Milky Way!!!

And so that leaves us the Nobel Peace Prize to consider.

What is it for again?

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barrack Obama has to be considered in light of the fact that it has also been awarded to Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat. In retrospect, I think I would have been surprised if Barrack Obama was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize at some point. Barrack Obama is in fitting company with his winning of this award.