Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nobel prize for caution and fact-checking?
From the ABC.....
The IPCC co-won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for bringing climate change to the world's attention through a reputation for rigour, caution and fact-checking. Under this process, data are peer reviewed by other scientists and are then meant to be double-checked by editors. Well it seems that didnt happen. In their hurry to doom the world, they published figures which suited those "ecology industrialists" (and the term is used loosely) Which means to me, no one is above checking, when they become the specialists in anything. Which reminds me of something : Corruption will always creep in when it becomes the sole source of information. Simply because if you can have something beyond question, then you have absolute power. The problem is, weather has always been variable, so its easy to get the figures wrong of fudge them. Its even harder to disprove those who say Global warming is happening, when someone like the authority IPCC makes a statement on Global warming. Who are we to disprove them? This is what makes their science so dangerous... The people who made these mistakes were either genuinely wrong, or did this deliberately. I suspect the latter due to the billions at stake. Follow the money trail....It works for me... Public attack *_In an exceptional move, the lapses came under public attack from four prominent glaciologists and hydrologists in a letter to prestigious US journal Science._* They said the paragraph's mistakes derived from a report by environmental group WWF, which picked up a news report based on an unpublished study, compounded by the accidental (?) inversion of a date - 2035 instead of 2350 - in a Russian paper published in 1996. (WWF has been accused by a number of environmental groups and campaigners, such as Corporate Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Watch and PR Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_Watch of being too close to businesses to campaign objectively. It accepts donations from partnerships and include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LafargeCoca-Cola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola, Lafarge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafarge and IKEA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA.^[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature#cite_note-14 It also has a Corporate Club http://panda.org/about_wwf/how_we_work/businesses/businesses_we_work_with/ways_business/corporate_club/index.cfm that provides promotional opportunities for companies to use the WWF name and logo as a promotional tool. Previous donors have included Chevron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation,Exxon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon and Telekids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekids (each donating more than $50,000 in 1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989), Philip Morris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria_Group, Mobil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobil, and Morgan Guaranty Trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_ChaseLafarge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafarge and IKEA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA.^[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature#cite_note-14 It also has a Corporate Club http://panda.org/about_wwf/how_we_work/businesses/businesses_we_work_with/ways_business/corporate_club/index.cfm that provides promotional opportunities for companies to use the WWF name and logo as a promotional tool. Previous donors have included Chevron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation,Exxon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon and Telekids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekids (each donating more than $50,000 in 1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989), Philip Morris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria_Group, Mobil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobil, and Morgan Guaranty Trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase (stranger and stranger)) "These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected," according to the letter, which Science released on Wednesday, two days ahead of scheduled publication. One of the letter's authors was Austrian specialist Georg Kaser, who contributed to a different section of the 2007 report. *_He said the mistake was enormous and that he had notified IPCC colleagues of it months before publication._* _*Despite the controversy, the IPCC stood by the overall conclusions about glacier loss this century in major mountain ranges, including the Himalayas.*_ The report concluded that "widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century." IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended the panel's overall work, a position shared by other scientists, who say the core conclusions about climate change are incontrovertible. "Theoretically, let's say we slipped up on one number, I don't think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what's happening with the climate of this Earth," Pachauri said. Sceptics have already attacked the panel over so-called "Climategate," entailing stolen email exchanges among IPCC experts which they say reflected attempts to skew the evidence for global warming. The row came as the UN panel began the marathon process of drafting its Fifth Assessment Reports, inviting scientists to lead its work. The reports, due out in 2013 and 2014, will focus on sea level changes, the influence of periodic climate patterns like the monsoon season and El Nino, and forging a more precise picture of the regional effects of climate change. I guess with their normal form this means that this will give them time to put some more "spin" on their project, and we will all have to put our thermometers near our heaters to allow proper temperatures to be measured.... Benny Hill said, "when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me...." I assumed they were right too...till other factors started to crop up.... Others are a bit slower.... I hope the IPCC are wrong in this instance. Time will tell if the climate can be changed, but I feel its out off our hands. Its also time to assess what can be done to the enormous damage logging companies, airlines, cars are doing to our climate, and it should fall on those who export, and import needlessly. Why can you buy goods grown thousands of miles away when the local product is no different? Price control would be a good start. Stop large retail organisations who sell foods, from short changing out local growers for a start. There are probably other things that should be looked at.... Think globally, do locally.... WWF has been accused by a number of environmental groups and campaigners, such as Corporate Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Watch and PR Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_Watch of being too close to businesses to campaign objectively -- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Nobel prize for caution and fact-checking? | Australia | |||
dendrobium nobel picture | Orchids | |||
Yahoo Fact Checking Stinks | Ponds | |||
dendrobium nobel picture | Orchids | |||
Yahoo Fact Checking Stinks | Ponds |