Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Will he stay or will he go? | Main | ICO believes FoI offences committed at CRU »
Wednesday
Jan272010

...and another...

Even big time warmists like Andrew Weaver are jumping ship now:

Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform. If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years.

Weaver is of course the scientist who said that it is "dangerous" to give both sides equal weight in the AGW debate and when speaking of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report said, it "isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles"

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (17)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/cru-inquiry-seeks-changes-in-uk-law-citing-failure-of-crus-foia-officer/

Suggest a look at this for an update.

Jan 27, 2010 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered Commenterjazznick

Glad to see momentum building...

Jan 27, 2010 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

Are these people really jumping ship though, or are they starting to lobby for themselves as replacements for Pachauri?

Jan 27, 2010 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

This man Weaver is no rat, jumping ship. He is a weasel who smells opportunity in the air. We are going to see a lot of this, rather obscene, behavior in the weeks ahead.
Its up to all of us to ensure such undesirables do not benefit from from the chaos.
The next few months will be a field day for psychologists, and amusing for others.

Jan 27, 2010 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterVince

Weaver is getting his guts ripped out over here . . . the comments are brutal for him.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=90f8dd19-4a79-4f8f-ab42-b9655edc289b

Jan 27, 2010 at 1:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred from Canuckistan

Weaver to Weasel
Made the Fraud
for 6-9-6

You need to be of a certain age to understand that.

I'll get my coat.

Whoooooosh

Jan 27, 2010 at 2:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterBugger (the Panda)

Regarding Vince's comment.

I agree. And you are right that we are definitely going to see a lot more of this in the coming months/years.

As the edifice crumbles several things will happen. The global warming alliance will subdivide once more into its constituent parts.

The hard-core 'deep Greens' will carry on with their desire to see the death of all civilisation and progress. They will become a lunatic fringe again.

The Communists and Frankfurt School subversives, with their desire to see the death of Western civilisation, will have to find a different way to achieve it. They've done in the past, they'll do it again.

The genuine greens, of whatever level of intelligence and common sense, will go back to dealing with the things they should have spent the last 20 years dealing with: overpopulation, erosion, pollution, overuse of land, desertification etc.

Scientists will have to find a new cash cow.

The bandwagon jumpers, be they politicians, admin's, bureaucrats, technocrats, whatever, will have to find another bandwagon to jump on.

But the media will just move on. As if nothing happened. They will pretend to cover themselves in glory as they 'discover' this amazing conspiracy to defraud the West. There will be no recognition of their involvement. None. In the last couple of years I've seen it happen several times. Despite knowing all about it, and ignoring its the years, the media pretended that it broke the Damian McBride sleaze story, and look at the way they behaved after the East Anglia leak. They ignore it, suppress it, ridicule it, until they can no longer ignore it and then they pretend they discovered it.

It's my belief that a website should be started (I do if I had the ability, but I don't) to take the names of the guilty down for posterity. The Internet will be very useful for this as the weasel words of scientists, celebrities, politicians and (most importantly) of the gatekeepers in the media will live on. This material needs to be collated and the guilty NAMED AND SHAMED.

It is crucial that people are not allowed to get away with this. It has been obvious for several years that the entire global warming edifice is built on sand. And the entire delusional conspiracy has been maintained, at enormous cost to the rich and poor of the world alike, by its supporters. The BBC, nature etc are as guilty as the hockey team themselves, and should be held to account.

This whole episode has done incalculable damage to the reputation of science and true environmentalism.

In the immortal words of The Who: we won't get fooled again.

Apologies for the rambling nature of this post.

Jan 27, 2010 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

@Fred from Canuckistan

Thank ye for a most enjoyable read with me morning cuppa!

Weaver is a rat running for cover and I suspect he is smart enough to resign from the IPCC before he is forced to resign his chair at the University of Victoria. And that may still happen. He has feces all over himself and once the university gets a whiff of him, he will be forced out by the faculty as they distance themselves from the AGW mess.

There is going to be a number of ex-professors looking for work soon enough if this continues. Hope it does. Academia needs a thorough house cleaning it appears.

Jan 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Hola Don Pablo


I live out on the West Coast, in the La La Greenie Utopia heartland of Canadian AGW hysteria.


I get to see/hear him regularly on local TV & radio where he is the darling of the media here who are so proud to have one of the leading IPCC scientists right here in our midst, a scientist who is saving the world, who is so honest and so sincere and so blah, blah, blah, puke.

They literally salivate when the do the interviews and I expect anytime soon they will re-name him Jorel and just get that hero worship out of the way.

I'd love to see the RCMP perp-walk him out of his lab one day, calling him a Warmonger Criminal.

Via con Dios senor.

Jan 27, 2010 at 4:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred from Canuckistan

@ Stuck-Record.

"In the immortal words of The Who: we won't get fooled again."

Maybe not soon and not on such a large scale, but it seems to be part of the human condition that we will be fooled again and by something resembling AGW as AGW resembles other episodes.

See "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay.

It describes speculative manias, witch manias, End of The World manias, all sorts of overpowering mass preoccupations which held force for a time. Worth a read and quite amusing.

Jan 27, 2010 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

Stuck-record hits nail on head.
The interesting part of AGW is that the social movement that sustains the myth that we are creating a climate apocalypse, is not led by ignorant people, but is instead led by the allegedly best and brightest.

Jan 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Bishop

If I might . . . in case anyone wants to see what home is like, where the 2010 Olympics will be help in about two weeks . . I give you my Vancouver.

I guarantee there are no Andrew Weaver sightings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fu3MkvC3w0

The hi-def version is best and the music is perfect.

Jan 27, 2010 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred from Canuckistan

Thanks, Johnny H ...

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down past old Pachauri, embracing el No Show.

Jan 27, 2010 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterb_C

@ hunter

I'm curious exactly why you believe that the possibility that AGW may lead to some serious harms is a myth.

One sceptic argument seems to be that the increase in temperature that's been observed is partially/largely an artifact of the UHI effect. This seems to have been pretty well refuted.

Another sceptic argument seems to be that the most likely value of climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC's estimate of 3C. But the Lindzen and Choi paper putting sensitivity at 1C seems to have taken something of a beating. And of course, climate sensitivity PDFs have long tails so there is a small possibility of sensitivity being considerably higher than 3C. Even if sensitivity turns out to be, say, 2C, if pre-industrial levels of GHGs treble - which is not beyond the realms of probability - that's still a 4C rise. Are you confident that presents no problems?

Which brings us to the third sceptic argument which appears to be that even if sensitivity is what the IPCC estimates it to be, the climate damages will not be as great as Stern and others make out. But are you really willing to experiment with a 6C rise?

Jan 27, 2010 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichieRich

The source for this is really scraping the barrel - alarm bells go off when you see that he cannot even quote complete sentences.

Jan 28, 2010 at 12:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrank O'Dwyer

And indeed it turns out to be wrong:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Prof+clarifies+position+climate+panel/2504952/story.html

Feb 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank O'Dwyer

Work at home jobs can be hard to trust. That's why we research and publish only the best of the best... carefully pre-screened, 100% scam-free work at home jobs you can depend on. No get rich quick schemes. No scams. Just 100% real work at home jobs
www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Feb 6, 2010 at 7:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterkiramatalishah

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>