Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Sun Also Flares

And now for something completely different -- sort of.  Maybe the Mormons are right -- stockpile enough supplies to survive for a year independently. If a solar flare of the magnitude of the "Carrington Event" were to occur tomorrow, the world would be in Serious Trouble ...

Cliff May : The Sun Also Flares - Townhall.com
The strongest solar storm on record is the Carrington Event of 1859, named after Richard Carrington, an astronomer who witnessed the super solar flare that set off the event as he was projecting an image of the sun on a white screen. In those days, of course, there was nothing much to damage. A high-intensity burst of electro-magnetic energy shot through telegraph lines, disrupting communications, shocking technicians and setting their papers on fire. Northern Lights were visible as far south as Cuba and Hawaii. But otherwise life went on as normal.

The same would not be true were a solar storm of similar magnitude to erupt today. Instead, the infrastructure we depend on would be wiped out. Most of us would not adapt well to this sudden return to a pre-industrial age.

How likely is a repeat of the Carrington Event? Scientists say it is not only possible -- it is inevitable. What they don't know is when. The best estimates are that super solar storms occur once every 100 years - which means we are 50 years overdue.

Both the Wikipedia page and the NASA page on the Carrington Event suggest that such events are twice-a-millenium events, or once every 500 years, not once a century according to the Townhall.com "report". I guess it's just another life-gamble: should I worry about surviving a once-in-10-lifetimes event or should I just live like a grasshopper?

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Stray animals and welfare recipients ....

dispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » offense intended
The main difference between welfare recipients and stray animals is that there’s actual demand for stray animals.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Google and WIkipedia collude to hide "Climategate" data

Fascinating blog post with some very convincing links comparing Google searches for "Climategate" to Bing searches for the same thing.  Disturbing, to say the least ...

Climate Observer: Those Who Control The Information Try To Control The Debate.
The rise and exposure of Climategate did more than just show the email correspondence of a few climate scientists who were determined to shut down dissent, manipulate the peer review process hide or destroy information requested under FOI, hide their mistakes, etc, etc. They also exposed the bias of information sources like Wikipedia (as we have seen before), as well as exposing the bias of Google as a web browser. National Post journalist Lawrence Solomon investigated these phenomenon and this is what he found: In the first article entitled Wikipedia's Climate Doctor we find:

The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

...The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

... This bias by Wikipedia was not isolated. In fact the Google readjustment (read hiding) of the
number of articles referring to Climategate became known as
"Googlegate," such was the level of interference. In Solomon's article Better off with Bing he writes:

This week,
Google announced an end to its long-standing collaboration with the
Chinese Communists — it will no longer censor users inside China.


That’s good of it. Maybe Google will now also stop using its search engine to censor the rest of us, in the Western countries.

Search for “Googlegate” on Google and you’ll get a paltry result (my result yesterday was 29,300). Search for “Googlegate” on Bing,
Microsoft’s search engine competitor, and the result numbers an
eye-popping 72.4 million. If you’re a regular Google user, as opposed
to a Bing user, you might not even know that “Googlegate” has been a
hot topic for years in the blogosphere — that’s the power that comes of
being able to control information.

Despite Google’s
motto of “Do No Evil,” it has long been controversial and suspected of
evil-doing — and not just in its cooperation with China, or in
protecting itself by hiding criticism of itself from unsuspecting
Google users. In recent months,
most of the evil-doing has focused on the Climategate scandal, the
startling emails from the Climate Research Unit in the UK that show
climate change scientists to be cooking the books.


For
many weeks now, readers have been sending me emails describing how
Google has been doing its best to hide information relating to
Climategate, which has been the single biggest story on the Internet
since the Climategate emails came to light on November 19.
By
Nov. 26, the term had gone viral and Google returned more results for
“climategate” (10.4 million) than for “global warming” (10.1 million).
As the Climate Scandal exploded, and increasing numbers of blog sites
covered it, the number of web pages with Climategate continued to
climb. On Dec. 7, Google’s search engine found 31.6 million hits for
people who searched for “Climategate.”

Sometime
around then, in early December, Google began to minimize the
Climategate scandal by hiding Climategate pages from its users. By Dec.
17, the number of climategate pages that a Google search found dropped
by almost 10 million, to 22.2 million. One day later Google dropped its
find by another 8 million pages, to 14.1 million. By Dec. 23, Google
could find only 7.5 million hits and on Dec. 24 just 6 million. And
yesterday, when I checked, Google reported a mere 1.8 million
climategate pages.
See Here.

Bing,
in contrast, didn’t make climategate pages disappear. As you’d expect
from a search engine that wasn’t manipulating data, search results on
Bing climbed steadily until they peaked at around 51 million, where
they have remained since. See Here

Starting
in late November, Google has been keeping the public in the dark about
Climategate in other ways, too. Ordinarily, when people begin keying in
their search terms, Google helpfully suggests the balance of their
text, through an automatic feature it calls Google Suggests.

At
the very beginning of the Climategate scandal, before it became huge,
Google Suggests worked as advertised. If someone typed in c-l-i-,
Google would have shown them “climategate” on a list of options. Many
people, in fact, learned about Climategate this very way, because most
major media outlets had not yet picked up on the scandal. As
Climategate rose in intensity, the term also rose in prominence on the
Google Suggest list — anyone keying in c-l-i would see “climategate” at
the top of the list.

But
suddenly in late November, for reasons known only to Google, Google
often would not suggest “climategate” to those who keyed in c-l-i. Even
c-l-i-m-a or c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t weren’t enough to solicit a suggestion.

Bing, in contrast, did not and does not steer users away from
climategate — it has consistently suggested “climategate” to those who
keyed in c-l-i or even c-l.

For those whom Google can’t steer
away from “climategate,” and who key in all 11 letters to learn about
the eye-opening emails, Google goes the extra yard in keeping people in
the dark — it dishes up a page that trivializes the scientific
significance of climategate. Those who click on Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” after asking for “climategate” find themselves on a Wikipedia page entitled Climatic Research Unit hacking incidentthat
downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the “unauthorised
release of thousands of emails and other documents obtained through the
hacking of a server,” the “illegal taking of data,” the “Law
enforcement agencies [that] are investigating the matter as a crime,”
and “the death threats that were subsequently made against climate
scientists named in the emails.”


For those who don’t
use Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” feature, Google presents them with
this one-sided Wikipedia page as the first item in its search results.
Wikipedia actually has a page called “Climategate” that contains
damning information about the scientists caught up in the scandal but
its own censors won’t let the public see it — anyone who tries to key
in “Climategate” on the Wikipedia site will be instantly redirected to
the Wikipedia-approved version of climategate, where the scandal is
described as nothing more than “a smear campaign.”

Why would Google want to tamp down interest in climategate? Money and power could have something to do with it. Search
for Google and its founders and you’ll see that they have made big
financial bets on global warming through investments in renewable and
other green technologies; that they have a close relationship with Al Gore, that Google CEO Eric Schmidt is close to Barack Obama.


But search for Googlegate and you’ll also see that more than money is at stake. The
accusations against Google of censorship are wide-spread, involving
schemes to elect Barack Obama, attacks on Christianity (key in
“Christianity is” and Google will suggest unflattering completions to
the phrase), and political correctness (key in “Islam is” and nothing
negative is suggested).


The bottom line? Google is as
inscrutable as the Chinese, and perhaps no less corrupt. For safe
searches, you’re best off with Bing.

So,
the tentacles of climategate go beyond influencing the temperature
records of countries all round the world, to include influence over
major information sources such as Wikipedia (by having someone inside
do the gate keeping) to Google by their external relationship to Gore
and to members of his former political party. Is it any wonder that
some people either still have not heard of Climategate or have no idea
as to the depths of manipulation they are being subject to on a daily
basis.



No comment ...

Notes from the Massachusetts Senate Race - Reason Magazine
Nigerian Zionists for Coakley. Irish Republicans for Brown. It is becoming increasingly difficult to make sense of any of this.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Google and WIkipedia collude to hide "Climategate" data

Fascinating blog post with some very convincing links comparing Google searches for "Climategate" to Bing searches for the same thing.  Disturbing, to say the least ...

Climate Observer: Those Who Control The Information Try To Control The Debate.
The rise and exposure of Climategate did more than just show the email correspondence of a few climate scientists who were determined to shut down dissent, manipulate the peer review process hide or destroy information requested under FOI, hide their mistakes, etc, etc. They also exposed the bias of information sources like Wikipedia (as we have seen before), as well as exposing the bias of Google as a web browser. National Post journalist Lawrence Solomon investigated these phenomenon and this is what he found: In the first article entitled Wikipedia's Climate Doctor we find:

The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

...The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

... This bias by Wikipedia was not isolated. In fact the Google readjustment (read hiding) of the
number of articles referring to Climategate became known as
"Googlegate," such was the level of interference. In Solomon's article Better off with Bing he writes:

This week,
Google announced an end to its long-standing collaboration with the
Chinese Communists — it will no longer censor users inside China.


That’s good of it. Maybe Google will now also stop using its search engine to censor the rest of us, in the Western countries.

Search for “Googlegate” on Google and you’ll get a paltry result (my result yesterday was 29,300). Search for “Googlegate” on Bing,
Microsoft’s search engine competitor, and the result numbers an
eye-popping 72.4 million. If you’re a regular Google user, as opposed
to a Bing user, you might not even know that “Googlegate” has been a
hot topic for years in the blogosphere — that’s the power that comes of
being able to control information.

Despite Google’s
motto of “Do No Evil,” it has long been controversial and suspected of
evil-doing — and not just in its cooperation with China, or in
protecting itself by hiding criticism of itself from unsuspecting
Google users. In recent months,
most of the evil-doing has focused on the Climategate scandal, the
startling emails from the Climate Research Unit in the UK that show
climate change scientists to be cooking the books.


For
many weeks now, readers have been sending me emails describing how
Google has been doing its best to hide information relating to
Climategate, which has been the single biggest story on the Internet
since the Climategate emails came to light on November 19.
By
Nov. 26, the term had gone viral and Google returned more results for
“climategate” (10.4 million) than for “global warming” (10.1 million).
As the Climate Scandal exploded, and increasing numbers of blog sites
covered it, the number of web pages with Climategate continued to
climb. On Dec. 7, Google’s search engine found 31.6 million hits for
people who searched for “Climategate.”

Sometime
around then, in early December, Google began to minimize the
Climategate scandal by hiding Climategate pages from its users. By Dec.
17, the number of climategate pages that a Google search found dropped
by almost 10 million, to 22.2 million. One day later Google dropped its
find by another 8 million pages, to 14.1 million. By Dec. 23, Google
could find only 7.5 million hits and on Dec. 24 just 6 million. And
yesterday, when I checked, Google reported a mere 1.8 million
climategate pages.
See Here.

Bing,
in contrast, didn’t make climategate pages disappear. As you’d expect
from a search engine that wasn’t manipulating data, search results on
Bing climbed steadily until they peaked at around 51 million, where
they have remained since. See Here

Starting
in late November, Google has been keeping the public in the dark about
Climategate in other ways, too. Ordinarily, when people begin keying in
their search terms, Google helpfully suggests the balance of their
text, through an automatic feature it calls Google Suggests.

At
the very beginning of the Climategate scandal, before it became huge,
Google Suggests worked as advertised. If someone typed in c-l-i-,
Google would have shown them “climategate” on a list of options. Many
people, in fact, learned about Climategate this very way, because most
major media outlets had not yet picked up on the scandal. As
Climategate rose in intensity, the term also rose in prominence on the
Google Suggest list — anyone keying in c-l-i would see “climategate” at
the top of the list.

But
suddenly in late November, for reasons known only to Google, Google
often would not suggest “climategate” to those who keyed in c-l-i. Even
c-l-i-m-a or c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t weren’t enough to solicit a suggestion.

Bing, in contrast, did not and does not steer users away from
climategate — it has consistently suggested “climategate” to those who
keyed in c-l-i or even c-l.

For those whom Google can’t steer
away from “climategate,” and who key in all 11 letters to learn about
the eye-opening emails, Google goes the extra yard in keeping people in
the dark — it dishes up a page that trivializes the scientific
significance of climategate. Those who click on Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” after asking for “climategate” find themselves on a Wikipedia page entitled Climatic Research Unit hacking incidentthat
downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the “unauthorised
release of thousands of emails and other documents obtained through the
hacking of a server,” the “illegal taking of data,” the “Law
enforcement agencies [that] are investigating the matter as a crime,”
and “the death threats that were subsequently made against climate
scientists named in the emails.”


For those who don’t
use Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” feature, Google presents them with
this one-sided Wikipedia page as the first item in its search results.
Wikipedia actually has a page called “Climategate” that contains
damning information about the scientists caught up in the scandal but
its own censors won’t let the public see it — anyone who tries to key
in “Climategate” on the Wikipedia site will be instantly redirected to
the Wikipedia-approved version of climategate, where the scandal is
described as nothing more than “a smear campaign.”

Why would Google want to tamp down interest in climategate? Money and power could have something to do with it. Search
for Google and its founders and you’ll see that they have made big
financial bets on global warming through investments in renewable and
other green technologies; that they have a close relationship with Al Gore, that Google CEO Eric Schmidt is close to Barack Obama.


But search for Googlegate and you’ll also see that more than money is at stake. The
accusations against Google of censorship are wide-spread, involving
schemes to elect Barack Obama, attacks on Christianity (key in
“Christianity is” and Google will suggest unflattering completions to
the phrase), and political correctness (key in “Islam is” and nothing
negative is suggested).


The bottom line? Google is as
inscrutable as the Chinese, and perhaps no less corrupt. For safe
searches, you’re best off with Bing.

So,
the tentacles of climategate go beyond influencing the temperature
records of countries all round the world, to include influence over
major information sources such as Wikipedia (by having someone inside
do the gate keeping) to Google by their external relationship to Gore
and to members of his former political party. Is it any wonder that
some people either still have not heard of Climategate or have no idea
as to the depths of manipulation they are being subject to on a daily
basis.



Sunday, January 17, 2010

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference
Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.

The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.

The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now. "That leaves much of the world unaccounted for," says D'Aleo.

The NCDC data are regularly used by the National Weather Service to declare a given month or year as setting a record for warmth. Such pronouncements are typically made in support of the global warming alarmism agenda. Researchers who support the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also regularly use the NASA/NCDC data, including researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that is now at the center of the "Climategate" controversy.

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with NCDC data. "For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years, when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures, with those of later years, produced from a small temperature base and the grid method, is like comparing apples and oranges," says Smith. "When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons," added D'Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is "scientific travesty" that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.

The KUSI show is available online here in four 12-minute segments:

Weather Channel Founder's 'Global Warming - The Other Side' Airs In San Diego | NewsBusters.org
A rather remarkable thing happened Thursday: a documentary highly skeptical of man's role in global warming was aired on broadcast television.

The program, "Global Warming: The Other Side," was created and hosted by John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, and debuted on San Diego's independent television station KUSI.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

"Crony Capitalism" is NOT the "Free Market"

Good column by John Stossel, the former ABC maverick who is now with Fox Business Network TV and also writes for Reason Magazine.

Let's Take the "Crony" Out of "Crony Capitalism" by John Stossel on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
When Judge Richard Posner, the prolific conservative intellectual, released his book "A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent Into Depression" (http://tinyurl.com/ylnlbn2) last year, you might have thought the final verdict was in: Capitalism caused the economic downturn and high unemployment.

That this verdict was pronounced by someone like Posner, who is associated with the University of Chicago and the free-market law and economics movement, gave moral support to all the politicians who were intent on exploiting the recession (as they exploit all crises) to increase government control of the economy.

But what exactly is this "capitalism" that is blamed?

The word "capitalism" is used in two contradictory ways. Sometimes it's used to mean the free market, or laissez faire. Other times it's used to mean today's government-guided economy. Logically, "capitalism" can't be both things. Either markets are free or government controls them. We can't have it both ways.

The truth is that we don't have a free market — government regulation and management are pervasive — so it's misleading to say that "capitalism" caused today's problems. The free market is innocent.

But it's fair to say that crony capitalism created the economic mess.
Column continues at the link above.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

More skeptical science that didn't make the MSM

This is the first I've heard of these studies of deep ocean currents, yet this was presented in 2008.

DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only
the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to
last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate
scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural
cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans –
challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished
beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According
to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer
sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since
2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not
dispute this.


North Pole



The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate
computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900
has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will
continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. 

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was
caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to
the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge
to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an
irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists
could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

...

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

There's more on this here: Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Schneier on Security: TSA Logo Contest

Wonderful!  You need to visit Bruce Schneier's blog entry on this if only to see the first logo entry.

Schneier on Security: TSA Logo Contest
TSA Logo Contest

Over at "Ask the Pilot," Patrick Smith has a great idea:
Calling all artists: One thing TSA needs, I think, is a better logo and a snappy motto. Perhaps there's a graphic designer out there who can help with a new rendition of the agency's circular eagle-and-flag motif. I'm imagining a revised eagle, its talons clutching a box cutter and a toothpaste tube. It says "Transportation Security Administration" around the top. Below are the three simple words of the TSA mission statement: "Tedium, Weakness, Farce."
Let's do it. I'm announcing the TSA Logo Contest. Rules are simple: create a TSA logo. People are welcome to give ideas in the comments, but only actual created logos are eligible to compete. (When my website administrator wakes up, I'll ask him how we can post images in the comments.) Contest ends on February 6th. Winner receives copies of my books, copies of Patrick Smith's book, an empty 12-ounce bottle labeled "saline" that you can refill and get through any TSA security checkpoint, and a fake boarding pass on any flight for any date.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

It Didn't Start With Climategate

As those of us in the earth sciences have been saying for years:

Power Line - It Didn't Start With Climategate
The whistleblower at the University of East Anglia who leaked emails and other documents that reveal the fraud that is being perpetrated by the world's leading global warming alarmists did us all a great service. But it is important to realize that the deception didn't just begin: rather, the global warming hysteria movement has been shot through with fraud from the start.

The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report, which was published under the auspices of the United Nations in 1996. This report was the principal basis for the Kyoto Accord which was signed in 1997, and for the nonsense that has been inflicted on the world's elementary school students ever since.

But the Second Assessment Report was hijacked by an AGW activist who re-wrote key conclusions and injected a level of alarmism that had not been present in the consensus document. You can get the whole story here, along with a great deal more information about the global warming controversy. The Science and Environmental Project summarized what happened as follows:

     IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers (SPM), are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

    Perhaps the most blatant example is IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR), completed in 1995 and published in 1996. Its SPM contains the memorable phrase "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." You may recall that this 1996 IPCC report played a key role in the political deliberations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

    This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. Nothing of the sort has ever happened. The IPCC has consistently ignored the major natural influences on climate change and has focused almost entirely on human causes, especially on GH gases and more especially on carbon dioxide, which is linked to industrial activities and therefore 'bad' almost by definition.
This is from Professor Seitz's 1996 Wall Street Journal article:

    This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

    A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

Hat-tip to DMV