************************EXCERPT************************************
#1:
Sean:
September 5th, 2011 at 3:17 am
Ive heard that the editor of Remote Sensing sent a personal letter of apology to Kevin Trenberth over the publication of the Spencer Braswell paper. Its not the first resignation inspired by Dr. Trenbreth. Steve Goddards site has the letter that Chris Landsea sent to the IPCC several years ago because of the miss characterization of the hurricane frequency and intensity as a result of climate change. http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/kevin-trenberth-master-ipcc-junk-science He specifically mentions hyping the results in a press conference by people (Trenberth) who did not have the expertise to make such claims. I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record. Trenberth has become a one man wrecking crew of scientific integrity.
Trenberth seems to be at the center of the CAGW cabal linking English and American academics along with gov’t scientific centers.
**************************EXCERPT*******************************************
Jaymez:
September 5th, 2011 at 3:37 am
If the climate alarmists cant control the popular press, they will try harder to control the scientific press. This was evidenced before in the Climategate emails and here in Australia with the CSIRO re-interpreting research results released by their own scientists to reduce any possibility the IPCC orthodoxy is brought into question.
The peer review process in climate science is operating like our real estate industry where practitioners will always tell you its a great time to buy regardless of the evidence to the contrary. The state based REal Estate Institutes only report settled sales, they dont report how many properties are taken off the market after failing to sell.
Sales prices are tracked and graphed without adjusting for the fact hundreds of thousands of dollars can be spent on renovation, additions and upgrades and thousands of dollars are spent on maintenance, rates, taxes,stamp duties and selling fees by the owners, thus dramatically reducing the actual return on investment. Consequently the real estate industry property market charts always show a higher capital growth rate than is ever actually achieved by the market.
They can also make property slumps disappear. Sound familiar?
Climate scientists are becoming the real estate agents of the science world willing to sell human induced catastrophic climate change no matter what the evidence.