On Monckton’s Nobel Prize Claim | The SPPI Blog

Monckton: ”I found out on the day of publication of the 2007 [IPCC report] that they’d multiplied, by 10, the observed contribution to sea-level rise of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet. By 10! I got in touch with them and said, ‘You will correct this.’ And two days later, furtively, on the website, no publicity, they simply relabelled, recalculated and corrected the table they’d got wrong.”

Alan Jones: ”But this report won a Nobel Prize!”

Monckton: ”Yes. Exactly. And I am also a Nobel Prize winner because I made a correction. I’m part of the process that got the Nobel Prize. Do I deserve it? No. Do they deserve it? No. The thing is a joke.”

Rudd leads world in climate stupidity | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Yet which country, like a shag on a rock, boldly promises to slash emissions hard, regardless? Which will be made to pay for this futile gesture, which will lower world temperatures by zero?

We should be ashamed to be so suicidally gullible.

Chiefio asks: why does GISS make us see red? « Watts Up With That?

The empty ocean goes infinite hot on a null anomaly

The Blackboard » HadCrut Compared to IPCC Simulations Ending Dec. 2009.

...If the assumptions are correct, the trend in the difference between the multi-model mean and the earth’s surface temperature is statistically significant. That is, the multi-model mean is overpredicting warming and that difference appears statistically significant.

Global warming: Post mortem on the IPCC

The road to Pachaurigate, Himalayan non-melting glaciers, invented predictions of hurricane and flood damages, etc. ad nauseum, began with Ben Santer removing language that had been 'peer-reviewed' from Chapter 8 of SAR, by the scientists creating the report for the IPCC, and replacing it with his own language, that was reviewed by nobody. More than 15 sections of this report were changed after the peer review group accepted the text as final.
...
At least from that moment on, the IPCC was condemned to be a marketing tool, a propaganda instrument, laboring on behalf of the activists who were convinced of the catastrophic nature of climate change. When Santer was called to account, the IPCC did nothing. And they were exposed for what they were.