Journalists Freeze Waiting To Get Into Global Warming Conference

Newsbusters.com ^ | 12/15/09 | Noel Sheppard

Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:42:23 AM by Reaganesque

A group of journalists stood for many hours in near-freezing temperatures Monday waiting to get into the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Marvelously among them was Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein who regularly reports on the dire consequences of -- wait for it! -- global warming.

Ironically, his articles are so filled with inflammatory hyperbole concerning Nobel Laureate Al Gore's favorite bogeyman that scientists have denounced him.

But before we get there, the Climate Pool reported at Facebook Monday (h/t Tom Nelson):

With U.N. security letting in only those cleared last week, hundreds of accredited delegates, journalists and NGO representatives were left to stand for hours in near-freezing temperatures before being let through. "It was crazy," AP's Seth Borenstein said. "You couldn't leave the line. You couldn't go to the bathroom, you couldn't eat. Then snowflakes started falling. One woman even said, 'if lightning strikes me, would they take me out of line?'"

People started handing out food -- one gave out tangerines, another croissants. A man screamed "I don't need food. I need socks! I'm freezing my ass off out here." At one point, a U.N. official announced the wait would be longer, prompting the crowd to boo and chant "Let Us In!" [...]

Seth himself stepped into the line at 7:55 a.m. and was through at 3:15 p.m., but only after another AP reporter, John Heilprin, "saved my bacon" by persuading a U.N. security guard to go out and fetch him. "John was afraid to go out himself in case they wouldn't let him back in ... the first thing I did when I saw him was give him a big hug. I have never been so grateful to be indoors." Seth's neighbors in line? "Oh they're still out there."

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

Doubling the irony, exactly one year ago Borenstein was ridiculed by scientists from around the world for a piece he wrote claiming: "Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it."

For some reason the link NewsBusters used in its report on Borenstein's disgraceful piece no longer works.

However, those interested can read about his article here, and view some of the denunciations here.

As a humorous aside, what Seth and his fellow journalists could really have used Monday was a little global warming.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: climategate; copenhagen; freeze; globalwarminghoax; journalists; warming
God has a serious sense of humor. Gotta love it!

1 posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:42:26 AM by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Reaganesque
can you say “irony?”


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2408687/posts

Copenhagen – Hypocrisy – Fraud – Confidence Trick
PA Pundits International ^ | 17 December 2009 | TonyfromOz

Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:36:01 PM by TonyfromOz

With the Copenhagen Conference heading for its climax, see why this is all one big confidence trick that has been perpetrated in the name of Science by World leaders and the UN, all of whom have an entirely different agenda. Take the link and see why any resolution they might reach will be absolutely impossible to fulfill.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2408450/posts

Morning Bell: They Can’t Even Run A Conference, Let Alone the Global Economy ( Copenhagen follies)
The Foundry ( Heritage Foundation ) ^ | December 15th, 2009 at 9.38am | Conn Carroll

Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:53:28 AM by Ernest_at_the_Beach

The climate treaty negotiations inside Copenhagen’s Bella Center at the United Nations Climate Change Conference ground to a halt yesterday when the G-77, the largest group of developing nations, walked out. These poorer nations demanded that richer nations sign a treaty that includes a large transfer of wealth to the developing world to compensate for the developed world’s historical contribution to global warming. The G-77 countries ended their walkout after less than two hours, perhaps because global warming has had no apparent impact on December Copenhagen temperatures.

Stuck out in the cold trying to get into the convention center that the developing countries had left were thousands of registered participants including delegations from universities, trade unions, and the press. It took more than 8 hours for non-governmental delegates, like Heritage’s Steven Groves and Ben Lieberman, to check in on December 14th. The New York Times described the registration system as chaotic, and notes that the overflow of freezing unregistered delegates forced the Copenhagen police to shut down the subway stop nearest the conference. The problem: despite some two years of planning, the United Nations organizers failed to come up with a way to fit the 45,000 people they registered for the conference into the 15,000 person capacity Bella Center. Oops.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2408218/posts

Why can't we write off Third World debt at the same as dealing with the environment? *BARF*
The Telegraph ^ | 12/15/2009 | Faser Durham

Posted on 12/15/2009 1:44:55 PM PST by markomalley

As climate change negotiations get into full swing ahead of the upcoming United Nations Climate Change conference in Copenhagen, debate over the basis upon which developed countries should compensate developing countries for their historic emissions intensifies.

There is a possible solution – one where the ‘carbon debt’ of the over-emitting developed world is annulled in exchange for the developing world’s monetary debt.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed through the planet's natural systems. Global carbon cycle data from Nasa (see http://nasascience.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle) tell us that the land, soils and oceans absorb approximately 4 billion tonnes of carbon (C) per year, equivalent to 14.6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. Evenly shared amongst a world population of about 6 billion people, this figure works out at 2.44 tonnes of CO2 per person per year1.

(snip)

The point of this basic analysis is that both sides of the climate change negotiations hold significant debt, albeit in different forms. The countries with higher emissions can be shown to hold a carbon debt of approximately $4.5 trillion, whilst countries with lower emissions – generally the poorer nations - are more likely to owe a monetary debt to the developed world. This monetary debt is valued at approximately $2.5 trillion and rising, with billions paid in interest each year.

Surely, as the world’s politicians contemplate how to resolve differences in negotiating positions at Copenhagen, the simple yet astounding numbers above could lead to one significant opportunity.

To agree on future global emission reductions the developed global north i.e. US, Europe et al, should agree to write off all monetary debt owed by the developing southern countries as compensation for their carbon debt. In other words, a carbon for monetary debt swap.


(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2408291/posts

Polar Bear Goes Hunting for Climate-Gate Scientist at Copenhagen Summit
FoxNews.com ^ | 12/15/09 | William La Jeunesse

Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:37:33 AM by OldDeckHand

Using a megaphone that pierced the rumble of hundreds of people gathered at the conference center housing Copenhagen's climate conference, a man dressed as a polar bear went looking for controversial scientist Phil Jones — but he was nowhere to be found.

To a chorus of boos, a man dressed as a polar bear entered Copenhagen's main conference center Tuesday and began paging the discredited climate scientist whose hacked e-mails sparked the Climate-Gate scandal.

Using a megaphone to pierce the rumble of hundreds gathered inside the Bella Center, which is hosting the city's global climate summit, the polar bear boomed out:

"PHIL JONES??? HAS ANYONE SEEN PHIL JONES???"

Jones, who stepped down from his leading academic post amid swirling scandal earlier this month, has reportedly skipped the climate conference entirely. But his shadow and his words could affect its outcome.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2407964/posts

COP15: Chamber of horrors in Copenhagen
Politiken (Denmark) ^ | December 15, 2009

Posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:57:45 PM by Schnucki

Dictators and despots are coming to Copenhagen for the Climate Summit.

A few of the world’s most notorious leaders will be landing in Copenhagen this week as heads of state and government arrive for the Climate Summit – including presidents who resort to violence, threats and electoral fraud to stay in power.

Robert Mugabe

Harrassment of electoral observers in 2002 meant that Robert Mugabe was denied entry into the European Union – and it is only because the Climate Summit is a United Nations event that he is allowed to set foot on Danish soil.

During last year’s presidential election, some 80 political activists died and hundreds disappeared. Mugabe also contravened the electoral law to ensure a victory that no-one recognises.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iran’s president has done what he could to arouse the wrath of the Western world. He has been accused of cooking the presidential election and coming down hard on protesters. At least 20 people were killed and many put in prison.

The president has also let his anti-Israeli rhetoric be heard. At the United Nations conference Durban II he called Israel “the most evil and oppressive racist regime.”

Islam Karimov

Karimov’s regime in Uzbekistan has the habit of boiling its opponents to death - at least according to the memoirs of Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Tashkent from 2002 to 2004.

A demonstrable fact is that Karimov has run Uzbekistan ruthlessly since he declared the country independent in 1991. International human rights organisations say that Uzbekistan uses systematic torture and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe says last year’s presidential elections were unfair.

Others Several other controversial leaders have still not said whether they will attend. These include Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov of Turkmenistan and General Than Shwe of Burma


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2408443/posts

ClimateGate Reaction Part 2: The Computer Models
Dude, With Keyboard ^ | November 30,2009 | Dude, With Keyboard

Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:35:22 AM by InterceptPoint

NOTE: If any of the following rant strikes you as placing unreasonable limits on climate modelers, then I would like to refer you to The Point. The sigma number of the climate models better take several fingers to count if we must make radical international regulatory changes to our economic activity.

This much we have learned from the Climategate scandal: the computer models used to justify the policy proposals are for crap. Leaving the validity of the underlying science aside, and focusing only on the Climate Research Unit’s computer models, we’ve learned:

1. The starting point, i.e. the raw data is no longer available to be compared. So we can’t try to “re-create” the analysis that led to the currently used climate models and the catastrophic trends contained therein.

2. All the inputs are “derived” inputs based on various reasoning: some data sets need to be expunged because the scientist view them as anomalies that do not fit their thesis (I’ll let you dear reader judge whether or not that is innocent or sound science or something more self serving), and other inputs were adjusted to fit some form of normalization requirements. The bottom line is that the historical computer models are not made of raw data, but rather manipulated data (and I really am using that term in a value neutral manner).

3. The documentation for code is extremely poor and untraceable in some instances

4. Notations of data manipulation are actually documented in some instances but not traced to any reasoning, as far as can be discerned.

5. These models have yet to correctly predict any weather events or climate trends in the intervening years since the models were regularly used (say, starting in the 1995 IPCC for starters)

6. The model code and design history (their source code, the design documentation, functional and technical specifications, etc) that are used as the basis for expensive policy proposals and regulatory regimes were never made available for public third party audits.

7. There is no evidence that the scientific grant givers performed any technical audit of the code quality, system stability, or system accuracy.

Excuse me while I hop on my high horse.

I work in software. I have eleven years of experience in software quality assurance. I have worked for the two largest software companies on earth. I have been a tester, lead tester and/or test manager on products that performed word processing, enterprise level document management and online collaboration, and enterprise resource planning (ERP), specifically manufacturing, accounting and logistics software. I have worked in software development outfits of varying size, from small agile groups which were a bit lacking on the organizational side of things, to large groups that used somewhat rigid waterfall methodologies which were high on discipline and detail and low on adaptability. I’ve worked with numerous off shore resources as well as decentralized teams of remote full time resources.

Moreover, I’ve worked in software development that was required to meet certain government and industry standards from ISO regulations to FDA and GAMP requirements, including working directly with FDA audit consultants. My experience teaches me that:


1. Software development has to be managed and developed by software pros as opposed to experts in other fields that can do some coding when called upon. The experts define the functionality, business need and underlying logic but they do not, or should not do the coding. Otherwise, while you may see innovative solutions and ideas, the execution will typically be quite amateurish and have design flaws up and down the line..

2. Software development that lacks at least some sort of plan > design > document > develop > test > support life cycle is doomed to have significant bugs and ill thought out data models

3. Some sort of document trail on how the code does what it does is vital to long term support.

4. The more variables you throw into a system the higher the quality threshold will be, the risk to code degradation will increase and the need for huge regression cycles will be vital. It would be difficult not to understate the enormous variable load on any climate model.

5. Open source software certainly has weaknesses but also some enormous strengths. The weaknesses are primarily around how open source software is often created by developers for developers. Their “customers” and “partners” are other developers who also have the ability to improve the software. Open source development can be rough, but it also can be the most dynamic. It is especially useful the more niche or small the target audience is. It strikes me as obvious that climate computer modeling should HAVE TO follow an open source model

The CRU source code does not appear to have been open source in anyway, was apparently coded (in FORTRAN!!!) by scientists whose primary expertise is in climate science and not software development. They are a group of individuals who tout their expertise at every turn but their models lack any evidence of any software development methodology above common hackery. And not to put to fine a point on it, but these models are the basis for the theory that a CO2 caused catastrophe is all but a foregone conclusion without radical international regulatory changes to our economic activity.

Lastly, consider the standards that developers who sell to or implement in the pharmaceutical industry (the industry with one of the highest regulatory requirements for their data integrity):

1. At a minimum, pharma companies and their software vendors must be able to demonstrate a secure and traceable data flow

2. They must demonstrate source code control

3. They must demonstrate change management with a document and source code audit trail from plan/design to implementation, complete with version control and user history

4. Typically, they must have some sort of electronic signature control mechanism or a reliable paper solution that traces system changes, and is legally binding

5. All work processes must be fully documented with regards to system access, system usage, and any change to the system itself

We put very rigid controls on pharmaceutical companies and their software vendors to create systems that are secure, reliable and fully documented. This is seen as societal good so that we don’t have our medications tampered with either through incompetence or malicious intent. To put it kindly, there is no evidence that any remote requirements are enforced on the programmers of climate models that were A) likely paid for by taxpayer funded grants and B) are used as a basis for the theory that a CO2 caused catastrophe is all but a foregone conclusion without radical international regulatory changes to our economic activity.

If I were an opinion journalist or a busybody Senator, I might think some minimum requirements would be called for in climate model development BEFORE we go down the path of radical international regulatory changes to our economic activity:

1. All research and data obtained and developed with a taxpayer funded grant should be made publicly available if it will be used as a basis for public policy

2. Any software used or created to model the scientific evidence for the public policy should be required to meet the bar set for the pharmaceutical industry and other industries of equal import

3. Any predictive applications should prove some level of accuracy over a pre-defined time horizon (in years) before being treated as a basis for public policy. The predictive applications must audited for accuracy under a “do nothing” scenario first to show their understanding of the situation.

4. They should at least be able to accurately predict the recorded past.

5. Predictive applications would then need to be audited annually, post policy implementation to show that the predicted benefits of the policy were accurate.

Again, if this doesn’t seem like a reasonable set of standards, then that’s sort of The Point. Either AGW is a nice theory or an easily provable fact. Only the latter, is worth discussing (all together now!) radical international regulatory changes to our economic activity. Of course, this assumes the policy makers that are in line to gain enormous power from the policy proposals actually care about the accuracy of the underlying science. My FDA Validated Magic 8-ball program says “don’t count on it, bud”.