A rare 'climate-change'-related story appeared in the St.Catharines Standard which didn't resonate with the usual leftist greenshevism of the global warming fear-mongerers.
But, don't get your hopes up - no reporter from the St.Catharines Standard has yet bothered to ask for Liberal MPP Jim Bradley's views on the latest climate scam revelation.
This has nothin' to do with Jimmy, y'see... it's not as if Jim Bradley ever promoted doomsday global-warming GreenFearTM !! (heh heh)
Bradley surely would prefer that guys like Ross McKitrick didn't keep coming up with things that questioned the greenshevist climate deceptions of politicians such as Jim, as in McKitrick's column "Defects in key climate data uncovered" (National Post, Oct.1, 2009)
Oddly, we didn't hear much about McKitrick and his "climate-change" revelations in the St.Catharines Standard back then. I mean, really, why question Jim Bradley's graphic hockey-stick enviro-fantasy?!
We still don't see anything in the Standard looking into the World Wildlife Fund's co-opting of the McMullan council with their 'earth day' propaganda... It's best to, you know, not talk about it... after all: RAH RAH RAH Copenhagen, doncha know...!
But now, the St.Catharines Standard's editors could have at least tried to correct Ross McKitrick's name in Brian Lilley's Sun Media story, which was mis-spelled as "McKintrick".
[Maybe the green teamster cheerleaders over at the Jim Bradley Fan Club were going 'Ross mcwho? We dunno anything 'bout him... who is this guy? We, like, all know, like, about Al Gore, eh, and the melting, like, um, glaciers and stuff... and like... umm, oh yeah, the flooding and stuff, and ah, oh yeah... the drowning polar bears and stuff... and like we know about David Suzuki , and about Jim Bradley and Kyoto... but like, we've never heard of this Mcsomething guy...']
Brian Lilley reported in "Climate change science under fire - again" (St.Catharines Standard, July 13, 2010):
"The scientific accuracy of the United Nations' climate change reports are coming under fire again.
In a scandal that dates back to January and was dubbed Amazongate at the time, it has been confirmed that claims of the Amazon burning up due to climate change were sexed-up and pulled from activist literature.
The 2007 UN report on climate change, the one that has helped guide government efforts to spend billions of dollars to combat global warming, claimed that “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.”
The real report, drawn from a website and paid for by pressure group the World Wildlife Fund, says something quite different.
While the UN reports are often described as scientific and peer-reviewed, this claim of the Amazon being at high risk originated on a website of a Brazilian advocacy group. The original claim read that “Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall."
The World Wildlife Fund says it cannot be held responsible for how the UN climate change group used its data.
So far no one seems to be able to say how a report that claimed parts of the Brazilian rainforest “probably” are “sensitive” was hyped to make things sound more dire.
Professor Ross McKintrick says no one should be surprised that such mistakes end up in these massive reports.
“The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) doesn’t have the internal rigour that one would expect of it,” said McKintrick [sic] from his office at the University of Guelph. “Nothing is in the process to prevent activist rhetoric from appearing.” McKintrick, who teaches environmental economics and has had his own battles with the accuracy of climate change reports, says the calculations used in the UN reports are often not checked for accuracy and even the much-vaunted peer-review process does not guarantee that the information used is correct.
Amazongate is not the only claim that relies on information from activist groups.
Toronto author Donna Lafamboise recently led a team of citizen auditors through the 2007 climate change report and found heavy use of reports from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. That report is published at noconsensus.org.
Laframboise says Greenpeace was cited at least eight times and the WWF at least nine times, despite both groups having clearly stated activist goals when it comes to climate change.
“This is shocking in a report that the public has been told relies solely on peer-reviewed research published in scientific journals,” said Laframboise.
The UN has appointed a team of academic experts to give advice on how to avoid these mistakes in the future, but McKintrick says the UN isn’t really serious about changing anything.
He points out that the authors for the next massive climate change report have already been chosen and many were part of the last error-riddled effort.
Work has also already begun on the follow-up to Copenhagen; climate experts will try to hash out a new climate deal in Cancun, Mexico, in November."
Activist climate-change/global-warming literature and rhetoric?! What about the activist rhetoric, the greenshevism, which was FEAR-MONGERED INTO POLICY by statist politicians and Liberal liars such as Dalton McGuinty and Jim Bradley?
Who's looking into that?