IPCC Report: Now Science-Free!

What with the "consensus" and all, I know that actual science is unnecessary to "prove" the existance of man-made global warming (or climate change, if you prefer), but some might be interested in how little science is actually involved in all the fear-mongering.

Take this, for example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

Or this, for example:

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skepti cs/2468634/story.html

Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”

Perhaps this is why the usual suspects won't release their raw data? Because it isn't there?

Ironically, "Now Science Free!" reminds me of some peoples' views on how we came to be.

I am glad this farce of global warming is going the way of the "coming ice age" of the 1970's.

Now even less science!

http://foxnews.mobi/#r_http%3A//foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html%3Fpage%3D22720%26content%3D32178135 %26pageNum%3D-1

I wonder if this is part of the "overwhelming evidence" that Pres. Obama was talking about last night.

And still less science:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

So, these are the "experts" providing "overwhelming evidence" verified by strict "peer review," huh? What a joke.