Nytt Sterngate på gang? CCCEP med grove forskningsbløffer

Started by Telehiv, 23.10.2016, 21:38:34

Previous topic - Next topic

Telehiv

Nick Stern 2006: Kritikken mot den ultraalarmistiske Sternrapporten
Første gang de fleste hørte om klimaalarmisten Nick Stern var i 2006, da den agitatoriske delen av IPCC-miljøet fikk en rekke mediealarmistiske foretak med seg på haussing av den såkalte "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change", ofte forkortet til bare "Sternrapporten". Rapporten ble altså produsert av den britiske økonomen Nicholas Stern på oppdrag av den britiske finansministeren Gordon Brown. Som igjen satt i Tony Blairs regjering da han var på sitt mest stormannsgale med å bli "the statesman of the world" og prøvde seg på alt han trodde verdenssamfunnet ville applaudere. Sternrapporten beskriver et scenario der følgene av en gitt global oppvarming blir målt som kostnaden for verdenssamfunnet. Og det ble ikke spart på alarmismekruttet: Et mye brukt skremselsargument i Sterns rapport var at en 5 graders middeltemperaturøkning fram til år 2100 (som de mest seriøse aktørene i IPCC ikke ville stille seg bak), skulle koste mellom 5-20% av det globale bruttonasjonalprodukt (!!). Derimot hevder rapporten at det bare skulle koste 1% av verdens samlede bruttonasjonalprodukt fram til år 2050 å bremse utslippene av drivhusgasser om det gjøres i god tid.


Nicholas Stern

Det klimafaglige var av naturlige grunner (Stern er økonom) bare hentet fra tredjeparts materiale, og da fra de mest alarmistiske studiene man kunne finne, jfr. promoteringen av et scenario om 5 graders middeltemperaturøkning innen Ã¥r 2100. Media og den faste alarmistpolitikerklikken slukte selvsagt dette rÃ¥tt, mens det raskt kom til dels fortørnede reaksjoner pÃ¥ rapporten, først fra klimaforskere som ikke kjente seg igjen i de fysiske beskrivelsene, men ogsÃ¥ fra økonomer, jfr. bl.a. Byatt et al (2006) som beskrev rapporten som «sterkt feilaktig». Kjente kritikere er bl.a. ogsÃ¥ Tol, R.S.J. and G.Yohe (2006). "A Review of the Stern Review". World Economics. 7 (4): 233â??50, og Nordhaus, W. D. (2007). "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate". Journal of Economic Literature. 45 (3): 686â??702. doi:10.1257/jel.45.3.686. Metoden bak pÃ¥standene ble ogsÃ¥ sterkt kritisert, jfr. for eksempel Weitzman, M.L. (2007). "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change" (PDF). Journal of Economic Literature. 45 (3): 703â??724. doi:10.1257/jel.45.3.703. Selv sentrale aktører i IPCC var av slike Ã¥rsaker lite villige til Ã¥ fronte Stern-rapporten, mens den mer kritiske delen av klimaforskningen gikk sÃ¥ langt som Ã¥ fordømme hele arbeidet, bl.a. ble det hevdet at det var sjokkerende at ikke IPCC gikk ut selv og pÃ¥talte at man her foret uvitende politikere/beslutningstakere med "scientific garbage of the third kind", osv.

Nick Stern 2016: Rene kommersielle kjeltringstreker for å promotere midler til CCCEP?
Nå er imidlertid Stern igjen i fokus, som styreformann for det selverklærte eliteinstituttet Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP), og igjen kontroversielt: CCCEP synes å stå bak en rekke rene svindler på flere områder med formål å hanke inn store offentlige midler.
David Rose skriver i The Mail on Sunday at CCCEP bl.a. "helped secure £9million of YOUR money by passing off rivalsâ?? research as its ownâ?¦ to bankroll climate change agenda". Her er noen punkter som listes opp i denne forbindelse:

â?¢ One of the worldâ??s leading institutes has claimed credit for its rivalsâ?? work
â?¢ Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy made bid for more funds
â?¢ It claimed it was responsible for work published before it even existed


One of the worldâ??s leading institutes for researching the impact of global warming has repeatedly claimed credit for work done by rivals â?? and used it to win millions from the taxpayer. An investigation by The Mail on Sunday also reveals that when the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) made a bid for more Government funds, it claimed it was responsible for work that was published before the organisation even existed. Last night, our evidence was described by one leading professor whose work was misrepresented as â??a clear case of fraud â?? using deception for financial gainâ??.

The chairman of the CCCEP since 2008 has been Nick Stern, a renowned global advocate for drastic action to combat climate change.
He is also the president of the British Academy, an invitation-only society reserved for the academic elite. It disburses grants worth millions to researchers â?? and to Lord Sternâ??s own organisation.
.....

Part of the CCCEPâ??s official mission, which it often boasts about in its public reports, is to lobby for the policies Lord Stern advocates by presenting the case for them with British and foreign governments and at UN climate talks.
Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had â??made mistakesâ??, both in claiming credit for studies which it had not funded and for papers published by rival academics. â??This is regrettable, but mistakes can happenâ?¦ We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,â?? he said.

The Mail on Sunday investigation reveals today that:
â?¢ The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which has given the CCCEP £9 million from taxpayers since 2008, has never checked the organisationâ??s supposed publication lists, saying they were â??taken on trustâ??;
â?¢ Some of the papers the CCCEP listed have nothing to do with climate change â?? such as the reasons why people buy particular items in supermarkets and why middle class people â??respond more favourablyâ?? to the scenery of the Peak District than their working class counterparts;
â?¢ Papers submitted in an explicit bid to secure further ESRC funding not only had nothing to do with the CCCEP, they were published before it was founded;
â?¢ The publication dates of some of these papers on the list are incorrect â?? giving the mistaken impression that they had been completed after the CCCEP came into existence.

Academics whose work was misrepresented reacted with fury. Professor Richard Tol, a climate change economics expert from Sussex University, said: â??It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you havenâ??t supported, and itâ??s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. Iâ??ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.â?? The paper cited by the CCCEP of which Prof Tol is a co-author was published online by the Ecological Economics journal on July 31, 2008.

Mr Ward said the CCCEP is a â??world class university research centreâ??, and when it asked for the second slice of funding from the ESRC, it submitted in all â??520 research and policy outputsâ?? and 139 media articles. He added: â??We reject any suggestion that we misrepresented the outputs of the Centre in our submission to the mid-term review.â?? He claimed our investigation was an attempt to â??promote climate change denialâ??.


Disse avsløringene, hvis de viser seg å holde stikk i fortsettelsen, vil være et sørgelig tillegg til det vi allerede vet om finansierings-mørkerommene bak den alarmistiske delen av klimaforskningen.

Link til Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863462/Exposed-university-helped-secure-9million-money-passing-rivals-research-bankroll-climate-change-agenda.html#ixzz4NtxXsjTi

Link til WUWTs oppslag i saken (som igjen siterer Daily Mail):
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/bob-bot.jpg?w=720


Telehiv

En av kommentatorene til denne saken på WUWT har åpenbart fått nok nå:

ATheoK
October 23, 2016 at 11:06 am 

One misrepresentation is a mistake.
Two misrepresentations are a serious mistake worth investigating.
Two separate grant submission letters with multiple authorship responsibility misrepresentations is a definite serial intent to defraud.
Send in the investigators.
Send in the Prosecutors.
Send in the taxmen.

Watch them build another whitewash committee to sweep this under the carpet
.



Telehiv

Med bordet så perfekt dekket for det, er det ikke rart at bl.a. WUWT harselerer fælt med "Hansen's bulldog" (Bob Ward) som pleier å sendes ut for å slukke branner når the usual suspects har tråkket feil: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/24/monday-mirthiness-a-new-stern-version-of-hansens-bulldog/

Og tegnerne mangler ikke motiver: