The subject of global warming certainly seems to keep the TV news people interested, and it keeps bureaucrats busy, but all the doomsday reports I have seen are full of half-truths and one-dimensional statistics. This most recent UN report talks about carbon dioxide levels reaching twice the "pre-industrial levels" a century from now, with the mean sea level up another foot or so. This ignores the Earth's ability to self-regulate CO2 levels in the long run, the ability of modern engineering to accommodate very gradually rising sea levels, and the apparent fact that we would have to go back to "pre-industrial" civilization to fix the problem.
In the room where you are sitting right now, the temperature difference between the floor and the ceiling is about one degree. That's the kind of imperceptible change we're talking about — over the next century!
Personally, I don't see the problem if the global temperature goes up one degree over the next century, or if carbon dioxide levels are slightly higher. Both of these conditions would make it easier to grow crops and forests. And the people who live and work within one foot of sea level are already at risk, and they are aware of it.
Global climate control is simply an excuse for more government spending, more government studies, more government regulation of industry, and more government restrictions on individual liberty. The solutions are far worse than the problem.
Draft IPCC Report Shows 20 Years Of Overestimated Globull Warming. At one point, Warmists might have been actually interested in real science, but, that quickly switched to pushing junk science in order to move forward their Marxist ideas of people control.
A tsunami of governmental global warming lies. It's bad enough when major environmental organizations continue to lie about a "global warming" that does not exist in lieu of a planetary cooling cycle now entering its 17th year, but when those allied with the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are also in charge of producing a government report on it, the public is being lied to in ways that obscure their bias and agenda.
This Is Called Cheating (Part 1). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says it conducts no research of its own. It says it merely surveys the already-available scientific literature on climate change and figures out what it all means. But that's not what actually happens. In 2010 an IPCC insider told InterAcademy Council investigators that scientists who wish to include certain information in IPCC reports sometimes manufacture made-to-order journal articles.
IPCC Gets It Backwards, Drought Causes Warming. Researchers found that drought causes higher temperatures, not the other way around.IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk. The IPCC is the world's most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as "proof" that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis. If the IPCC's reports were flawed, as a many global warming "skeptics" have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement's "mother of all environmental scares" — is undermined.
One of Germany's earliest green energy investors, is not convinced that humanity is causing catastrophic global warming.
Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist. For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me.
Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name. [Scroll down] There are three things wrong with the IPCC argument. It depends very much on detailed and somewhat arbitrary choices of model inputs — e.g., the properties and effects of atmospheric aerosols, and their temporal and geographic distribution. It also makes arbitrary assumptions about clouds and water vapor, which produce the most important greenhouse forcings. One might therefore say that the IPCC's evidence is nothing more than an exercise in curve-fitting.
The Serpent's Egg. [Scroll down] Sherlock Holmes would conclude that the chapter team, lacking evidence to back up their desired post-review rewrite, had written a paper and sent it off to Nature specifically so they could cite it for the IPCC report. The paper itself was clubby, thirty-two of its fifty-nine references involving papers by the chapter members, according to McLean. Four of the fifty-nine references were not even published work, and eight referred to IPCC documents.
Gleick's 'integrity'. There does seem to be an IPCC/UNFCCC ideology, let me try to lay it out here.
1. Anthropogenic climate change is real.
2. Anthropogenic climate change is dangerous and we need to something about it.
3. The fossil fuel industry is trying to convince people that climate change is a hoax.
4. Deniers are attacking climate science and scientists.
5. Action is needed to prevent dangerous climate change.
6. Deniers and fossil fuel industry are delaying UNFCCC mitigatory policies.
This is a political ideology. #1 is about science. #4 is in principle about science and scientists, except there is the automatic assumption that a bonafide scientific criticism is a political attack. The rest of it is politics.
IPCC Earth Energy Budget Is Complete Fiction. I really have a problem with the level of sophistication and detail (or lack of therein) surrounding the 'science' of human-driven global warming (a.k.a. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)). Unlike other areas of applied science, the theories and claims behind AGW are so abstract as to have little resemblance to reality. For example, the typical energy balance models for how the Sun warms and the Earth responds are based on fictional simplistic models.
Global warmists throw in the towel. The IPCC report of 2007, which won the Nobel Prize for Peace, ironically is this crazy movement's downfall. A laughable (in hindsight) claim that the Himalayas would be ice-free in 23 years showed that the report was thrown together and not vetted — much less properly peer-reviewed. Global warming charlatans such as Michael Mann and Phil Jones tried to hide their work from any scrutiny. Our gullible government kept the grants going as bureaucrats never questioned these frauds — and gullible reporters continued to carry water for them even after Climategate showed that this was a charade.
Lead global warming author quits IPCC project. The UN's global warming unit, IPCC, is so discredited that "it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices" said Ken Caldeira in announcing that he is resigning as one of its leading authors on the next IPCC report. The previous one won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Outside of a few skeptical bloggers, you will not see this story anywhere else.
Global Warming Panel to Earth's Rescue, on the UN's Dime? Hundreds of United Nations global warming scientists have just met in France via Earth-destroying air travel, ironically at a time of unseasonably cool temperatures across France, to once again justify their funding. Apparently the overall temperature of Earth is set to maybe rise 4 degrees Fahrenheit within the next hundred years. And you can bet that when climate scientists get together to discuss "solutions" to these hypothetical "problems," it means they're going to come up with ways to make humans suffer for being jerks to the planet.
U.N. climate propaganda exposed. The entire world will soon depend on renewable energy so governments ought to start subsidizing these industries immediately. So said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a report released Tuesday [6/14/2011].
Green Groups Blast U.N. Climate Panel for Alarmism. Last Monday [6/13/2011], more than 125 environmental groups sent a scathing letter to Rajendra Pachauri, the Nobel prize-winning head of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the institutional nerve center within the United Nations' global-warming juggernaut. The letter accused the IPCC of taking climate change 'too' seriously. ... By attacking the IPCC for responding to the risks of climate change too aggressively, the letter marks a major pivot in the politics of climate change, which have officially crossed into the twilight zone.
IPCC guru was a student when writing 'authoritative' reports. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports have motivated governmental action to cut carbon emissions, relied on an uncredentialed student named Sari Kovats for writing and supervising its supposedly authoritative reports.
Climate Change Claims Melt Away. Global warming alarmists felt a tingle in their legs when the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report claiming "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate." The announcement was enough to set off celebrations by greenshirts everywhere. Turns out, though, that the claim was nonsense. It was not based on scientific research but on one scientist's guesswork, which was lifted from a telephone interview. It was carelessly — or intentionally? — included in the report. Despite its mistakes and clear political bias, the IPCC survives.
National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses. [Scroll down] Bureaucratic scientists immediately confronted any politician that challenged the science. It was easy to produce global threatening requests for internal funding stamped with the authority of the IPCC Reports. Besides, politicians were eager to don the cloak of green. As a result, almost all funding went to one side of a theory. Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite.
Texas Sues to Block Bizarre "Global Warming" EPA Rules. The state of Texas today [9/16/2010] sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the 'thoroughly discredited' findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are 'factually flawed,' [WOAI] reports.
Heads should roll at the UN over climate panel's disgrace. The IPCC is so fundamentally flawed — scientifically, economically and procedurally — that no political leader should have ever taken their recommendations seriously in the first place. But governments are usually slow to correct their mistakes, so, even after recent revelations of serious IPCC problems, the climate policies of developed nations may well continue to be based on IPCC proclamations for a few more years. In time, however, the panel will almost certainly be abandoned by national governments that, belatedly, will be forced to react to their citizenry's growing skepticism. The IPCC will then become irrelevant.
Climate Research Has Been Hampered by the IPCC for over Twenty Years. Politicizing of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and governments directed it to proving that only human CO2 was causing climate change. This ensured almost no advance in climate science in 20 years. It is said, inaccurately, that the science is settled. It is accurate to say the IPCC and governments settled the science.
Cool-Down Phase. The InterAcademy Council, an Amsterdam-based association of the world's top national science academies, reported Monday [8/30/2010] the results of its review of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its criticism of the IPCC, held up as the divine and inerrant voice on climate change, irrevocably tarnishes the panel's credibility and weakens the case for man-made global warming.
Latest Report On IPCC is Another Insult. It's time to stop the lies, deceptions, denials and fantasy that is the world of political climate science known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Official climate science recently offered more insults, comparable to the whitewash investigations of Michael Mann, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang, with its latest 'investigation' of the IPCC. They think a simple mea culpa will do the job and allow them to continue their corrupt and corrupting ways. It won't and it can't.
Climate panel must be purged. This week, after a four-month review, a committee of scientists concluded that the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has "assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no policies on conflict of interest". Enormous and expensive policy changes have been based on the flawed work of these scientists. Yet there is apparently to be no investigation, blame, suspension or withdrawal of papers, just a gentle bureaucratic fattening of the organisation with new full-time posts.
Climate panel needs credibility. If the international community is to find a workable approach to climate change, negotiations between governments must be guided by credible science, not hyperbole or ideology. To that end, proposed reforms to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put forward by the InterAcademy Council must be adopted if the IPCC is to rebuild its credibility.
Climate Change Lies Are Exposed. The world's leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices. A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was "little evidence" for its claims about global warming. It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof.
New Global Warming Scandal: 'Consensus' on Sun is One Expert. A staggering new finding seems to mire the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in global warming scandal every bit as devastating as Climategate. The news broke June 24, 2010 on a Czech climate skeptic blog, Klimaskeptik.cz, that calls the latest global warming scandal, "Judithgate."
IPCC "Consensus" on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper. Klimaskeptik.cz, a Czech climate skeptic blog, has posted today an interesting article "Judithgate: The IPCC was only one Solar Physicist". Her name is Judith Lean. On the basis of this "consensus of one" solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal. Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments...
Wuebbles Brings More Bias to IPCC Panel. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has announced the coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and review editors for its Fifth Assessment Report, scheduled for release in 2013. IPCC has been the subject of substantial criticism, from insiders and outsiders alike, regarding its lack of scientific objectivity and its record of advocacy rather than dispassionate science. The newly announced leaders for its 2013 report promise more of the same.
The IPCC, Climate Change and Solar Sophistry. Control of the science and content of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports was planned from before it was officially formed in 1988. Exposure of manipulation to achieve desired results also began early.
The IPCC and Climate-Change Spin. It appears that the Climategate scandal has had little effect on the insular attitude of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York Times blogger Andrew C. Revkin writes a rundown of the IPCC's neurotic approach to the media.
Amazongate: At last we reach the source. Last week, after six months of evasions, obfuscation, denials and retractions, a story which has preoccupied this column on and off since January came to a startling conclusion. It turns out that one of the most widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang — was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group.
Yet More Smoke and Mirrors in the Climate Science Game. So who endorsed this "Statement of Concern by Scientists"? Just "We, the undersigned, ...", with no one at all "undersigned." ... Media and politicians tell us that 2,500 official "expert reviewers" who worked with the UN body on its most recent (2007, the fourth) "Assessment Report" (called "AR4") agreed with its conclusions. ... Determining how many of the "2500 scientists" are known to actually agree with this statement is difficult, but we do know how many commented on anything in Chapter 9. Sixty-two is the number. The vast majority of the expert reviewers are not known to have examined this or related statements. Instead they would have focused on a page or two in the AR4 report that most related to their specialties, usually having little or nothing to do with greenhouse gases (CO2 or otherwise). And, of those 62 experts who did comment this chapter, the vast majority were not independent or impartial since most were employees of governments that had already decided before the report was written (indeed, as MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a past IPCC lead author, explains, before much of the research had even begun) that human CO2 emissions are driving us to climate catastrophe.
Carbon Dioxide: The new WMD (Weapon of Mass Deception). The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in the late 1980s to prove human burning of fossil fuels causes global warming. From the beginning it was never a scientific organization.
This is an original compilation, Copyright © 2013 by Andrew K. Dart
The IPCC In The Age of Speculation. The entire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) structure and work was designed to convince the public either with no facts or falsely created ones. Once these were established the speculation of impending doom could begin. ... In this case they proposed that CO2 is a gas that causes global temperature to rise and it will continue to increase in volume in the atmosphere because human activity, particularly energy production, will continue to expand. As evidence accumulated it showed the hypothesis was not proven. Indeed, nobody has produced a record that shows a CO2 increase preceding a temperature increase.
Shut down the IPCC. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced yet another "flaw" in their reports. It's time — once and for all — to be very clear about the obvious. There are serious conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the "flaws" in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction. The latest announcement admits an error that supported Vegan propaganda against the meat industry. Researchers have also admitted that there is no scientifically supportable case for the IPCC's exaggerated worst-case sea-level rise (which by the way has been orders of magnitude lower than Al Gore's), dramatic ice-melts in the Himalayas and elsewhere, danger to the South American rain forest, warming of oceans, etc. etc. etc.
IPCC's River Of Lies. Another shoe has dropped from the IPCC centipede as scientists in Bangladesh say their country will not disappear below the waves. As usual, the U.N.'s climate charlatans forgot one tiny detail.
IPCC Discredited, Evidence of Scientific Fraud Mounts. The release of emails and scientific documents from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain has triggered a cascade of revelations that could spell the end of what some critics are calling the "great global warming delusion."
Environmentalists Are Killing Environmentalism. [Scroll down] The most devastating proof of the scientific inadequacies of the IPCC Reports is the complete failure of every prediction they have made. ... Ability to predict weather accurately is difficult in 24 hours and virtually impossible beyond 72 hours. AGW proponents claimed weather was different than climate and predictable with a degree of certainty. This is false because climate is an average of the weather. If their claim was correct forecasts in the brief 20 years since their first Report in 1990 would be correct. Every one is wrong.
Hypocrisy, Cover-up and Deceptions Drive IPCC Climate Defenders. A bizarre event occurred at the University of Victoria (UVic) in Canada on Thursday, April 8th. It typified the desperate effort to deny evidence and perpetuate the deceptions promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The central theme illustrates the delusion because it argued the media had distorted the truth and given priority to the skeptical side.
A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent. All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC's 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists.
Boxer and Jackson Throw IPCC Under the Bus. During the review of the Environmental Protection Agency budget in today's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, both Senator Barbara Boxer — the chair of the committee — and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. Boxer and Jackson's statements, in addition to being a striking change in policy, are problematic because U.S. climate science is very closely tied to the IPCC reports.
UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings. Weather stations which produced data pointing towards man-made global warming may have been compromised by local conditions, a new report suggests. The findings are set to cast further doubt on evidence put forward by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claims the science supporting rising temperatures is unequivocal.
IPCC Corruption Included Ignoring Facts and Science. Phil Jones, disgraced and dismissed Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), granted BBC reporter Roger Harrabin an interview. Why Harrabin? His reporting has shown bias on all the IPCC and CRU activities. Leaked emails showed the CRU gang used friends in the BBC and that apparently continues. Prevarication, evasion, half-truths continue in Phil Jones' answers. Despite this there are stunning admissions from Jones. "There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers."
The end of the IPCC: The most recent IPCC report of 2007 predicted the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers within 25 years; the imminent death of nearly half the Amazon rain forest; and major damage from stronger hurricanes — all in contradiction to expert opinions offered by its appointed reviewers, but ignored by IPCC editors for mostly ideological reasons. More scandalous even, the IPCC based their lurid predictions on anecdotal, non-peer-reviewed sources — not at all in accord with its solemnly announced principles and scientific standards.
Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned. More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.
IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks. Unquestionably the world's final authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's findings and recommendations have formed the bedrock of literally every climate-related initiative worldwide for more than a decade. Likewise, virtually all such future endeavors — be they Kyoto II, domestic cap-and-tax, or EPA carbon regulation, would inexorably be built upon the credibility of the same U.N. panel's "expert" counsel. But a glut of ongoing recent discoveries of systemic fraud has rocked that foundation, and the entire man-made global warming house of cards is now teetering on the verge of complete collapse.
IPCC Science Designed For Propaganda. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was specifically designed by Maurice Strong as a political vehicle to further his objective of crippling the industrial nations. An acknowledged master of bureaucratic systems he set up every segment of the organization for the maximum public relations effect. This meant emphasis on emotional impact, especially by exploiting fear. The first need was to direct and control the science.
Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility. A leading British government scientist has warned the United Nations' climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility. ... The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general. This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC's retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.
IPCC runs against the spirit of science. Following leaked emails from the University of East Anglia and evidence for sloppy referencing in the IPCC's 2007 report, the work of thousands of remarkable scientists is now being questioned, not just by the public but also by other members of the scientific community. To understand the implications, it helps to consider how this parlous situation has arisen.
More mistakes found in climate change report. The United Nations panel on climate change is facing fresh criticism for new factual errors and poor sources of evidence in its influential report to government leaders. The [IPCC]'s report is supposed to be the world's most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming. But the Telegraph, of London, has discovered a series of new flaws in it...
The great global warming collapse: Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it "cannot rely" on the IPCC.
Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri. No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007. Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as "the world's top climate scientist"), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.
End 'authority' on climate change. [Scroll down] The summary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn't published for another four months or more. In the Fourth Assessment, the summary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.
I Accuse! I accuse the United Nations environmental program in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular of creating a huge hoax, "global warming," in order to reduce energy use and to create a phony market for so-called "carbon credits," based on the lie that carbon dioxide plays a critical role in the alleged warming process. The Earth is not warming. It is cooling. Meteorologists, climatologists, and solar physicists agree that it has been cooling for at least a decade, and they predict the cooling will continue for several decades to come.
Scientific "Consensus". [Scroll down] It seems reasonable to ask, therefore, how can a seriously flawed — if not actually fraudulent — mathematical model linking production of the relatively minuscule amount of an atmospheric trace gas be used to blame mankind for major planetary climate change? The answer lies in the intense public relations campaign launched by environmentalists worldwide following publication of the 1997 IPCC report. The entire debate has been framed by presenting only one side to the maximum extent possible while demeaning any skeptics. The worldwide distribution in 2006 of the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth added to the simplistic polarization and politicization of debate. One cannot ignore how the IPCC report initiated within the United Nations played into an anti-Capitalism agenda.
The Science of Global Warming: Saving the World or Hunting for Ghosts? [Scroll down] Those of us who have carefully studied the IPCC reports detect the numerous discrepancies between the logic of the scientists' articles in the body of the reports (and in any outside peer reviewed materials that disagree with the IPCC findings and are therefore spurned) and the rhetoric of doom and gloom in the political summaries of the reports. Scientists that complain about the polarization and the politicizing of the scientific process at the IPCC are routinely ignored, demoted, fired, or quit. Here are 50 (that's right FIFTY) articles that prove this internal dissension within the IPCC and between the leaders of the IPCC and the rest of the scientific community.
Worse Than Hockey Stick: IPCC 20th Century Simulations and Global Warming
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
A Closer Look at Climate Change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge. Let's take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.
The Collapse Of Credibility At The International Panel On Climate Change. In case you missed it, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently took another major hit, likely to be fatal to its dwindling integrity, authenticity, and credibility. An earlier major hit was the famous Hockeystick chart fiasco, where the last 1000 years of global temperatures as presented by the IPCC were shown to be in error.
Proved: There is No Climate Crisis. Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.
Eight Fallacies about Global Warming: [#7] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals. There is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to the notion that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming. ... The IPCC pronouncements have a powerful influence on the direction and funding of scientific research into climate change, which in turn influences the number of research papers on these topics. Ultimately, and in entirely circular fashion, this leads the IPCC to report that large numbers of papers support a certain hypothesis.
War Over The Climate Heats Up Even As Climate Itself Cools Down. [Scroll down] Be aware that carbon dioxide may not have as much of an impact on temperatures as projected by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While their 2007 Report asserts a better-than-90% certainty that the average temperature increase over the last 50 years is human-caused, they have produced no credible evidence to back this up. None!
NIPCC Findings Contradict U.N. Report. [Scroll down] The NIPCC report shows that the evidence for AGW is not credible, and presents convincing evidence against AGW and for natural causes of climate change. So the science appears to be settled, although not in the way Al Gore has been asserting. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. There is, however, a serious problem. In the mistaken idea that something needs to be done to "combat global warming" and "save the climate," policies are arising that have the potential to distort energy decisions, and thereby severely damage national economies, make us poorer, and hurt standards of living.
How Much Does Climate Change Naturally? [Scroll down] There is no doubt humans alter the world, however, it is far less than depicted in environmentalist reports and documentaries. The world map shows vast areas virtually unoccupied. ... A huge deficiency in the debate is the lack of detailed reconstruction of natural conditions before human impact. We still have extremely limited information and understanding about nature and natural mechanisms. This is especially true about climate. The IPCC made things worse by rewriting paleoclimate history by trying to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. More recently, manipulation of the global temperature record takes us further from the truth.
"Getting Rid" of the Medieval Warming Period. The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) — a well-established phenomenon — dated from approximately 1000 to 1300 [AD], and comprised an interval during which global temperature conditions were warmer than those at present.
Completely inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception. E.R. Beadle said, "Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does this with purpose and great effect. They built the difference between appearance and reality into their process. Unlike procedure used elsewhere, they produce and release a summary report independently and before the actual technical report is completed. This way the summary gets maximum media attention and becomes the public understanding of what the scientists said. Climate science is made to appear what it is not.
Global Warming? Bring it On!. The argument propounded by the dubious United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming (AGW) is willfully fraudulent. The report has been vigorously and critically undermined, scientifically denounced and found wanting from both notable scientists here and abroad. In spite of this fact, it is likely that the new U.S. Democratic Congress and Administration will once again proclaim that they know better than we do about such things.
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists — in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed 'unusual warming' based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.
IPCC Author Selection Process Plagued by Bias, Cronyism: Study. "The IPCC is a single-interest organization, whose charter directs it to assume that there is a human influence on climate, rather than to consider whether the influence may be negligible," lead author John McLean, an Australian researcher, observes in the study. The study documents that instead of seeking input from a wide array of scientists representing a broad swath of the scientific community, IPCC's climate science assessment is dominated by a small clique of alarmists who frequently work closely with each other outside the IPCC process.
United Nations Deceptions. The British newspaper, The Observer, had an article about the views of Dr. Rajendra Patchauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "UN says eat less meat to curb global warming" was the headline. Dr. Patchauri — surprise, surprise — is a vegetarian. He also heads a UN agency whose "science" has been completely discredited, based as it is on computer models that conveniently massage their data to arrive at predetermined conclusions. That same data in the hands of other scientists tends to produce the opposite conclusion.
The 'consensus' on climate change is a catastrophe in itself. The common view of the IPCC is that it consists of 2,500 of the world's leading scientists who, after carefully weighing all the evidence, have arrived at a "consensus" that world temperatures are rising disastrously, and that the only plausible cause has been rising levels of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases. In fact, as has become ever more apparent over the past 20 years — not least thanks to the evidence of a succession of scientists who have participated in the IPCC itself — the reality of this curious body could scarcely be more different. It is not so much a scientific as a political organisation.
A clear and present danger: Scientists with political motives. Ottawa Citizen writer Nicholas Read's comment in the October 12th article that, "Stepping into a political fray is almost unheard of for a scientist, especially one of [Andrew] Weaver's stature" illustrates his lack of understanding of the formation, mandate, structure and activities of the IPCC, all of which are purely political. They only examine human causes of climate change and though they say their work is not to be used as a basis for policy formulation, the IPCC produces a Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which is the only IPCC document most governments read. They seem to not know that the SPM is written independently of the main science report and released months before the report it is supposedly summarizing. In reality, the IPCC science report is edited to ensure it agrees with the Summary.
The inconvenient lies of the IPCC: World leaders consistently cite the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the basis for their policies on energy and environment. which is unfortunate because the IPCC position is based on an unproven theory tested with a computer model designed to prove the theory, but which consistently produces results that don't match reality. Ironically, it is their definitive positions and statements that provide the evidence for their tangled web.
UN's IPCC preying on people's ignorance. While the political and propaganda campaigns were successful, the science continued to prove defiant. But that wasn't a concern for the cabal functioning through the IPCC because they knew the public didn't understand the science. Now the exploitation of lack of knowledge could proceed. A few brave scientific souls resisted the political pressure.
The IPCC: On the Run at Last. The evidence for dangerous global warming adduced by the IPCC has never been strong on empirical science. Endless circumstantial scare campaigns have been run about melting glaciers, more droughts and storms and floods, sea-level rise and polar bears, but all founder on one inescapable problem — as does Mr. Al Gore's over-hyped science fiction film. And that is that we live on a naturally variable planet. Change is what planet Earth does on all scales, and so far not one of the alleged effects of human-caused global warming has been shown to lie outside normal planetary variation.
Oil is Not a fossil fuel. [Scroll down] "An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that 'hundreds of IPCC scientists' are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years." In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Almost 60% of the comments received from the 62 expert reviewers of this critical chapter were rejected by the IPCC editors and 55 of the 62 expert reviewers had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming? The IPCC authors referred to several publications which projected adverse impacts while ignoring many excellent studies which have questioned these projections. Throughout the text of this important chapter of WGII, there were many instances where adverse impact was highlighted or exaggerated, while possible beneficial impacts were totally ignored. Further, IPCC authors while assessing observed changes in natural systems chose to highlight only those changes which support the GW hypothesis while completely ignoring other observed changes which did not conform to the human-induced GW hypothesis and change.
How do we "know" that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium? Out of the blue (I was then a Canadian businessman unknown to climate scientists), I emailed Michael Mann, the primary author, inquiring as to the location of the MBH98 proxy data. To my astonishment, Mann replied that he had "forgotten" the exact location, but that an associate would locate it for me. The associate said that the data did not exist in any one location, but that he would get it together for me. I was dumbfounded. Here was a study that had been on the front page of the IPCC study, used in brochures sent to every household in Canada and there was no due diligence package. [11 megabyte PDF file.]
Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground, Ignoring Science. What is systematically omitted from the [Summary for Policymakers] are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment. Starting in 1990, the IPCC produced Reports each increasing the probability there was clear evidence of a human cause of initially global warming and then climate change. Claim after claim was discredited but this did not stop the process.
Man-Made Global Warming Is Politics Not Science. This is a political document. The "scientific" document is still being edited and will not be issued for several months. Yet the buggy whip media is using the political document to gin up hysteria among the gullible masses. None of the fear mongers in the buggy whip press are bothering to mention the fact that the political document says right in the beginning that the "scientific" document is being edited to conform to the already released summary.
The media snowjob on global warming. Whatever the IPCC and its defenders claim, the Washington Post and most other outlets report without scrutiny. Meanwhile, the motives and sources of all sceptics are instantly suspected and derided. There's nothing wrong with scrutinizing the motives of people engaged in a dicey debate. The subjectivity arises from scrutinizing only one side and always with a preconceived notion of what you are going to find. Such bias is typical, though, of the climate debate, and not just among reporters and editors.
How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming: In previous related articles we examined how environmentalism and particularly climate was hijacked to achieve the political goals of Maurice Strong, primarily to cause the demise of industrialized nations. We saw how he established the political vehicle the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the scientific vehicle, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for his purpose.
Wreaking Havoc on Global Economies. How did the IPCC maintain control and convince many, including political leaders they were right and were the authority? Beyond using UN agencies as vehicles they had the challenge of running an apparently open process while keeping total control.
The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming: In previous parts of this series I've shown how a political agenda took over climate science primarily through the UN and specifically the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The agenda was spread to the world at the 1992 Rio Conference. Periodic Reports from the IPCC maintained the focus on CO2 and increased the political pressure. Please understand I am not claiming a conspiracy, but rather a cabal, which is defined as a secret political clique pushing a political agenda; in this case, designed by Maurice Strong.
U.N. Climate Distractions: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just issued the final installment of its year-long scare-the-pants-off-the public assessment of global warming. It should come as no surprise that, according to the U.N., 257 years of western development and progress has placed the Earth in imminent danger of utter disaster and that the only way to save the planet is to drink the U.N. Kool-Aid and knuckle under to global government-directed energy rationing and economic planning.
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax: It's an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over — '2,500 scientists of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis'. But it's not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled.
Should We Believe the UN Climate Report? The UN Climate Change panel is asserting — again — that humans are overheating the planet. Again, they have no evidence to support their claim -- but they want the U.S. to cut its energy use by perhaps 80 percent just in case. Stabilizing greenhouse gases means no personal cars, no air-conditioning, no vacation travel. Nancy Pelosi says one-third of the Senate want this too.
Don't Rush To Judgment on U.N.'s IPCC Global Warming Summary. A summary of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC Report) was released on February 2, and many in the media and Congress are citing it as further evidence that global warming is a dire threat. The full report, with accompanying scientific assessment and detailed assumptions, will not be released for several months. However, caution is warranted in drawing policy conclusions based on this summary, as the full scientific debate over the IPCC report has not begun.
UN Global Warming Panel Preparing to Scare Again. Their 1996 report, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, fraudulently claimed it saw "a discernible human influence" on the current climate. The IPCC is apparently determined to keep repeating that admitted lie.
Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science on Global Warming. Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.
Just the facts. The chorus of cheers that on Feb. 2 greeted the release of a summary of findings by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is only the latest example of a hardening political consensus around a subject on which there is still scientific debate. What has happened is that climate change and the human role therein have now become a kind of orthodoxy that you question at your peril if you are a scientist or a politician.
Media Promote Global Warming Fraud. The IPCC's decidedly unscientific approach has come under attack from Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl, who declared, "In the past, scientists had to do their research before the implications for policymaking could have been derived from this research." Mocking the U.N. process, he commented, "Today, the vastly superior postmodern scientific method of the IPCC members allows them to publish the summary for policymakers first."
IPCC Reduces Global Warming Projections. On February 2, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the Summary for Policymakers of its Fourth Assessment, even though the full report will not be released for three months. The summary claims there is an increasing likelihood that humans are causing a warming of the climate, but it also predicts less global warming than was forecast by previous IPCC reports.
Still Dodging the Truth About Global Warming. Global warming alarmism is in the air once again, complete with claims of "overwhelming evidence" showing human activity is responsible for global warming. Or maybe not. A draft report from a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was inadvertently made available on the Internet by a U.S. government committee. The IPCC — a political body created by the United Nations, not a scientific body — has been the source of false alarms before. Its new report appears to be no different.
Global Warming: A Science and Economics Update. Most of the so-called "news" stories about this report didn't explain that what was released wasn't a new "study" that increases our knowledge of global warming, but just a political document written by U.N. bureaucrats -- not real scientists -- and edited behind closed doors, not subject to peer review, and it was just an executive summary of one part of a three-part study that won't even be released for another three months. Obviously, this is not how real science is conducted or released.
Cool heads missing in the pressure cooker. The first thing that strikes you on reading the latest consensus report from the world's climate scientists about the effect of global warming is that it is like the plot of an Armageddon movie. … The next thing that strikes you about the report is the high degree of uncertainty to which the authors readily confess. Climate change, the scientists write, "is taken to be due to both natural variability and human activities. The relative proportions are unknown unless otherwise stated".
Chicken Little and global warming. You know that big United Nations report on global warming that appeared last week amid so much media sound and fury? Here's a flash: It wasn't the big, new United Nations report on global warming. Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May.
The Church of Climate Panic. Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, points to the neglected data in the IPCC summary. It "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by (the year) 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." ... Monckton notes that, "The U.N. has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third," and, "It now thinks pollutant particles reflecting sunlight back to space have a very strong cooling effect." As for the increase in temperature, Monckton writes, the best estimate for the effect of the CO2 level reaching "560 parts per million, twice the level of 1750, was 3.5°C in the 2001 report. Now it is down to 3°C."
Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere: The global warming carnival hits its full stride this week in preparation for the release of the long-awaited and much-hyped United Nations report on global warming. It's unfortunate for the climateers that this week's climate science doesn't live up to all the hoopla.
What's in a 'consensus'? Yesterday [2/2/2007], the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued the executive summary of its long-awaited Fourth Assessment Report on global warming. Awkwardly, the 21-page document "summarizes" a much longer report that has not yet been finished -- though that report apparently has already been formally adopted before actually existing. Few of the breathless observers commenting on the new IPCC document seem much bothered by this exercise in time travel.
Climate of Opinion. Last week's headlines about the United Nations' latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled. The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions.
Media Covering Up UN Global Warming Report's Political Agenda, Senator Inhofe Charges. The final document of the new United Nations global warming Summary for Policymakers, due out this Friday [2/2/2007], was not approved by scientists but by political delegates, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) revealed today during a contentious debate with CNN anchor Miles O'Brien.
Scenes from the Climate Inquisition: The IPCC's release of a 21-page summary of its work a full three months before the complete 1,400-page report is due to be published is exactly the kind of maneuver that raises questions about the politicization of the IPCC process. Why the delay? In the past, official summaries of IPCC reports have sometimes overstated the consensus of scientific opinion revealed later in the fine print. ... Is the full report going to be rewritten to square more closely with the summary?
Don't ruin the economy over a tiny temperature rise. Most of us aren't reading the science, or even a precis of the science. We're just reading a constant din from the press that "the science is settled," and therefore we no longer need to think about it: The thinking has been done for us. Last week's U.N. IPCC "report," for example, is not the report, but a political summary thereof.
Global Warming Very Likely Caused by Humans, UN Says. Global warming is "very likely" caused by humans, and world temperatures and sea-levels will increase by the end of the century, the United Nations said in its most comprehensive report yet on climate change. Temperatures are likely to rise by 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of this century relative to the last, with a probable 2 to 4.5 degree range if carbon dioxide doubles from pre-industrial levels, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the report. Sea-level gain over the same period may range from 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches).
Back to the Environmental Issues Page
Back to the Global Warming Page
Back to the Home page
Document location http://www.akdart.com/warming4.html|
Updated February 3, 2013.
Entire contents Copyright 2013 by Andrew K. Dart