End of Another Global Fraud: IPCC in turmoil

As the Financial Post, a real paper from Canada, put it: here is all you need to know about global warming:

Oops.

The nice colors are the models the IPCC and, hence, the true believers used to "settle" the question of global warming. The mean black lines are data, the deniers.

Flash back years: I explained all this and predicted, like a bad radio host, that real scientists will jump the PC ship one they start to look stupid. This is happening at the IPCC. The scientists at IPCC are at odds with the political drones who will publish data, then add a preface, one disconnected from reality, about how the world is ending.

There are many fraudulent careers at stake in an era when stupid people may have to work in the "private sector," as they call normal life.

One addition:  I glibly talked about solar activity as the thing to watch (and the models ignored). This is sort of a good plan, but the key is that water vapor the sun generates is the greenhouse gas that affects temperature.

I am in the process of organizing a NFP to cover the oceans with floating concrete.  Sounds reasonable.  Maybe, we coat it with a floating, while oil or something or kill animals that breath.
---------

From Behndtheblack.com:

SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 AT 7:11 PM

Another leak from the IPCC shows that politicians in Belgium, Hungary, Germany, and the United States attempted to pressure the scientists writing the report to cover up the lack in global temperature rise since 1998.

[L]eaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries. Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change. Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve. The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

Two points: First, for this article to refer to any legitimate scientist who questions the theory of human-caused global warming to be called a “denier” offends me beyond words, as regular readers of this website know.

Second, this leak proves once again the foolishness of allowing politicians to get involved in the scientific process. They should be kept as far away as possible, at all times.

• By Robert Zimmerman
• Comments (5)
• Permalink
• Share

Zimmerman see the current leaks as intentional. The lowly, worker bee scientists have had enough.

Global lying, revisited

I wish I reported what the WSJ does, below.  Wait!  I did,

I don't think I am a climate scientist and, yet, I could report on what is going on without a UN office and staff behind me.

Now, what do you make of this?  Am I lucky, a genius, or are we being conned?

The UN misquoted 1996 hearsay, used information it knew was wrong to mount a campaign to save the Himalayan glaciers.

I don't think I am a climate genius.

A Glacier Meltdown

The Himalayas and climate science.

• Article
• Comments (354)

MORE IN OPINION »

• Email
• Print
• Save This↓ More
• • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • + More
• Text

Last November, U.N. climate chief Rajendra Pachauri delivered a blistering rebuke to India's environment minister for casting doubt on the notion that global warming was causing the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.

"We have a very clear idea of what is happening," the chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the Guardian newspaper. "I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."

Then again, when it comes to unsubstantiated research it's hard to beat the IPCC, whose 2007 report insisted that the glaciers—which feed the rivers that in turn feed much of South Asia—were very likely to nearly disappear by the year 2035. "The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers," it wrote in its supposedly definitive report, "can be attributed primarily to the [sic] global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases."

It turns out that this widely publicized prediction was taken from a 2005 report from the World Wildlife Fund, which based it on a comment by Indian glacier expert Syed Hasnain from 1999. Mr. Hasnian now says he was "misquoted." Even more interesting is that the IPCC was warned in 2006 by leading glaciologist Georg Kaser that the 2035 forecast was baseless. "This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," Mr. Kaser told the Agence France-Presse. "It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing."

On Wednesday, the IPCC got around to acknowledging that the claim was "poorly substantiated," though Mr. Pachauri also suggested it amounted to little more than a scientific typo. Yet the error is of a piece with other glib, and now debunked, global warming alarms.

Among them: that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the United States (it was 1934); that sea levels could soon rise by up to 20 feet and put Florida underwater (an 18-inch rise by the year 2100 is the more authoritative estimate); that polar bears are critically endangered by global warming (most polar bear populations appear to be stable or increasing); that—well, we could go on without even mentioning the climategate emails.

For the record, most Himalayan glaciers do seem to be retreating, and they have been "since the earliest recordings began around the middle of the nineteenth century," according to a report from India's ministry of environment and forests. The reasons are complex and still poorly understood, and we're glad to see responsible scientists acknowledge as much. If more of them could help the IPCC get its facts straight, we might put more stock in its reports.

Underwhelming support for man made global warming

Greg pointed me to a response to an article that touted

Harvard professor weighs in on climategate

James McCarthy, a respected Harvard professor who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today stressing that e-mails stolen from climate scientists do not undermine the evidenc for manmade global warming. McCarthy is board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The letter reads "The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”

Ooooh. There is a convincing argument:  "Because I say 'others say so.'" 

I have written several times over the past few years, that when the reality of what has been going on opens up, scientists will rise up to protect their own credibility where before they were afraid to lose their jobs. This just has to be. We need to look at data, not a UN/Barbara Boxer press release.

As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.

Things are getting sticky for the left-control drones.  Their most recent tool, climate fear, as a way to control the world and divert billions to them, is unraveling. Hence, the above letter to Barbara Boxer, whom I am sure didn't ask for the letter to be sent, saying all is well the the emperor does really have new clothes, even if the tailor spilled the beans that he kills anyone who can't see the garb.

Below, is all you need to read on the increasingly silly, albeit dangerous, notion that man is changing the earth's temperature and killing the polar bears by increasing their population so they may run out of food, then invade Toronto looking to eat little foreign babies  (that is my guess as to the next moving argument. )

I have been publishing denier information for, what, over two years. People refused to admit the possibility that what I said was true.  They read a statistic or report, I think, and it does not register. It is like a hum in their heads.

They ask, "Were did I get that information" which exactly raises the theme of this blog.  Read the information yourself and go look it up, don't wait for a talking head who is invested in lies or works for the liars.  Don't forget, the talking head TV news readers are, in real life, dullards:

From a wiki regarding Peter Jennings: 

...He struggled academically, and Jennings later surmised that it was out of "pure boredom" that he failed 10th grade and dropped out. "I loved girls," he said. "I loved comic books. And for reasons I don't understand, I was pretty lazy."^[2] Jennings then briefly attended Carleton University, where he says he "lasted about 10 minutes" before dropping out.^[3] He also attended the University of Ottawa^[4].

Here is a response to the article above, from someone who didn't drop out of Harvard and who took the time to mention things like facts,  If course, this entry could be a big fraud, so one may want to look at he cited references, unlike those given by the UN.   Just stop saying, "Where did you read that?" 


That siad, you may find it interesting reading the original site, "The Green Blog," not a right wing site.  Click on the title.  Read the other responses. You don't find anyone supporting the fraudulent science.

I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that "human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming" is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.

Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England). Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason.

If the MWP is "allowed" to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a "runaway greenhouse" in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen's runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.

As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why "hide the decline"?) are ignored or hidden. As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their "Copenhagen Diagnosis"); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well.

We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered. We have long known that Jones's paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380).

Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn's plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming). 

Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by "peer review" is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.

We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science "settled", refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional "overwhelming evidence" continues this anti-science activity.

All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word "trick". Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only "value added" data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud). 

But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it. If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, "peer review" was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught?

When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?
The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the "global warming believers" to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.

Contrary to Prof. McCarthy's assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago. 

But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no "consensus" exists. The "2500 scientists agree" number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets). 

The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support. 

Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains "overwhelming support" for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted.

As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.

Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM

Frazier folks on IPCC

A reader friendly analysis of the IPCC's work, I came upon, is here.  It is from Canada's Frazier Institute and reviews current information and the IPCC's work.  Recall, the summary of the IPCC work was not written by scientists and half of those involved in the program agreed with the summary for policy makers. 

 I have no idea why the selection, below, is goofy or why a picture of a dog sleeping in the snow didn't load. Ayway, now and then, we have to actually read stuff, very annoying. There are good graphs in the report

7Overall conclusions 

The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was 

agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence. 

The Earth's climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the 

difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties, 

knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding  data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms. 

The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and 

the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in 

many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local 

land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, 

such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The 

actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of 

known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented 

changes are underway. 

The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a 

variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypo- 

thesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a signifi- 

cant warming of the Earthís climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and 

merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical 

arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed. 

Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive 

as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations 

of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale 

processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation 

of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate 

regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations 

cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated 

with a strong effect from greenhouse gases. 

There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the 

uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or 

modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty 

as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether 

or not such change is a good or bad thing.

The Avalanche Begins

You can't be surprised.  

Below is an excerpt of an article you could read over in 20 seconds, as you have heard it all before, here.  If you want the Senate minority report.  Hit Here.   Thanks Rod.

I explained long, long ago that scientists careers depend on credibility. As the preposterous "warming" assumptions are revealed to the common person to be silly, reputable scientists will have to jump to pointing out the Emperor is not wearing clothing, even in the face of University or government threats. 

The left had its government-university-media complex at work funding the fear of the end of the world, as a political tactic to gain control and money, but they had to know its life span was limited, so look for the next crises, or are we in it? Wasn't it Saul Alinski, the Columbia radical whose group hired a young Obama, who said you can take control by creating constant turmoil, i.e. fear? 

On the other hand, our dull grammar and high school teachers will be repeating their unions' mantra even after their deaths. So, a new generation of non-critical, scientific illiterates will cause problems for decades. Really, all you have to do to destroy the United States is get control of the public school machine. How can a parent express doubt about a law of nature espoused by the "teacher?"  Most parents were produced by those same "teachers."

The scientists who were highly dedicated and actually studying subjects related to the planet never signed on to the hysteria and a few were adamant that they never agreed with our mysterious UN "scientists" who voted on a principle of nature, even though the UN reports named them as signing on.

Anyway, the arctic will be gone in four years, the Gore warning being issued a year ago.  So, there will be a reduction in global shipping, especially if we use sails. I sure hope the warming doesn't continue to heat Mars.

Today's fact:  Henry Paulson (Goldman Sachs) helped Gore start the carbon credit business. 

I think I am too late to sell credits in wind turbines.  I hope not, what a brilliant scam.  The wind turbine project lost its three funding institutions, so only the Farm bureau still has funds to lose, er disperse.  Failing that, I will be soliciting credit investment from you. After all, we will need wind power, once the nuclear plants and coal mines are shut down by the elected out patients.

Things are not looking good, so don't feel smart. The crowd has formed, extinguishing individual thought and work, so put peanut butter in the basement and gold in the yard. It is that bad. 

When I lived in Canada, not so long ago, a popular book came out that I may replicate here: Take The Money and Run

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
December 10, 2008

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:36 AM ET - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise'

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. 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.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico....

Gee, we forgot to include the sun in those really clever miscalculations.