The ‘greening’ of the IPCC

Defund the IPCC Now

It turns out that the GAO, the US General Accounting Office, says US has been secretly hiding their funding of the IPCC for the last decade…

In other words, the IPCC funding arrangements are of a piece with their “scientific” claims and their other actions—secretive, shabby, with a hidden agenda, and full of disinformation.

Wouldn’t you think they’d be proud of funding the IPCC? After all, the Science is Settled, it’s For the Children of future generations, it Saves the Planet and it is Redistributing the Wealth via Green ‘Jobs’ for people who don’t actually produce anything. When you keep such obviously “good things” secret people are likely to question your motives.

A Circle of Wagons

Britain’s University of East Anglia hired some experts to examine possible scientific misconduct by scientists employed at Britain’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The investigation was mounted when a slew of internal emails cast doubt on the scientists’ theories and characters.

What is not in question: The University of East Anglia CRU scientists had consistently refused to share their data or methods, had arranged for computer programs to be written to manipulate that data in ways favorable to their predetermined conclusions, had conspired to prevent alternate views from publication and, thereby, had generally dismissed the scientific method.

Nonetheless, the experts hired by the University of East Anglia to examine the practices of the scientists hired by the University of East Anglia reported that the core of global-warming research conducted by the scientists was on the up-and-up:

The issue involved an effort to reconstruct the climate history of the past several thousand years using indirect indicators like the size of tree rings and the growth rate of corals. The C.R.U. researchers, leaders in that type of work, were trying in 1999 to produce a long-term temperature chart that could be used in a United Nations publication. [The very IPCC publication whose errors become increasingly rife with age.]

But they were dogged by a problem: Since around 1960, for mysterious reasons, trees have stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries. If plotted on a chart, tree rings from 1960 forward appear to show declining temperatures, something that scientists know from thermometer readings is not accurate.

Most scientific papers have dealt with this problem by ending their charts in 1960 or by grafting modern thermometer measurements onto the historical reconstructions.

It is true that most scientific papers followed that dogma. The authors of “most” papers were, of course, kowtowing to the East Anglia potentates and the funding thereby determined. 

CRU gurus were not mystified by trees that suddenly “stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries” because the “science was settled.”  They didn’t wonder why their best guesses about global temperatures circa 1100AD – extrapolated from the width of growth rings in half-a-dozen tree fossils from Siberia – failed to agree with modern metrics.  If the data did not fit the theory, the data was the problem.  They just changed it.  The comments in the computer programs are definitive.

The East Anglia scientists said “Hide the decline,” and the review panel agreed.   In the former case it was about climate models.  In the latter, about the integrity of science.

"…no scientific basis"

A roundup of news on the latest Anthropogenic Global Warming scam.

Al Gore could not be reached for comment, but no plans have been announced to delete the scene of the Himalayan glaciers disappearance from the movie that won him an Oscar and a Nobel prize.

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified

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

…Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

So much for the importance of “peer review.” For Dr. Lal it means nobody catches the lie.

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report

…The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

…Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme.

But he too admitted that it was “really odd” that none of the world’s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was a stupid error,” he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.”

So much for “consensus.” And another lie:

Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal

…But even before the 2007 report was published, it now emerges, the offending claim was challenged, not least by a leading Austrian glaciologist, Dr Georg Kaser, a lead author on the 2007 report. He described Dr Hasnain’s prediction of glaciers disappearing by 2035 as “so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing”.

…Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a “poor application” of IPCC procedures.

What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America’s leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.

“Poor application” of IPCC principles? No, business as usual.

A Glacier Meltdown

…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.

Finally, while we are on the quality of IPCC and AGW data, see here and here. You will find the Canadian data for everything north of the 65th parallel is based on one thermometer located in an anomalously warm site.

The IPCC and reality – at odds?

An interesting post on global climate at A Dog Named Kyoto. Read it.

The following analysis was sent to me by an astute reader, who is also a geophysicist, who says that he prepared this:

“only using data that the IPCC agrees with; in particular the long term global temperature and CO2 concentrations back to 1856 which have been published by them in support of their AGW premise. (The IPCC has never disagreed with the lower troposphere temperatures from satellites they only have commented on the differences between the satellite data and the land based data.)

“The kicker is that when their own data is held up to physical reality it shows their entire premise to be wrong.”

The emphasis and tables have been added by me. Here are the results of number crunching of the IPCC accepted data:

Politics, not science

U.N. climate report will shock the world – chairman

I hope so. The world should be shocked – shocked and appalled. The media hype for this propaganda is as much an insult to science as is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s history of pretending political snake-oil is science.

Politics first, science second

These policymakers’ summaries have a troubled history. One was once altered at the last minute to change wording that had already been approved by scientists. The summary release format also makes it clear that climate is a political issue first and a science issue second.

Another U.S. official says next week’s summary will be an “iconic statement” rather than a sound science document. No surprise there. The policymakers’ summary of the last report in 2001 highlighted the greatest climate icon of all, the 1,000-year hockey-stick graph. There it sits on page 3, the first graph, allegedly proof that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium.

Today, the IPCC says the 1,000-year graph, the focal point of the February, 2001, summary, was a very minor part of the climate-science effort. The hockey stick, they say, played no big scientific role. But it played a major political role as part of the IPCC’s campaign, which will be the sole purpose of next Friday’s over-hyped event.

I do not think this is the sort of shock IPCC chairman Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri has in mind, though. I think he means shocked as in, “Be afraid. Be very afraid. If we do not implement Kyoto, and more, we are doomed. This is your LAST WARNING:”

Scientists say rising greenhouses gases will make climate change unstoppable in a decade

THE world has just 10 years to reverse surging greenhouse gas emissions or risk runaway climate change that could make many parts of the planet uninhabitable.

The stark warning comes from scientists who are working on the final draft of a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

That’s actually the good news, because if it is true we must focus on mitigation, not prevention. Achieving the targets Kyoto requires has proven impossible for the signatories, and now we’re told it is probably insufficient to the task. If bankrupting western economies won’t do it, what can they propose next?

If the catastrophe is a done deal, the question is how we cope with it. Instead, we will have renewed calls for implementing Kyoto; the only discernible effect of which would be to destroy the economic strength needed to mitigate the catastrophe. Honest assessment of whether anthropogenic global warming is a threat, and if it is what can be done about it, is not the purpose of the “scientists” working for the IPCC.

Dr. Pachauri has been refreshingly honest about the purpose of the IPCC, and about the utility of Kyoto. In a 2002 interview granted to the BBC he said:

“If you go back to the record, I have been very critical of some elements of the oil industry.”

He defends the Kyoto Protocol – designed to reduce human influence on the global climate – as being better than nothing, and says the panel’s job is to provide compelling evidence for the need for countries to make new commitments to fight global warming.

Dr. Pachauri has indeed been “very critical” of the oil industry.

In 2001 he supported a consumer boycott of ExxonMobil for its stance on global warming, saying it was “a good way to put economic pressure on the US.”

So the Kyoto protocol is “better than nothing” in aiding the IPPC’s goal of providing “compelling evidence for the need for countries to make new commitments to fight global warming.” I.e., The IPCC assumes global warming is both caused by humans and correctable by humans. It further assumes that the Kyoto protocols are an important aid to this mission whether or not the signatories live up to their commitments, or even if Kyoto requires wasting so much treasure as to render us unable to respond to global warming problems if we have to.

Assuming a theory is correct, boycotting contrary ideas and claiming your job is to provide compelling evidence for some policy or other is not science. This latest IPCC report is one of a series of political statements and should be treated as such.

Some other TOC references to the politics of global warming can be found at the following links:

Thursday, April 13, 2006
The heat goes on

Sunday, May 07, 2006
Anthropomorphic leftwing insults

Thursday, June 29, 2006
Hokey Stuck

Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Climate Chumps

Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Sellers remorse?

In the interest of unfairness, we’ll give the final word to Al Gore:

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Emphasis mine. This is Clinton-speak for lying about it.

Update: 4:32PM
Enron’s Green-Fingered Successors
Global warming as corporate welfare, why some megacorps like the hockey stick and the UAW does not.

Climate change a ‘questionable truth’

Policy. Politics. Science?