[stemmer]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

$1:

IPCC must come clean on real numbers of scientist supporters
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
By Tom Harris: John McLean Friday, December 14, 2007

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. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’ or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided. In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space – an incredible assertion in such an important document. The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.

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”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia. Tom Harris is the Ottawa-based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com).
Posted 12/14 at 08:20 AM Email (Permalink)

[stemmer]

Now...Mr Gore what was it you were saying about the debate being over...LOL...

[BartSimpson]

The debate about the IPCC (International Propaganda Communication Commission) would appear to be starting now.

[sandorski]

Negative. The Author is grasping at straws. As for the Summary, it should bbe noted that the Politicians input has been to minimize what the Scientists have concluded, which results in an attempt to minimize the Effects of GW/GCC and not to maximize. IOWs, if there was no Political involvement, the Report and Summary would paint a bleaker picture than what gets officially released.

[N_Fiddledog]

sandorski sandorski:

Negative. The Author is grasping at straws. As for the Summary, it should bbe noted that the Politicians input has been to minimize what the Scientists have concluded, which results in an attempt to minimize the Effects of GW/GCC and not to maximize. IOWs, if there was no Political involvement, the Report and Summary would paint a bleaker picture than what gets officially released.

For those who don't understand what the scientists are up against who are turning away from indoctrination into the global warming ideology in increasing numbers, I ask you read the above quote. It does not consider the facts of the article, nor does it offer any supported argument against it. It simply states blind faith opinion as fact.

OK now reread that article, in particular the part about the editing of remarks in the IPCC report. Do you see a similarity? Now try to debate that kind of thinking. If you can't get a clear picture in your head of what it's like try debating a Jehova Witness the next time one knocks on your door.

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

sandorski sandorski:

Negative. The Author is grasping at straws. As for the Summary, it should bbe noted that the Politicians input has been to minimize what the Scientists have concluded, which results in an attempt to minimize the Effects of GW/GCC and not to maximize. IOWs, if there was no Political involvement, the Report and Summary would paint a bleaker picture than what gets officially released.

For those who don't understand what the scientists are up against who are turning away from indoctrination into the global warming ideology in increasing numbers, I ask you read the above quote. It does not consider the facts of the article, nor does it offer any supported argument against it. It simply states blind faith opinion as fact.

OK now reread that article, in particular the part about the editing of remarks in the IPCC report. Do you see a similarity? Now try to debate that kind of thinking. If you can't get a clear picture in your head of what it's like try debating a Jehova Witness the next time one knocks on your door.

I already am debating JW like bots here. Don't you prefer me posting to you than chatting with your likeness at my door?

[themasta]

The plot thickens...

[fire_i]

This article is not enough to make me stop believing global warming is true, but it IS enough to make my faith in the IPCC take a massive drop. I've always been skeptical about, well, everything related to it, but up to now I had assumed good faith... hmm! Assume makes an ASS of U and ME, as they say.

Some explanations are indeed neccessary! Not that I expect that many of the 2500 scientists actually disagree with the conclusions... methinks only a ridiculously small minority will.

Well! I'll give the IPCC guys a chance to comment on this before making my final judgement, I guess.

[ridenrain]

Follow the money as usual.

[N_Fiddledog]

Not that that article needs it, but here's some support for the idea there's a lot more scientific criticism of Global Warming theory than what the mainstream media is leading us to believe.

$1:

[center]U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007[/center]

Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”



A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK)


The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.Link, Link

Much More Here

[stemmer]

I believe we should be researching green energy. But Gore and his crew are raking in millions of dollars every year, and lining their pockets with it. using it to fund political campaigns completly unrelated to the cause. and basically its all a giant scam.. and the world is full of useful idiots willing to fuel the hype-machine.

[themasta]

stemmer stemmer:

I believe we should be researching green energy. But Gore and his crew are raking in millions of dollars every year, and lining their pockets with it. using it to fund political campaigns completly unrelated to the cause. and basically its all a giant scam.. and the world is full of useful idiots willing to fuel the hype-machine.

That's pretty much the gist of it, it's all about money. Why do you think China doesn't want to join any kind of climate agreement? Because of the carbon trading scheme. If we pollute, we have to give nations like China money while China is free to pollute as much as they want, it's a win-win for China. Carbon trading companies (like the one founded by Mr. Gore) rake in millions off gullible people wanting to be "carbon neutral". The saddest part of all this is that real environmental progress is being lost, co-opted for this fantasy fairy-tale. People don't need to recycle, drive less, turn down the thermostat, they just need to write a cheque to Al Gore and their environmental sins are forgiven.

[sasquatch2]

If the IPCC had told the truth 15+ years ago, they would have been disbanded then.

The IPCC itself has a vested interest in AGW promotion.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's a link to some more articles critical of the IPCC

http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

Speaking of "the money", I'm starting to notice an interesting phenomena. More and more green people are starting realize they've been duped. They're jumping ship.

It was kind of clever how what I'll call the social-capitalists (yeah I know oxymoron) did it. First they sold global warming as a green issue. Nobody seemed to notice C02 isn't pollution. It makes plants grow.

The Gore-Clinton-Strong types led us to believe C02 was pollution though, and they told the Green types they were going to go after people like automobile manufactures, so the greenies jumped on board with the lie.

That isn't what happened though. What happened was Carbon offsets. All of a sudden the green guys are noticing stuff like the World Bank investing in plans to create timber reserves out of rain forests to market for stuff like Bio-fuels. The greenies are starting to say "Hey, wait a minute. This isn't what we signed on for."

Here's an example of a green guy whining about it.

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1195/1/

A great example of how tricky it all is can be suggested, when you try to investigate how Al Gore's personal carbon offset scheme works. I use words like "suggest", and "try", because a lot of the information is hidden from the public. Wanna try to put it together though? Here's some links. It's kind of fun - almost like a mystery novel.


http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivoro ... nconv.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.a ... 0307a.html

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54528

[mtbr]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

If the IPCC had told the truth 15+ years ago, they would have been disbanded then.

The IPCC itself has a vested interest in AGW promotion.

Anyone know how many billions have been spent to "prove" AGW exists? I've heard it called the Fear Industrial Complex. Global Warming research is the latest gravy train.

What gets me is how the AGW-hysterics are so certain that they are right... the science has been settled... the debate is over. Yet it seems like every few weeks we hear about another leading expert, who was previously a darling of the cause, has jumped ship and been vocal about the lack of evidence supporting AGW. Then quickly, the AGW crowd seeks to dismiss or demean them. I guess it's easier than actually responding to their points.