Analysis of New UN IPCC Report: ‘In one chapter alone, IPCC personnel relied on unpublished studies 21 times to make their case’
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/03/27/bleeding-edge-research-in-the-new-ipcc-report/…
Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball: UN IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted Certainties Presented to Media, Public and Politicians, But Remained Silent
IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted Certainties Presented to Media, Public and Politicians, But Remained Silent
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Arthur Conan Doyle. (Sherlock Holmes) There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and […]
Sent by gReader Pro…
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: ‘Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?’ – ‘Scientists, run for cover. Now’
…Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. Rips ‘Big Climate’ for having ‘similarities’ with ‘Big Tobacco’ & ‘Big NFL’ – Pielke Jr. specifically linked UN IPCC and Michael Mann’s tactics to ‘Big Tobacco’ and ‘Big NFL’
Related Links:
Michael Mann lawyers up with Tobacco Lawyers! Represented by experienced defamation lawyer John B. Williams who successfully represented R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company – Mann’s lawyer ‘successfully defended R.J. Reynolds in commercial speech case filed by FTC challenging cartoon character, Joe Camel’
#
NYE: ‘This is perfectly analogous to the cigarette industry and cancer, trying to introduce the idea that since you can’t prove any one thing, the whole thing is in — is in doubt.’
MORANO: ‘For Nye to bring up cigarettes – it’s the global warming scientists who are the ones fulfilling a narrative. I mean we have Michael Oppenheimer, one of the lead U.N. scientists, took an endowment from Barbra Streisand. Hollywood – he’s the climatologists to the stars. It’s so insulting to imply that somehow skeptical scientists are on the pay like tobacco companies. It’s the height of arrogance when you look at the actual data, the global warming scientists, through government grants, foundations, through media empowerment, have the full advantages of government money, foundation money, university money. There’s not even any comparison.’]
JOHN STOSSEL: As a consumer reporter, I’ve covered 1,000 scares. Lawn chemicals, cell phone radiation, pesticide residues, plastic bottles killing people, power lines, Mad Cow Disease was going to kill everybody. And always the example is, yes, there were doubters about cigarettes. I mean that one example doesn’t mean that the global warming scare is correct.’
#
More Related Links:
The latest edition of Mathematics Today includes a review of the Hockey Stick Illusion
New Book ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ details the case against Michael Mann’s Hockey stick temp chart – ‘Exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame’
Funding Links about ‘Big Climate’:
UN IPCC Expert Reviewer’s Analysis: ‘The reality is that the UN IPCC is in effect little more than a UN-sponsored lobby group, created specifically to investigate & push the ‘man-made warming’ line’
If the IPCC reports were accepted for exactly what they are – exaggerated science with a large dollop of politics – this would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, various bodies actively encourage us to believe the reports are entirely scientific, accurate and completely authoritative on all climate matters, this despite the IPCC’s charter and the political interference.
#
John McLean is the author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate and an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report. He is also a climate data analyst and a member of the International Climate Science Coalition.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/lack-of-accountability-clouding-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html#ixzz2pHjr5koM…
Top Swedish Climate Scientist Lennart Bengtsson (former IPCC) Also Confirms No Sea Level Acceleration…Desperate UN IPCC’s Pachauri Insisting No Acceleration ‘Is An Acceleration’!
…New Website: FakeNobelLaureates.com – ‘Thousands of news articles, interviews, videos, and photos had mistakenly described the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, and numerous other IPCC-linked individuals as nobelists. Correcting the record is an enormous task’
…‘Political manipulation of a ‘scientific’ document’?! 10 Pages of UN IPCC Science Mistakes? ‘In Chapter 2 alone, the 52 authors are collectively responsible for 18 instances of scientific mistakes that now need fixing’
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/10/02/10-pages-of-ipcc-science-mistakes/
10 Pages of IPCC Science Mistakes?
Political manipulation of a scientific document – or pages upon pages of newly-discovered scientific errors? You decide.
click to see the 10-page list of alterations being made to this section of the IPCC report
Last week, during a four-day-long, behind-closed-doors meeting, political operatives (diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians from more than 100 UN countries) rewrote an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document.
The re-written Summary for Policymakers is 36 pages long and purports to highlight the really important bits embedded within the first 14 chapters of the IPCC’s new report.
In my view, the fact that the summary was drafted by IPCC personnel and then re-written in secret by politically motivated third parties tells us everything we need to know. The IPCC isn’t an organization in which scientists are in the driver’s seat.
Five days ago, the IPCC released its new, improved summary. Two days ago, it made draft versions of the 14 chapters public.
One of the reasons these chapters are still in draft form is that changes now need to be made to them. Evidently, it wasn’t just the summary that was being messed with during that four-day meeting. In many cases the alterations were so substantial that the IPCC now says the text of nine of its 14 chapters needs to be re-visited.
It’s as though an English teacher started off by presenting a short story to her classroom. She makes a fuss about how famous the author is, and how many awards the story has won. She then invites her students to write a summary of the short story.
But this is a Communist country and the teacher mustn’t offend the leading Communist official. So when the son of that official produces a summary that diverges from the short story, the teacher announces that the short story will be changed “to ensure consistency.”
How many alterations will the IPCC be making? Ten pages worth – all carefully listed in a document you may examine for yourself. Entire paragraphs will be inserted, dates and numbers will be altered, italics will be added, and some material will simply disappear.
How can this level of political manipulation be taking place, right out in the open, in what we’re told is a scientific body? Over at the BishopHill blog I shared some of these thoughts a …
IPCC vice chair: Consensus process too slow, wrongly conservative — new report may be last mega-report
IPCC vice chair: Consensus process too slow, wrongly conservative — new report may be last mega-report
The New Straits Times reports: Jean Jouzel, a French scientist who is vice-chairman of the group that issued Friday’s report, said that though the technical text was authored by scientists, “it is the adoption of the summary which gives the IPCC its success, and enables it (the summary) to be used by governments”. But some […]
Sent by gReader Pro…
Analysis: UN IPCC ‘an organisation that is funded by ‘Big Green’, comprised of governments desperate to appear politically correct, vested interests from academia and business, and environmental activist groups… anything the IPCC says must be regarded as equally compromised’
Even if the IPCC predictions were 100% correct…
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/09/29/even-if-the-ipcc-predictions-were-100-correct/
Adversarial process required?
… why should anyone trust them?
The AGW advocates delight in making shrill claims about sceptics being funded by “Big Oil”, which the advocates believe is a perfectly good reason to dismiss much, if not all, of what they say as compromised. But what’s the difference with the IPCC? It is an organisation that is funded by “Big Green”, comprised of governments desperate to appear politically correct, vested interests from academia and business, and environmental activist groups. What goes for one, goes for the other. By analogy, anything the IPCC says must be regarded as equally compromised.
The only differences, as far as I can see, are that:
Big Green funds the AGW advocates a thousand dollars for every one dollar funding sceptics;
the IPCC shies away from transparency and open debate, whereas sceptics encourage it.
So even if all the dire predictions of the IPCC were correct, why should anyone believe them? And how is such a problem resolved?
The success of the adversarial process in a court of law relies on cross-examination and forensic analysis by those on the other side of an argument. By forcing a witness to answer difficult questions, and putting to him an alternative set of circumstances, a skilled counsel can drill down to reveal the uncomfortable truth that the witness may be reluctant to reveal. At the moment, the IPCC is a courtroom with a defendant (human emissions of CO2), but no defence lawyers present. All we get is the prosecution case. And the defendant is, unsurprisingly, quickly found guilty.
The alarmist industry, including the IPCC, must engage with those on the other side of the debate, and willingly bring them into the process, instead of excluding, and then demonising them. The IPCC should actively want its reports fact-checked and picked over by those who disagree. It must embrace the cross-examination of sceptics, as such a forensic examination would lend huge credibility to its findings.
But that change is not going to happen in a hurry, and until it does, the IPCC’s predictions are as worthless and compromised as the alarmists claim those of the sceptics to be.
Sent by gReader Pro…