All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Thursday, 28 July 2011

Something Fishy about IPCC

Peter Stanford writes in the UK Telegraph:

Can Prof Rajendra Pachauri really survive 'Glaciergate’?

Few areas of science are as bitterly contested as that of man-made climate change. And few, potentially, are as critical to the future of humankind on this planet. Which is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established under United Nations auspices and joint winner (with Al Gore) in 2007 of the Nobel Peace Prize, was set up. This lodestar, a non-partisan, scientifically based body, offers objective guidance to politicians and public alike on the likelihood of disaster in the decades and centuries to come, and what we all might need to do now to mitigate that. 

Sorry, Peter, there are a few errors in that statement. Coming from an Alarmist viewpoint "few, potentially, are as critical to the future of humankind on this planet" might be your opinion, but the global warming realist would say: "few, potentially are as critical to the economic future of the planet."


The projected warming of a few degrees in the next century will be beneficial not harmful.

The IPCC was established to show that CO2 causes runaway warming. Since their beginning they have been trying to show causation but have failed. They insist that all their support papers are peer-reviewed but have been exposed when at least 40% or more are not peer-reviewed. 

John McLean writes:
The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is

"... to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.".

This make it a high-profile single-focus organization whose existence depends on its own reports. In other words it has a vested interest in promoting claims that would guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence.

This alone would be reason enough to closely examine its procedures and claims but the situation is made worse by the involvement of governments. These governments not only fund the IPCC but apparently accept its claims without question and allocate funding for climate research on the basis of those findings, then repeat the process when the next IPCC Assessment Report draws on the findings of that government-sponsored research to support its hypothesis.
 The Telegraph  continues:

This lodestar, a non-partisan, scientifically based body, offers objective guidance to politicians and public alike on the likelihood of disaster in the decades and centuries to come, and what we all might need to do now to mitigate that. 


Non Partisan? I don't think so. It is an advocacy body with a specific aim og blame, not an intention to find the truth.

Scientifically Based? Well, there are some scientific reports, but the Summary for Policy Makers doesn't even display the supporting scientific documents.

Objective Guidance to Politicians? A Summary for Policy Makers written by and agreed to by Politicians could hardly be called objective.


Disasters? Pure alarmism.

As John McLean writes:
This alone would be reason enough to closely examine its procedures and claims but the situation is made worse by the involvement of governments. These governments not only fund the IPCC but apparently accept its claims without question and allocate funding for climate research on the basis of those findings, then repeat the process when the next IPCC Assessment Report draws on the findings of that government-sponsored research to support its hypothesis.

Shouldn't you also be suspicious of an organization that seeks to imply (or fails to correct false perceptions) that
  • it is impartial when it is clearly not,
  • that its authors and reviewers have no vested interest when most do,
  • that its climate models are accurate when they are not,
  • that all reviewers support the IPCC's fundamental claims when very few explicitly   do so
  • that its authors have a wide range of opinions and experience when many work together or have co-authored papers together
  • that all its authors support the critical claim when many merely reported on observations and far more others had to work from the assumption that the claim was correct?
===============================================
UPDATE


Read Donna Laframboise's excellent article re Pachauri HERE

2 comments:

  1. You really should work on your propaganda. You make many many assertions and your only evidence is highlighting one line from the IPCC mission statement.

    Fail

    ReplyDelete
  2. Propaganda?

    You should check the links..... FAIL!

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!