The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Devastating)

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Devastating)
http://canadafreepress.com ^ | Friday, December 14, 2007 | Tom Harris: John McLean

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

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...

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...

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...

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...

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

[HenkL]

A hoax it is, the article in Canadafreepress.
The IPCC page with the full text of the first draft and second draft and all the comments was published a couple of months ago. So what took Harris/McLean so long to write about it?
If one is commenting on a draft, it is usual to comment only on paragraphs where one has some critics. The fact that a lot of comments were rejected, has perhaps something to do with some reviewers repeating the same arguments again and again and again (for instance one Vincent Gray did send hundreds of comments, over and over repeating there is no warming, mankind has nothing to do with it, etc).

By the way, both John McLean and Vincent Gray are active for the New Zealand Climate Coalition group, and Tom Harris is active for the Canadian NRSP. Talking about 'impartial' ...

[Ed Mahmoud]

Sadly, it appears this area of what should be purely scientific has become political. On both sides, it appears.

First it was used by Al Gore and affiliates, to bash the current President. Gore was VP when Kyoto was signed, a sense of the Senate resolution, approved by a majority of the Democrats of the time, like John Kerry, recommended that Clinton not submit the treaty for approval because it was flawed, and it wasn't, but the current President is the villain because he formally announced he wouldn't submit it to the Senate.


The climate does seem to be warming, and it may or may not be purely a natural cycle, but now that it has become political, I suspect we'll see more misleading/incomplete reports.


I'd mention the impending ice age hysteria I recall from the 1970s, but I might get challenged to find a peer reviewed paper from that period, and I am not a climatologist or meteorologist, so I wouldn't know what journal to look in, and the nearest met department library to me is about one hundred miles away in College Station.

[terstorm1012]

Matt, you're (and this Canada Free Press outlet) quite late on this. Those comments were released over 6 months ago. Also, they mischaracterize Steve McIntyire. He has not yet made any position on the Earth's current climate, and I challenge them to find where he's said it.

[MGC]

Yes Ed, I too recall the ice age hysteria back in the early 70's. That bogus theory was replaced in the early 80's after the deadly hot summer of 1980. Personally, I'm sticking with my guns believing the current warming is natural. Earth has had warm periods in the past and will have them in the future. I don't buy into Gore's drama about the Earth's impending doom because of humanity. I'm glad to see that Al has used some of the monies he received from his Nobel to purchace some solar arrays. I guess most of you know that his mansion in Tenn uses more power (electricity and natural gas) than I do by a factor of ten. But I guess that is OK when you are America's best known hypocrite. "James, pull the Bentley round back, I have to catch my private plane off to another Global Warming speach."......MGC

[x-y-no]

The commenters are not the only people to have read the report or participated in it.

The "hoax" is the denialist propaganda campaign.

[Extremeweatherguy]

lol. "denialist propaganda campaign"? I have seen it come from both sides of the fence, so you cannot just pin it on the "denialists". Everyone is using some form of propaganda to promote their own message, IMO, and I think we are getting distorted views from both the GW activists and the GW disbelievers. This is why I tend to stay toward the middle and not lean too far to one side of the argument. My personal opinion is that GW is happening and that humans are a small part of the cause, but they are not the entire reason we are warming. I also do not believe that GW will be a total catastrophe as some seem to portray it becoming. I feel that we will end up adapting to this changing world (as we have in the past), and in the end, we will not be facing the doomsday scenario depicted by the media. With advanced future technologies, we will likely be able to clean up our act and within the next century the GW issue will probably become a thing of the past. This is just my personal opinion though, and who knows if I will be right.

Time will tell..

[x-y-no]

Laugh all you want, but when I see the word "hoax" tossed around to smear thousands of dedicated and honest people, some of whom are my friends ... well I get more than a little pissed off. Especially given the bald-faced lies I repeatedly and regularly see from some of the prominent denialists.

[Squarethecircle]

The problem, of course, with all this bickering is that whether or not GW is a big threat, it will continue to the next eco-issue. If they actually get to (or have already gotten to) a real threat, everyone's going to end up well and fully screwed. It's best to try and be safe so that, if GW is, in fact, a byproduct of modern industry, it poses much less of a threat. Also, I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but now that ethanol and all that junk is being used for fuel, cars have gotten faster (has anyone SEEN the new Koenigsegg?!) and energy has gained the potential to be everlasting (and less expensive). I urge the UN to continue with these efforts, however unnecessary they may turn out to be.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Laugh all you want, but when I see the word "hoax" tossed around to smear thousands of dedicated and honest people, some of whom are my friends ... well I get more than a little pissed off. Especially given the bald-faced lies I repeatedly and regularly see from some of the prominent denialists.

Of course 'denialist' is a handy way to denigrate opponents in the AGW debate. Makes it sound like Holocaust Denial.


My scientific knowledge is basically in sedimentary rocks, and multiphase fluid flow in homogenous media. Nothing about climatology or atmospheric sciences/meteorology, so, frankly, I don't know the truth. But there are respected scientists who don't agree, and I don't think they are all shills for Exxon. AGW may actually be real and a threat, but it would also serve the now discredited goals of communism, weakening or destroying the capitalist economy of the United States. Note the nobody seemed to mind when President Clinton did not submit the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for ratification.

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.

Senate report of over 400 scientists who aren't convinced of AGW

[Ed Mahmoud]

The problem, of course, with all this bickering is that whether or not GW is a big threat, it will continue to the next eco-issue. If they actually get to (or have already gotten to) a real threat, everyone's going to end up well and fully screwed. It's best to try and be safe so that, if GW is, in fact, a byproduct of modern industry, it poses much less of a threat. Also, I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but now that ethanol and all that junk is being used for fuel, cars have gotten faster (has anyone SEEN the new Koenigsegg?!) and energy has gained the potential to be everlasting (and less expensive). I urge the UN to continue with these efforts, however unnecessary they may turn out to be.

Corn is a rather inefficient method of generating alternative automotive food. It is, however, a useful way to benefit corn state politicians, farmers, and agro-concerns like ADM.

Sugarcane is a much more efficient way, although only a few US states, generally along the Gulf Coast, are suitable.



BTW, in the interest of fairness, 'hoax' may be an unfair term. I sent a PM just now about the use of denialist, as unfair (Denialist seems to me to be an attempt to remind people of Holocaust Denial (which requires conspiratorial minded people to believe tens of thousands of American and allied GIs that liberated German camps, not to mention all the camp survivors, were lying about what they witnessed. I doubt all 400 of the scientists who aren't convinced of AGW cited in the Senate minority report are all dishonest, deluded, conpsiracy nuts or shills of Exxon), so the use of 'hoax' may also be inflammatory.

[Ed Mahmoud]

lol. "denialist propaganda campaign"? I have seen it come from both sides of the fence, so you cannot just pin it on the "denialists". Everyone is using some form of propaganda to promote their own message, IMO, and I think we are getting distorted views from both the GW activists and the GW disbelievers. This is why I tend to stay toward the middle and not lean too far to one side of the argument. My personal opinion is that GW is happening and that humans are a small part of the cause, but they are not the entire reason we are warming. I also do not believe that GW will be a total catastrophe as some seem to portray it becoming. I feel that we will end up adapting to this changing world (as we have in the past), and in the end, we will not be facing the doomsday scenario depicted by the media. With advanced future technologies, we will likely be able to clean up our act and within the next century the GW issue will probably become a thing of the past. This is just my personal opinion though, and who knows if I will be right.

Time will tell..

If Dr. Gray is right, and we enter a cooling cycle in the next thirty years, we'll have an answer.


Whether or not AGW is real, more nuclear power plants would reduce CO2 emissions and reduce oil imports. If we must use fossil fuels, natural gas is cleanest, carbon wise, coal is dirtiest. Coal can be converted to natural gas, and the resulting CO2 could be sequestered, perhaps by underground injection. CO2 injection is already used in some oil fields, as the CO2 reduces the viscosity of oil, and thus improves the mobility ratio, the ratio of mobility of salt water used in secondary recovery as compared to oil.


Of course, anything that might threaten coal might run into problems from the President Pro Temp of the Senate (and former Klan Kleagle) Robert Byrd.



Politics gets involved in a lot of things.

[Squarethecircle]

Corn is a rather inefficient method of generating alternative automotive food. It is, however, a useful way to benefit corn state politicians, farmers, and agro-concerns like ADM.

Sugarcane is a much more efficient way, although only a few US states, generally along the Gulf Coast, are suitable.

(addressed to nobody in particular) -- Now, if only Brazil would give us its sugarcane... Oh, wait, hold on a second!
Interestingly enough, I didn't mention corn, but I agree that using it instead of sugarcane is ridiculous; plenty of people already eat corn.

And fortunately enough, the office of Pro Temp doesn't really hold all that much power.

[x-y-no]

Maybe I'm too free with the word "denialist" but I do think it fits a fair number of the people making the argument against AGW. For instance, the very first citation in the above linked "report" is an atmospheric scientist/oceanographer who makes this absurd statement:

"Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)"

Now given his profession, I simply cannot believe he doesn't know the difference between predicting weather and predicting climate. And I can't believe he doesn't know that those models predict the climate three days in the future with essentially perfect accuracy.

So what am I to make of a statement from a professional in the field that he simply must know is absolutely false? And what am I to call an individual who deliberately makes statements he incontrovertibly knows to be false? Somebody help me out here, because I simply don't know a polite way to respond to such a thing.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Maybe I'm too free with the word "denialist" but I do think it fits a fair number of the people making the argument against AGW. For instance, the very first citation in the above linked "report" is an atmospheric scientist/oceanographer who makes this absurd statement:

"Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)"

Now given his profession, I simply cannot believe he doesn't know the difference between predicting weather and predicting climate. And I can't believe he doesn't know that those models predict the climate three days in the future with essentially perfect accuracy.

So what am I to make of a statement from a professional in the field that he simply must know is absolutely false? And what am I to call an individual who deliberately makes statements he incontrovertibly knows to be false? Somebody help me out here, because I simply don't know a polite way to respond to such a thing.

Simplification of a concept for us laymen?


I do know another AGW doubter, Joe Bastardi, frequently rags on the CPC's monthly model, and seems to (haven't kept records, and some of this is based on his own bragging) have a better record predicting general trends a month out than the US model.

[Extremeweatherguy]

Ed Mahmoud...I definitely agree with you there. JB tends to be much better than the CPC at predicting short-term climate trends (IMO).

[curtadams]

Bastardi is the guy who thought Greenland didn't have an icecap when the Vikings were there. Not a very good source for climate change.

[x-y-no]

Simplification of a concept for us laymen?

No. It's not a simplification, it's a lie. Climate models are extremely accurate in the short range when it comes to aggregate numbers like global temperature. It's only through lying by falsely equating weather with climate that this argument has force. Are you really trying to excuse such nonsense?

I do know another AGW doubter, Joe Bastardi, frequently rags on the CPC's monthly model, and seems to (haven't kept records, and some of this is based on his own bragging) have a better record predicting general trends a month out than the US model.

I'd love to see some actual objective data on that claim, but in my experience that's a rare thing from JB. Since the topic is global warming, specifically what I'd like to see is verification of the global mean surface temperature for relatively short periods of time - say up to a year or so. Is his claim that he's more accurate predicting the global mean temperature than these models are? If so, I sure would want to see the data on that because as far as I know, he's never made a forecast of global mean temperature.

Or perhaps he's just playing the same game of switching topics without saying so, because he thinks we're all too dumb to notice.

[x-y-no]

Ed Mahmoud...I definitely agree with you there. JB tends to be much better than the CPC at predicting short-term climate trends (IMO).

Any data to support that?

[Ed Mahmoud]

Ed Mahmoud...I definitely agree with you there. JB tends to be much better than the CPC at predicting short-term climate trends (IMO).

Any data to support that?

He has yet to mention the freeze suggested for HOU by multiple runs of the Euro and GFS. Although, I guess, that isn't climate.


For a non-weather educated person, I'd guess climate is just a statistical mean for the weather during any particular time of the year gathered over a sufficiently long period of time. But I doubt that is the official definition.


x-y-no, are you a climatologist? With UM, by chance? (No idea why I'd guess an affiliation with the U...)