| 24 Jul 2008 |
Climate Assessment Oligarchy
- the IPCC
Roger Pielke Sr. discusses the closed shop that is the IPCC (Climate Science:
Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News)
|
| 25 Jul 2008 |
Recent
Ignored Research Findings in Climate Science
Papers on the effect of aerosols, the bias in temperature monitoring
and why outgoing radiation is proportional to temperature raised to the power 4, not temperature itself have not been
refuted but have all been ignored by the IPCC. (What else might it
also have ignored?) (Climate Science:
Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News)
|
| 15 Jul 2008 |
Prejudiced
Authors, Prejudiced Findings
A report that shows more than 40 of the 53 authors of the crucial chapter of the IPCC
4AR had either worked together, co-authored papers together and in all probability acted as peer reviewers for each
others' work. Instead of being the product of a set of authors with a wide range of views, as the IPCC mandates, the
key chapter comes from a narrow coterie of scientists. (John McLean - SPPI)
|
| 27 May 2008 |
UN's IPCC preying on
people's ignorance
The IPCC has manipulated ignorant politicians, the media and the public and been deceptive
about its claims. "...the most recent ‘human signal’ is not actual evidence. It comes from carefully manipulated computer
models designed to isolate a portion of temperature increase as clearly human." (Dr Tim Ball - Canada Free Press)
|
| 20 May 2008 |
Has
the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human Societies?
IPCC reviewer Madhav Khandekar
says "yes" and points out that warming would be beneficial for many countries. (ICECAP)
|
| 2 May 2008 |
"No Working papers".
"No Correspondence"
Steve McIntyre continues with the theme of 1 April and 30 January, and shows
that IPCC review editors are not complying with the requirements of their role and their employers are defending them.
(This was followed up on 20th June 2008 as Fortress Met Office, Fortress CRU and
Fortress CRU #2:Confidential Agent Ammann, and
on 23 Jun 2008
Fortress Met Office continued)
(Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit)
|
| 30 April 2008 |
How UN
structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
Science creates
theories based on assumptions that are then tested by other scientists performing as skeptics. The structure and
mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction to this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory [of
man-made warming] rather than disprove it. (Dr Tim Ball - Canada Free
Press)
|
| 1 Apr 2008 |
IPCC Review Editors' Comments
Online
Steve McIntyre shows what a sham the IPCC review editing really is. Most of the editors'
comments were nothing more than a form letter. In at least one case a review editor said that he had disposed
of his working papers but that's in breach of IPCC requirements. (Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit)
|
| 30 Jan 2008 |
Did IPCC Review Editor Mitchell
do his job?
Steve McIntyre contrasts the IPCC's description of the tasks of a review editor
with the work done by John Mitchell of the UK's Met Office. He concludes "Review Editor Mitchell did not discharge all his
IPCC responsibilities and acquiesced in a section that contained a rather one-sided exposition of a relevant
controversy and the lamentable quality of his Comments show his acquiescence in this particular section of the IPCC
Report failing to meet IPCC standards." (Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit)
|
| 28 Dec 2007 |
Physician,
Heal Thyself
Website "Climate Resistance" hits back at a posting critical of those who declared themselves
sceptical of a significant human influence on climate, and in doing so has revealed the dubious qualifications
of many authors and contributors to the IPCC's WG II report.. (Climate Resistance)
|
| 19 Dec 2007 |
Rajendra
Pachauri, IPCC, Science and Politics
Despite the
mandated "policy neutral" status of the IPCC it seems that chairman
Pachauri decides that he can advocate certain policies. This would be severely dealt with in other international bodies
so why is the chairman of the IPCC somehow exempt? (Roger Pielke Sr.)
|
| 18 Dec 2007 |
Request to
the IPCC (PDF)
An open letter to the IPCC pointing out many problems with the communication of
climate change issues and asking the IPCC to take a lead in clarifying the situation. You can take it as either
tongue-in-cheek or an indirect exposure of many of the communication failings of the IPCC. (Syun-Ichi Akasofu)
|
| 05 Dec 2007 |
Politics
Posing as Science: A Preliminary Assessment of the IPCC's Latest Climate Change Report (PDF)
The SPM to
the 4AR Synthesis Report "...is a political document that downplays assessments of uncertainty from the scientific
reports written by the main body of the IPCC, which themselves are far more subjective than the IPCC would have one
believe. Equally important, both the IPCC’s summaries and main reports omit much contrary
evidence." (Steven F. Hayward, Kenneth P. Green, and Joel Schwartz for the AEI)
|
| 05 Dec 2007 |
Dishonest
political tampering with the science on global warming (PDF)
Christopher Monckton shows some instances
of the IPCC making claims that are unsupported by the evidence and/or missing appropriate clarification. In his opinion
these are deliberate exaggerations which deceive the reader. (Christopher Monckton, Jakarta Post)
|
| 14 Nov 2007 |
Unsound Science by
the IPCC (PDF)
"Despite persistent efforts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has never
succeeded in the task set to it by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), of
supplying sound scientific evidence for the belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases
are harming the climate. The evidence that has been supplied is based on unsound scientific
methods and mathematics. This paper is an attempt to summarise some of it." (Vincent Gray, expert reviewer
of all IPCC assessment reports)
|
14 Nov 2007 |
IPCC: The Only Game in
Town? (PDF)
"In this special issue of E&E, a number of authors have raised some of the pertinent
problems of the IPCC and its political culture. They range from the conflict of interest
notable among IPCC editors who are charged with assessing their own research, to the
political selection of IPCC officials and administrators."
(Benny Peiser, editorial for Energy & Environment)
|
| 13 Nov 2007 |
No consensus on IPCC's
level of ignorance
"While most IPCC participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity,
there are two things to note:
- this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it
ends up that way)
- scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot
precisely predict its future state even five days ahead." (John Christy, for BBC)
|
| 12 Nov 2007 |
Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: The 'Hockey
Stick' Affair and its implications (PDF)
"It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the structure nor
the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate
science." (David Holland, in Energy & Environment)
|
| 11 Nov 2007 |
Why the IPCC should
be disbanded (PDF)
10 reasons to dissolve this very partisan organization. (John McLean)
|
| 10 Nov 2007 |
What's
Wrong with the IPCC (PDF)
"It should be abundantly clear by now that the AGW hypothesis is contradicted by the
facts, measurements and observations, and should therefore be abandoned and be substituted by
a hypothesis which better matches the facts." (Hans Labohm)
|
| 08 Nov 2007 |
Global
Warming's Senseless Consensus and Survey of IPCC
Climate Experts
A test of the so-called consensus among US scientists involved with the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report finds ... umm... little consensus. (Steve Milloy,
www.junkscience.com)
|
| 24 Oct 2007 |
An Analysis of the
Review of the IPCC 4AR WGI Report (PDF)
Examines the reviewers' comments and the authors' responses to them.
Shows that just 5 reviewers, none very credibility, endorsed the IPCC's fundamental claim. (John McLean)
|
| 23 Oct 2007 |
ICC AR4 and the Return of
Chucky - He’s Baaack!
The discredited hockey-stick temperature graph of TAR (2001) returns in the 4AR, created
by a different team but the old problems remain. Quoted IPCC review comment
- "As a matter of prudence, it seems risky to me
for IPCC to permit section lead authors to publicize and rely heavily on their own work, especially when the ink is barely
dry on the work. In particular, Osborn and Briffa 2006, which is by one of the section lead authors, was published only
in February 2006 and is presented in the Second Order Draft without even being presented in the First Order Draft.
Nonetheless, it has been relied on to construct the important Box 6.4 Figure 1. This is risky. Osborn and Briffa 2006
uses some very questionable proxies, including the infamous Mann PC1." (Steve McIntyre,
Climate Audit)
(Hint: If the graphs don't completely display
then right-click on them and open them in a new window or tab.)
|
| 15 Oct 2007 |
IPCC: The dangers
of enforcing 'consensus'
While appearing to be the ultimate experts on global warming, the UN's climate
panel has actually distorted public discussion of the issue. (Tony Gilland of spiked)
|
| 14 Oct 2007 |
Support
for Call for Review of UN IPCC
Vincent Gray supports David Henderson's call for a review (see 11 Oct, below) and
he explains why. (Vincent Gray, NZ CSC)
|
| 12 Oct 2007 |
The IPCC's dubious evidence for
a human influence on climate (PDF)
The IPCC's claim of a significant human influence rests on very weak
evidence. (John McLean)
|
| 11 Oct 2007 |
Misplaced
Trust - Inconvenient Truths about the UN's global warming panel
"Despite the numbers of persons involved, and
the lengthy formal review procedures, the preparation of the IPCC Assessment Reports is far from being a model of rigor,
inclusiveness and impartiality. ... A specific weakness in some IPCC documents is the treatment of economic issues,
which is not professionally up to the mark." This is an opinion piece based on the paper
"Governments and Climate Change
Issues - the case for rethinking" (David Henderson, opinion orig. pub WSJ, paper in World Economics,
7(4), 183-228)
|
| 01 Oct 2007 |
Spinning The
Climate (PDF)
How the IPCC manufactures a distorted impression. "It is all a magnificent example of what
public relations can achieve, but the consequences for most of us, and for the scientific community before it is
eventually exposed for the deception that it is do not bear contemplation." (Vincent Gray, expert reviewer)
|
| 12 Sep 2007 |
Climate
Corrections
"When millennial climate change patterns are mentioned, many people point to
the '2,500 scientists from 130 countries' who have agreed that global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect. Yet not
even the International Panel of Climate Change to which these people refer presents definitive scientific proof
that the present warming is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect. It is simply an assumption that has morphed
into a fact." (Syun-Ichi Akasofu, orig. pub. by WSJ)
|
| 01 Sep 2007 |
The
2007 IPCC Assessment Process - Its Obvious Conflict of Interest
"The same individuals who are doing
primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment!
There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or
see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict.
In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably
follow." (Roger Pielke Sr)
|
| 08 Aug 2007 |
Global
Warming Audit
"Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green present the findings of their audit of the IPCC
forecasts of global average temperature. They found the IPCC forecasts have no validity and conclude that there is no more
reason to expect global warming over the next 90 years than there is to expect global cooling. It would therefore be
foolish and extremely costly to base public policy on the IPCC forecasts."
(Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong, publicpolicyforecasting.com)
|
| 02 Aug 2007 |
The
Steamrollers of Climate Science
"[The IPCC] is a seriously flawed enterprise and unworthy of the slavish respect
accorded to it by most governments and the media. In the decisions which have already been made on climate-change
mitigation, to say nothing of future decisions, the stakes are enormous. In guiding these momentous judgments, the
flawed IPCC process has been granted, in effect, a monopoly of official wisdom. That needs to change and the
IPCC itself must be reformed." (Clive Crook of FT.com)
|
| 27 Jul 2007 |
Global Warming:
Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF)
"We audited the forecasting processes described in
Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with
forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of
140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles.
Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. ... The forecasts in the Report were not the
outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics
and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful.
We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get
warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder."
(Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong, orig. pub Energy & Environment)
|
| 19 Jul 2007 |
IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report: Initial Analysis and Summary (PDF)
An examination at the many claims made by the IPCC
in the 4AR and how some key claims were revised downwards from the TAR of 2001. (Viscount Monckton
of Brenchley, for SPPI)
|
| 01 Jul 2007 |
When
is a prediction not a prediction
The IPCC playing with words and dodging issues.
(Vincent Gray, expert reviewer)
|
| 04 Jun 2007 |
Predictions
of climate
"In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC
instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are
a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. ... [T]he projections are based
on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by
IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to
the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship
to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models."
[Hmm... - the water-based
components bear no relationship to the observed state and yet the climate models supposedly show variations from the 'current'
state (whatever 'current' might mean) - ed.]
(Kevin Trenberth, co-ordinating lead author, chapter 3 IPCC 4AR WG I report)
|
| 31 May 2007 |
Cunning IPCC Bureaucrats
The IPCC
showed great reluctance to release the reviewer's comments for the WG I Report to the public, or in this case, to one of
those reviewers. When challenged under US Freedom of Information laws the IPCC relented and the comments were put online
via this web page.
(Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit)
|
| 03 May 2007 |
Emotionalizing
Climate Change - Is the IPCC Doing Harm to Science?
Looks at the process by which delegates to the IPCC
determine the contents of a report, then goes on to discuss the relative absence of dispassionate science.
"Peter Weingart, a sociologist of science from Bielefeld, ... believes that the climate experts' lack of distance
has something to do with their training. Scientists usually learn only to reflect on the results of their work, not on
their role within the social decision-making process. As a result, they join forces with politicians who share their
views. And in this way they do harm to science.",
(Uwe Buse, Der Spiegel)
|
| 23 Apr 2007 |
'The IPCC goes
looking for bad news'
An Australian academic who worked on the latest IPCC report says it overstates
scary weather scenarios and understates man’s ability to adapt. (Rob Lyons of spiked)
|
| 02 Apr 2007 |
IPCC pulls numbers out of thin
air
That 90% confidence expressed by the IPCC is not supported by its own data and
comments. (Sinclair Davidson and Alex Robson, IPA)
|
| 23 Mar 2007 |
Bitten
by the IPCC
Why the IPCC ignored a world expert on
mosquito borne diseases, Paul Reiter, as a lead author for
the chapter on Health. Reiter make several interesting observations about the operation of the IPCC.
(Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post)
|
| 02 Mar 2007 |
New report finds red-faced
errors by IPCC and Gore
The WG I SPM released on 2 Feb 2007 contained drafting comments and was furtively replaced
on 6 Feb but the IPCC never acknowledged the correction. If the reviewers examined the draft version why did they not
notice some fundamental errors? (Lord Monckton of Brenchley, http://ff.org)
|
| 05 Feb 2007 |
Man-made Morality Tale
Climate
How the IPCC’s fairly sober summary of climate science has been spun
to tell a story of Fate, Doom and human folly. A look at how claims of scientific truth are being used to quash debate
and limit our horizons. (James Woudhuysen and Joe Kaplinsky of spiked)
|
| 02 Feb 2007 |
Political
Science
"Unfortunately, the IPCC represents science by supercommittee, as rule 10 of its procedures
states: 'In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task
Forces shall use all best endeavours to reach consensus.' I bet Galileo would have had a rough time with that."
(Philip Stott, orig. pub WSJ)
|
| August 2006 |
Inadequacies and
criticisms of the IPCC (PDF)
Criticisms of the IPCC with emphasis on its Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001.
(Professor Bob Carter)
|
| August 2006 |
Critique of reasons
given in the IPCC TAR for human-caused climate change (PDF)
Criticisms of the IPCC's so-called evidence
for a significant human influence
on climate is nothing new. Here's some comments about the evidence presented in the Third Assessment Report (TAR).
(Professor Bob Carter)
|
| |
|