Audit exposes fake science of climate change

Rodney Hide

HIDESIGHT

Breaking news: the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits assessments nonsense.

That’s not quite true. The IPCC made the admission but it wasn’t breaking news. In fact, it wasn’t news at all.

A kind reader alerted me to the admission.

It goes like this. Schoolboy errors in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment were widely publicised in 2010. The UN Secretary General and the IPCC chair responded asking the InterAcademy Council (IAC) to undertake an independent review of IPCC “processes and procedures.” 

Last month, the IPCC announced that it had implemented “a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council”. That is, the IPCC accepted the IAC’s findings.

That’s the admission.

Here is what the IAC found. “The IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and no “transparent author-selection process or well-defined criteria for author selection” (P15). 

It’s mates choosing mates. And the most important thing is for authors to believe the human-induced global warming nonsense before they start.

The information used in “IPCC assessments often appears in the so-called “grey literature,” which includes model output produced by government agencies, international organisations, universities, research centres, nongovernmental organisations, corporations, professional societies and other groups.

The extent to which such information has been peer-reviewed varies a great deal, as does its quality” (P16).

So much for the constant refrain from IPCC whooper-uppers that it’s all peered-reviewed and top notch science.  It’s nothing of the sort.

Indeed, “Many of the conclusions in the ‘Current Knowledge About Future Impacts’ section of the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers are based on unpublished or non-peer-reviewed literature” (P34).

Worse, the IPCC Assessments have been using information from “blogs, newspaper articles, press releases, advocacy group reports” which then have not been properly cited (P17).

The infamously wrong Fourth Assessment prediction in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 or sooner was based on a World Wildlife Fund report that was based on a 1999 article in New Scientist that, in turn, was based on unfounded speculation in an email from an Indian professor.

I kid you not.

The IAC found the IPCC’s Assessments to be one-eyed: “Alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them” (P18).  That’s how the IPCC gets consensus! Dissent is simply ignored.

The IPCC’s Assessments also provide mock certitude about guesswork.

“In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (P35).

Oh and here’s the all-important Summary for Policymakers: “Many [respondents] were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated” (P23).

“Another concern…was the difference in content between the Summary for Policymakers and the underlying report… 

"Some respondents thought that the Summary for Policymakers places more emphasis on what is known, sensational, or popular among Lead Authors than one would find in the body of the report” (P24).

The digestible summary is not backed by the big report – and the summary is hyped-up for political and media purpose.

Ultimately, it’s not science: “The Working Group II Summary for Policymakers in the Fourth Assessment Report contains many vague statements of ‘high confidence’ that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or are difficult to refute” (P40). 

That leaves the IPCC Assessments up there with political and religious blather.

That’s what the UN-sponsored review of their own work found. The IPCC has accepted the stinging rebuke and implemented the recommendations.

That’s damning stuff. But it’s not news.

We now know the IPCC’s Assessments by its own lights can be tossed as fake science. No one would base any serious policy decisions on them.

Oh, wait a minute…

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about My Tags

Post Comment

78 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

This in a week when NASA revealed the Greenland icecap is undergoing massive and significant melting.
Really why do we have to listen to the musings on know-nothing politicos when the actual specialists (the climate scientists themselves) are telling us loud and clear what is happening?
I wonder if your grandchildren will forgive you Hide.

Reply
Share

What nonsense - you are only telling half the story. The Nasa report clearly states this melt is only identified from recent satellite data that being since 1970 and the very same report states that ice core analysis shows these events have occurred on average every 150 years and therefore this latest melt may be from natural climate variability. You really do have to stop reading the 'we are all doomed' comics.

Reply
Share

ice cap. yes, ice melts and freezes and melts and freezes. it's called summer and winter. and usually, and forgive me for pointing out, it's because of the big yellow thing in the sky.

Reply
Share

You sound like the IPCC, half baked truths on dodgy premise that insults the scientific community and the world alike. As Anon #2 said in repling to you: "The Nasa report clearly states this melt is only identified from recent satellite data that being since 1970 and the very same report states that ice core analysis shows these events have occurred on average every 150 years and therefore this latest melt may be from natural climate variability"

Look Earth swings along from Grand Ice Ages which humans survived 18,000 years ago to periods where Earth is that 2C warmer, the Oceans 6 metre higher and oh look No Ice Caps. Yes we have been Ice Capless before - okay before our time some 250 million years ago but Earth has had no ice caps (which also demonstrates that this CO2 stuff is NONSENSE when Water Vapour is THE Number One Green House Gas, and the biggest influence on Earth's (outside of massive events such as Lake Taupo going up) Climate and biosphere).

The best thing we humans can do is mitigate for Climate Change - so no building right on the dunes next to a roaring Ocean or on the floodplain without stilts that floods often...

Because Earth is far more capable in adjusting herself than we can adjust her...

Reply
Share

Nonsense, Anon. The melting is surface only, lasts a couple of hours, and is utterly insignificant. And by the way, it occurs regularly - even the NASA report on which the scare story was based said that!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173120/97-per-cent-...

Reply
Share

Anon, thankfully Rodney knows his science and was our foremost expert on the environment when he was in parliament.

Will you admit to your grandchildren that you were so easily fooled? Bet you won't.

Reply
Share

Quite incorrect- the NASA report refers to melting of the surface, not to the whole volume of the icecap...the word SURFACE has been missed from many scaremongering reports of the original NASA report.
BTW the surface is already freezing again.

Reply
Share

I'm pleased this is being discussed again as it beggars belief that the climate change fanatics still achieve money and traction in an economy as stuffed as ours. A few days ago I had to spend time in the company of an overseas 'eco terrorist' whose boasts became more bizarre as the night wore on. Every ounce of energy was sapped trying not to rise to the morons bigotry, yet this geezer was happy to boast the money that flowed for the cause largely from govermental agencies. Crazy thing is these idiots have qualifications that in normal times could be put to very real constuctive use, but the new religious fervour paid for with other folks money allows them to perpetuate their scams.

Reply
Share

anon -- You should have read all the detail on that report . It may have not been in the MSM you read but a Goddard glaciologist is quoted saying the following :

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

Also announced recently is further evidence that increases in CO2 levels follow temperature inceases. This was from work done on Antarctic ice cores , confirming work done on the Vostok ice cores some time ago.

Pedro, J.B., Rasmussen, S.O., van Ommen T.D. (2012) Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation. Climate of the Past, 2012; 8 (4): 1213 DOI: 10.5194/cp-8-1213-2012. [Climate of the Past journal paper PDF]

Reply
Share

If global warming is indeed human induced, then logically there is no way to prevent it so long as the world has an increasing population. Short-term measures can be taken to slow it down with the use of alternative energies etc but you cant escape the basic fact that an increasing world population consumes more raw materials and therfore more carbon and earth warming pollutants.

Therefore I suggest that we concentrate our energies into developing an intelligent virus that every winter wipes out the bottom 5% of the worlds population through an uncontrollable pandemic instead of accelerating global warming by trying to save everyone on the planet.

Reply
Share

I was beginning to think I was the only one who could see this. Best to keep your head down though or someone will blow it off.

Reply
Share

It certainly isn't new news. For a thorough dissection of the IPCC's long record of grossly unprofessional activity read "The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert" by Donna Lafromboise. For more detail on the malfunctioning of "climate science" it fostered read "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford.

Both are available economically on Kindle and both are extensively documented. The case for the prosecution is completely damning.

Reply
Share

Alan - at least on this one we can agree (mostly, I think). My brother sent me an email on Japan vs. US since WWII. Some salient points at the end:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating
the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another
person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the
government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have
to work because the other half is going to take care of them,
and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to
work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,
that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

And that is what the whole climate change scam is all about. Taxing 'rich' countries to pay for 'development' in 'poor' countries.

Reply
Share

No, it's not news. The IAC review was published two years ago, but the IPCC has deferred implementing it until it was too late to impact its fifth assessment report (due 2013). The recommendation that Pachauri be removed as chairman was ignored.

Perhaps the most important recommendation was the one asking the IPCC to apply normal principles regarding conflicts of interest. The Bureau chooses authors who have written alarmist papers or articles. These lead authors then review their own work and decide to prefer it over all competing views. The outcomes are all too predictable.

This system is to remain in place for the 2013 report. So is the system of publishing a politically-authored "summary" for the media, while keeping the scientific reports under wraps for 8 months.

What other group could get away with this blatant manipulation?

Reply
Share

"What other group could get away with this blatant manipulation?"

Just think back to Labour's claims of increasing employment, decreasing crime and their cynical attempts to rig elections through "misappropriated" funds of over $840,000 spent on Comrade Auntie's pledge card rorts...

Reply
Share

Economists.

Reply
Share

Can't see why any one is surprised by this revelation; after all the organisation is a United Nations spawned child.
Hardley has credible parentage does it.

Reply
Share

At the risk of letting facts get in the way of a good argument, here's some reading for you to catch up on Mr Hide:

Latest atmospheric CO2 measurements from NOAA: <url>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/</url>

Ocean acidication measurements:
<url>http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html<...

Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats: <url>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-ar...

And also, a recent article that uses more up to date information than your column is quibbling about:
<url>http://www.rollingstone.com/?redirurl=/politics/news/global-warmings-ter...

Reply
Share

Thanks for nothing...lets all rush to Rolling Stone Magazine not to read whats cool in music but see Bill McKibben climate nutbar extraordinaire cherry pick data while totally ignoring the impact of natural nature itself. Everyone knows his real expertise lies in cosmetic dentistry...cheese.

Reply
Share

All this ... and yet the globe refuses to warm in accordance with the outrageously speculative hypothesis of the fanatical Hansenites.

That must really grate when the data doesn't support your pseudo-science.

Reply
Share

I am just reading "The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert" by Donna Lafromboise since penning the article.

It's a must read, especially on the kindle version which carries the hyperlinks.

I knew it must be bad. I had no idea it was that bad.

There are some kiwis exposed in the book too. Hmm, perhaps another article.

Reply
Share

It is shocking even for those who, as you say, knew it was bad.

Montford's book is equally shocking and even more thoroughly documented.

Reply
Share

Thanks Alan. I will get that one too.

Reply
Share

What are your thoughts re: UN Agenda 21 and it's implementation via soft communitarian law at local government level in NZ Rodney?

Reply
Share

ICLEI or the UN's local people are threatening to take away monies from the power companies if they refuse to put on smart meters . These are harming citizens across America and our proposed rate hike in Az will be 50% in the next four years. The smart water meters started east to west and smart electric west to east. Already people in Ga, IN are trying to fight the 30-40% rate hikes. They UN is 20 years ahead of us . We better get going and let people know what they have in store for us. Read The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide (vision 2020)

Reply
Share

I worked on Donna Laframboise's "citizen audit" of IPCC literature. It showed that around 30% of IPCC literature was so-called "grey" literature. This was particularly prevalent in WG2 and WG3 chapters of IPCC AR4. Some chapters were 90% non peer-reviewed.

This doesn't mean that all climate science is junk as a conclusion. What this and "Teenager" shows us is that there is a significant activist element driving the IPCC. In particular, WWF and Greenpeace have a rather large influence.

Many NGOs have a financial interest in carbon trading etc. The WWF has significant interests in the Amazonian rainforest, for example.
These organisations are not democratically elected and are not accountable to anyone but themselves.

Reply
Share

Thank you for the work Andy. It's very impressive. It would be a great joke if only it wasn't costing billions.

Reply
Share

Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-ch...

Reply
Share

Citing the Grauniad as impartial is like going to Pravda for an opinion on Thatcher during the Cold War. Classic.

Reply
Share

As long as you keep voting for politicians who want to perpetuate taxes, you will keep being ripped off. The only solution is to move away from taxes to a voluntary society.

Reply
Share

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Reply
Share

Anarchy and lawless society, good one! Anymore idiotic comments

Reply
Share

UN IPCC is funded by governments. Governments are funded by taxes. Government bureaucrats by their very nature are happy to spend your money on their favourite goals. UN IPCC is just one of them. In government there is waste everywhere. You get about 50 cents in the dollar value. If you paid voluntarily, you would get 100 cents in the dollar and be much wealthier. but all those favourite goals of bureaucrats spending your money would have to ask you for money instead of taking it off you. The only way to stop IPCC and many other rorts is to stop taxation.

Reply
Share

Deniers like Rodney are just as bad as alarmists. This article sidesteps the main point - climate change is real, and we will be affected.

While media has frothed up populations into either alarmist or denier camps, the sad fact remains that scientists exhibit remarkable consensus around temperature increases. The temperatures are rising, and while we are not going to see Auckland become Venice this year, we do need to be careful about beach front property over 100 years, and we do need to work on reducing co2e emissions.
this kind of rhetoric is not going to help us deal with it.

Reply
Share

No Lance you don't get it. Most people who disagree with AGW do not deny the climate is changing --they accept that the climate has changed for thousands of years and will continue to change in the future. We just do not accept the AGW theory and the models have not predicted what is happening in the real world.
The thing to worry about are the horrendously expensive policies that have been put in place to little or no effect.

Reply
Share

Lance -- the earth was getting warmer and cooler long before humans were here. Nothing now occurring is out of the ordinary. It's been warmer before and the temperature has been more rapid before.

The issue is whether there is anything to be concerned about. Apart from the models the answer is no. The models themselves are programmed to produce the results they produce. They have been debunked as have the people who programmed them

Reply
Share

"scientists exhibit remarkable consensus around temperature increases"

Please don't reproduce utter tosh. The temperature is something you measure (with considerable difficulty when it comes to a global average), not have a consensus about.

The climate has always changed, has always affected us and always will. Reducing CO2 emissions by amounts currently agreed will have zero effect on climate. Ask your mate Hansen. There are far better ways to spend the money for the good of humanity and the environment.

Reply
Share

Lance -- here is a nice little summary of what has been going on behind the scenes. ( Keep your cup of coffee away from your key board / pad as you read !!)

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/history-of-how-this-fraud-...

Reply
Share

In the seventies I was a denier, too. I denied the suggestion that we were facing an imminent ice age and that the State needed to step in using authoritarian measures to curb my and 5 billion other peoples behaviour.

You should be glad I was a denier.

Reply
Share

I am astonished that we have this sort of 'thinking' in NZ, a country that taught me this stuff at university 25 years ago.
Anthropogenic factors have driven indicators well outside the norms. Yes we have had higher co2 levels before - but at the same time we had higher temperatures and sea levels.
But I'm not going to convince anyone here, so ask your children instead - they know the science.

Reply
Share

Wrong again, Lance. I have the PhD in physical science, not my children and not, I suspect from your comments, you either.

Reply
Share

Yes Lance - that why I homeschool my kids. There's no way I'm letting them go to a science lesson only to be fed politics. And then go to a history lesson, only to be fed politics... need I go on? And all the politics has a tinge of red, with a green stripe.

Reply
Share

Don't let your kids go near the watermelons Wytse. Let them read books: I presume you have no TV.

Reply
Share

Watermelons? No, we don't need a TV to entertain ourselves, or perhaps I should say amuse ourselves. A-muse: to not think. Thats just what the left want - a population that doesn't think; one that simply accepts what they proclaim. It's just a different religion. Yep - reading good books is one of the better ways. But you also have to be careful it's not a revisionist's history...

Reply
Share

No Lance, they have been brainwashed at school with the politically correct view.

Reply
Share

I am afraid Lance has lacked any credibility whatsoever since his inspired piece about Steve Ballmer's office and its lack of an egonomic chair.

Reply
Share

Rodney, Its off the subject a bit but the letter from Wytse de Vries {9} is a beauty. Another article or memo for around the cabinet table.

Reply
Share

It is very interesting that Rodney's statement of that which has been obvious to real scientists for nearly two decades has attracted only one CAGW nutcase.
It seems that even when the lies are promulgated by no less (cough) a body than the U.N., the truth will still triumph.
Government ,as always , is dragging the chain.
When does our ETS Exchange get the chop? What an absolutely wasteful and useless piece of bureaucratic nonsense it is. That doesn't stop it issuing threats of legal action to small businesses though , as Farmer Brown can attest.

Reply
Share

JK states that to make changes to superannuation would be breaking trust but he had no trouble with the smacking bill, raising GST and introducing the ETS.

Reply
Share

Just to make it absolutuely clear, here is the position:-

"Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is a hoax. There is no real-world evidence whatsoever to suggest that the modest warming of around 0.8 degrees C which the planet has experienced since 1850 is in any way dangerous or unprecedented. Even the suggestion that it is mostly man-made is at best moot, at worst long since falsified by real world data and superseded by more plausible theories
So next time you hear the BBC (or similar) spouting some unutterable cr*p about some amazingly shocking new event/piece of research/paper showing that the glaciers or Greenland are melting faster than before, that polar bears or coral reefs are becoming more endangered, or that there's anything remotely worrying about the possibility that the planet has warmed by 1.5 degrees C since the Industrial Revolution, don't just take it with a huge pinch of salt. Treat it with about as much respect as you would a report from North Korea radio telling you that this year's bumper grain harvest has been more gloriously plentiful than ever before and that workers are now at severe risk of expiring due to an excess of nourishment, plenitude and joy."

Reply
Share

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7977 0.0012 0.15%
AUD 0.9075 -0.0005 -0.06%
EUR 0.6268 0.0003 0.05%
GBP 0.4948 0.0005 0.10%
HKD 6.1875 0.0094 0.15%
JPY 85.2720 0.0330 0.04%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1248.5 4.340 2014-10-21T00:
Oil Brent 86.2 0.820 2014-10-21T00:
Oil Nymex 82.5 -0.260 2014-10-21T00:
Silver Index 17.5 0.190 2014-10-21T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5233.1 5284.3 5233.1 0.89%
NASDAQ 4359.2 4419.5 4316.1 2.40%
DAX 8693.1 8889.8 8717.8 1.94%
DJI 16406.0 16620.8 16399.7 1.31%
FTSE 6267.1 6372.3 6267.1 1.68%
HKSE 23300.5 23460.8 23088.6 1.11%
NI225 15038.2 15185.4 14804.3 2.46%