Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Archive for the ‘IPCC’ Category

Just in Case Anyone Thought the IPCC Was About Science

Posted by greg2213 on June 15, 2013

Well it’s been pretty obvious to anyone who are, for quite some time, that the IPC is about Politics first, agenda second. There’s the scientific report and then there’s the summary report, which is what the Pols of the various countries see. This has nothing to do with the science.

From NoFrakkingConsensus.com

According to those who’ve attended similar meetings, “every sentence” will be projected onto a screen “in front of representatives of more than 100 governments” who will then argue about it. Eventually, these political animals will collectively negotiate wording that everyone can live with. Then they will move on to the next sentence.

Yes, you read that right. The exact phrasing of what is supposed to be a summary of scientific evidence will be determined not by scientists but via political negotiations.

Read it all, here.

Unfortunately, this will convince no one who is in any position of influence or who already sees the IPCC as the second coming of Al Gore.

More

Posted in IPCC | Leave a Comment »

Here Come the Activists, into the IPCC

Posted by greg2213 on March 6, 2013

It’s well known that at least of part of the IPCC is activist driven. This doesn’t matter to the alarmist/hysteric crowd and is only slightly bothersome to the warmists. The rest of us, however…

It’s official. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is cognitively impaired. It is wholly incapable of learning from its mistakes.

The IPCC is comprised of three working groups. Working Group 3 is led by Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Three days ago that institute posted an announcement on its website calling for “expert reviewers” to provide feedback to Working Group 3′s draft report. The first paragraph of that announcement includes the following:

The scientists who are organizing this process ask for voluntary contributions from experts across all sectors, from scholars to business people or NGO representatives. [bold added]

Here we go again. The World Wildlife Fund is an NGO. Greenpeace is an NGO. The people who work for those organizations are not scientific experts. They are advocates, activists, and partisans. They have an agenda. They are paid a salary to advance that agenda.

Go here for the rest: IPCC Invites In the Activists

More:

Posted in IPCC | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

IPCC, Pachauri, and “Distinguished Scientists”

Posted by greg2213 on July 28, 2011

The IPCC, like many organizations, gives it’s associates a label, Distinguished Scientists in this case, which elevates the associate in the eyes of those looking at his or her work. The label leads us to believes that the qualifications of the associate are higher, perhaps much higher, than they actually might be.

As Ms. Laframboise points out:

Pachauri has said IPCC reports are written by the world’s top scientists when, in fact, many of those involved are 20-something grad students, green activists, and people appointed with an eye to filling “diversity” quotas.

In yesterday’s article Pachauri dismissed concerns that a lead author of a recent IPCC report is a Greenpeace activist…

Here’s the rest: How the IPCC Defines ‘Distinguished Scientist’

So let’s keep in mind that Distinguished Scientists doesn’t quite mean, at least in this case, what we think it should mean.

Update 3/14/13: Australia Misleads the World About the IPCC

Posted in IPCC | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Greenpeace is Lead Author of IPCC Report

Posted by greg2213 on June 15, 2011

Another nail in the coffin of IPCC credibility.

Actually, for the greenies, it probably enhances IPCC cred since, naturally, any bias that Greenpeace might show is for the “greater good.” For policy makers, who are supposed to need objective info (I know, I’m incredibly naive) this should kill the report’s usefulness, but I expect the effects will be nil.

The basis for this claim is a Greenpeace scenario. The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios, the introduction to which was written by IPCC chair Pachauri.

The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario.

It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.

Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.

On ClimateAudit: IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke

WUWT chimes in: A blunder of staggering proportions by the IPCC

I’m not certain, but I don’t think this IPCC news will be of interest to the various government that are hell-bent on destroying their economies coping with global warming. They will still hold the IPCC up as the gold standard, pretending that the gold-plate covering the base metal is really gold.

Maybe a few on the warm side will decide that there is something improper about Big Oil Greenpeace writing their own IPCC chapter on the benefits of fossil fuel green/renewable energy usage. Maybe not. I expect most will see nothing whatsoever wrong with Big Oil Greenpeace doing this and will ridicule the IPCC critics appropriately.

More:

  • Bishop hill says: Ideological money laundering – “Can an organization that represents commercial enterprises really offer governmental organizations impartial policy advice? Imagine the furor that would ensue, were oil companies so instrumental in the design of EU policies and their implementation. Lobbying is one thing; such proximity to policy-making is quite another.”
  • New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace – “…That release of the full report happened yesterday. And a close reading of it shows that the IPCC has made an error much more serious than the so-called Himalayagate and associated non-scandals last year …” (said non-scandals chipped away at IPCC cred, especially given how poorly handled was the response to said non-scandal.)
  • More from Mark Lynas: Questions the IPCC must now urgently answer
  • More for ClimateAudit: Responses from IPCC SRREN
  • Judith Curry, Heretic: In reconsidering “monster creation,” a key element in this is the reaction of the warm-green side of the debate to even relatively moderate criticisms of the IPCC.  You are ignored by the IPCC and vilified by its defenders, which makes you realize that there was even more there to criticize than you originally thought.
  • Inconvenient Skeptic adds some remarks about similar conflicts of interest with certain geo-engineering projects. “It fully appears that the IPCC has turned into a gravy train for people that are using the “global warming crisis” to get filthy rich in the process.  I guess they have all learned from Al Gore that using the crisis to get the government to pour money into your projects is the real way to wealth.”
  • Followup from ClimateAudit: Lynas’ Questions

So far it looks as if my snark was correct. With very few exceptions the green crowd sees nothing whatsoever wrong with the IPCC’s actions regarding this report. Clearly it’s Ok for Big Oil Greanpeace to participate in the creation of certain IPCC documents.

Posted in IPCC | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

Driving a Stake Through the IPCC Heart

Posted by greg2213 on February 14, 2011

Brutal, to the point, and deadly accurate.

From WUWT:

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Here on WUWT, Ron Cram has provided an interesting overview of a number of people’s ideas about desirable changes to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). He proposes that the IPCC provide us with a majority and a minority view of climate science, rather than just a single Assessment Report.

I’m here to propose something very different. Some people think the IPCC should be disbanded. I’m not one of them.

I think disbanding the IPCC is a bad idea. Instead, I think that we should take the IPCC to the crossroads at midnight and pound an aspen stake through its heart, stuff its head with garlic, and scatter the remains to be disinfected by sunlight so it can never, ever rise again.

the rest: I Have A Stake In The Outcome

Posted in IPCC | Leave a Comment »

IPCC Official Announces the Agenda

Posted by greg2213 on November 18, 2010

In the categories of: “Yes, they really said that,” and “the rumors are true” an IPCC official admits to the real agenda of the green crowd:

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

From WUWT: IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

And now we can smirk at the crowd that has been calling us paraniods and such as we admire the egg on their collectivist faces.

I expect the green side will fire this guy ASAP, but I think he should be retained. It’s refreshing to see his honesty and we’ll better be able to keep track of these people.

Update: A commenter says…

Almost twenty years ago, Maurice “Mr Carbon” Strong spilled all the beans about the true agenda of the environmentalist movement to the also Canadian prize-winner journalist Elaine Dewar. It’s all in her book “Cloak of Green
” (Toronto: James Lorimer, 1995), that is mandatory reading for the understanding of this stuff. Last January, Potsdam Institute’s Herr Hans Joachim Schellnhuber also admitted to Der Spiegel that he was – literally – the inventor of the 2 degree “magic limit” mentioned by his countryman Edenhofer. So, there’s nothing new in such “confessions,” they come out from the self-sufficiency and arrogance of those who regard themseleves as the self-appointed movers and shakers of the world.
another commenter understands how things work in the real world, away from the fantasies of the greens:
Well, of course we know how that wealth redistribution works: out of the pockets of working people, into the wallets of dictators, juntas and oligarchies, and then into the vaults of the banks.

Posted in IPCC, Quotes | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

It’s Worse Than We Thought

Posted by greg2213 on April 15, 2010

To borrow a line from the Al Gore scamology, but this one refers to the IPCC and the quality of its peer-reviwed research, or lack of same.

The IPCC Working Group 4 (AR4) is the document that lays out all the horrible things that will happen if we don’t make AL Gore rich and hand over the world’s economies to the UN and third world dictators.

It seems that the AR4 gets a failing grade on the “quality” of its research. The report is supported by, among other things, newspaper clippings.

From WUWT:

21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.

The rest: IPCC AR4 also gets a failing grade on 21 chapters

Here is the IPCC report card

Yes, the IPCC does have procedures for using non peer-reviewed material. It’s in Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, page 14.

So while the IPCC does use many sources its supporters, including the guy on top, Pachauri, claim that all of its findings are peer-reviewed. In fact, pretty much all of the entities supporting the IPCC make claims matching Pachauri’s. Here are some of their quotes.

From here on out they will need to add a few qualifiers to such statements, otherwise we’ll just snicker. Sure, non peer-reviewed material has a place, perhaps even beyond just making the document thicker, but if it’s a fluff piece from the WWF I think I’d think twice about using it.

From that appendix:

Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources. These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published.

Now if  the corporate world advertised their products in the same way then they’d be paying some heavy fines. Given that the AGW “mitigation” involves $trillions maybe the fines should be increased appropriately?


Posted in IPCC | 1 Comment »

This Says it All

Posted by greg2213 on February 15, 2010

Yet another from WUWT, Science Mag asking R. Pachauri of the IPCC:

Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?
R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?
So I looked up the mission of the IPCC and found this from the Union of Concerned Scientists

IPCC History and Misson
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature.” [1] The goal of these assessments is to inform international policy and negotiations on climate-related issues.

So if you believe that climate change (global warming) is a serious issue and humans are the problem, then the UN IPCC fits right in.
It was never intended to be an objective analysis of the reality and science of global warming so Pachauri is right on with his statement.
Too bad there’s no there, there.

Posted in IPCC | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

On the Value of Getting the Acronym Right

Posted by greg2213 on February 15, 2010

I just googled IPCC mission, looking for some IPCC agenda stuff, and discovered that IPCC stands for (from G’s top 10:)
– INTEGRATED PLANT PROTECTION CENTER
– Internet Probation & Parole Control
– International Plant Protection Convention
– International Parti Poodle Club
– Initiative for Pediatric Palliative Care
– Instituto Poblano para la Productividad Competitiva

Only one of the top 10 has anything to do with the UN’s IPCC.

But wait, it seems that a typo was somehow entered into Google search (gremlins. I can’t think of any other possible explanation.)

Obvious, unless you’re in the middle of one thought and don’t notice certain things.I think I’ll make it a point to remember that one.

Posted in IPCC | Leave a Comment »

More Collapsing of the Alarmist AGW Concept

Posted by greg2213 on January 30, 2010

Catastrophic Warming was never a theory, in any scientific sense, and was shown to be a bad (wrong) hypothesis just by looking at data from several tens of millions of years ago when CO2 levels were far higher than now.

Finally the (mainstream) media is starting to notice inconvenient truths about the whole issue.

You know about glaciergate, here’s more: Times Online (UK:) Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen – the chairman (Rajendra Pachauri) of the leading climate change watchdog (IPCC) was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit

China Daily: Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC? – “Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three “human” errors, isn’t it time scientists gave its work a serious review?”

Times Online (UK:) Indian glaciologist criticised by IPCC chief joins calls for resignation – Rajendra Pachauri falls out of favour in home country, as scientists and campaigners add to pressure on him to step down…

Hilarious Article in the Irish Times: Deniers winning climate change war. Why hilarious?

  • deniers are “winning the propaganda war” which reads to me that the alarmists admit to  using propoganda.
  • “…acknowledged that scientists were “lousy” at communicating their ideas to the general public…” They’ve never had to, Al Gore and the media do it for them. The entire MSM, celebrities, and many governments are on the alarmist side and they are losing the propoganda war? Must be some seriously bad science on the alarmist side, I think. With that much ammo on their side I think the alarmist case must hold about as much water as the flat earth argument.
  • “…the reality that man-made climate change was an accepted fact among climate scientists…” Not a reality, except among a small group of CSs. Now, if he dropped the “man-made” part we would all be in agreement. Climate change happens.
  • ““Not having being brought up in the literary and debating societies, scientists are not very good at winning arguments…” Maybe HE isn’t, but see above about which side the media is on. It would help of they had good arguments and didn’t have Al Gore and the media making their arguments.
  • “…that argument (no warming, even cooling) could be easily refuted by looking at temperature changes since 1980, which would show that temperatures have been on an upward trajectory.”  Temps head up (slightly) till 1998 then level off. Where’s the warming, Doc? And which part of it is different from previous warming periods? No warming for 12 years and we should be worried, because…?
  • I don’t think the good Dr. understands (nevermind respects) the skeptics arguments. Maybe that’s his problem.
  • This is kind of like Kerry, Hansen,  and others complaining about being censored while on the Leno show.

Greenpeace is also a source for the IPCC: Not the there is necessarily anything wrong with Greenpeace, but they are an advocacy organization, not a scientific one. The IPCC report should clearly state that some of their conclusions were based on reports from advocacy groups.

A little more pn Greenpeace and the IPCC: Greenpeace Experts Direct Parts of UN IPCC AR4 Report

And to sum up some of the problems, here’s an editorial by Nature (the “science” journal) with translation, and appropriate corrections, by the Air Vent: The Politics of Nature

JoNova has a video of Obama’s SoTU address and argues that the crowd is laughing at Obama’s “climate change” remark, not with it. I’m not sure I agree. Here’s the video.

Oh yeah, a certain well-known terrorist believe in man made climate change, too. Or he believes that this is a way to get his remarks back into a highly sympathetic media. “Oooo…  he believes in CC, we’ll run the article!”

And people wonder why we’re not willing to give up our economies on the IPCC recommendations? The Catastrophic warming idea is dead. Let’s bury it and move on.

For more links see the previous post: Is the AGW Scare Collapsing?

Update: More stuff

Posted in IPCC, Media | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.