Mar
What is the “likelihood” that the 2007 IPCC Report, section “the Physical Basis” is exagerrated?
Blogger TonyN at Harmless Sky has written up something I think you all should go take a look at. He’s done a very interesting analysis of the latest IPPC Assessment Report and has come up with some important questions, and invites others to help him answer them. It’s not your usual science debunking piece.
This paragraph describes the basis of his investigation:
The effect on the IPCC’s reputation, and that of its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has been devastating, but at every stage of this scandal we have been assured that the core science underpinning concern about anthropogenic climate change has remained unscathed. The IPCC and its supporters have been able to undertake this damage limitation exercise because attention so far has focused on only one of the three sections of the most recent assessment report: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. This deals with the symptoms and perceived consequences of climate change. The core scientific evidence that the climate is changing and that human influence is playing a part in this is contained in another section of the report, Working Group I: Climate Change 2007: the Physical Basis. But can we be confident that the same problems of sloppy authorship and exaggeration do not extend to this part of the IPCC’s assessment too?
The article goes on to look at how the IPCC authors assign words like “likely,” “very likely,” “extremely likely” and so on, to probabilities, in percentage ranges, of the likelihood of certain events occurring. It’s fascinating. And it begs comparison to how climate scientists are characterizing the chances of catastrophic events.
He introduces some common sense questions:
The conclusion that the IPCC draws from this is that, although there is a significant level of uncertainty as to whether the frequency of heat waves has increased during the last half century, and there is even more uncertainty as to whether, if the frequency has in fact increased, this can be attributed to human influence, a prediction can be made that heatwaves will increase during the next ninety years as a result of anthropogenic global warming. The ‘likelihood’ assigned to this is of 90-94%. Therefore according to the IPCC, confidence in the prediction is higher than confidence in either the observations or the hypothesis that the prediction is based on.
This makes no sense to me, but then I am not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. It would be very interesting to hear the views of researchers from other disciplines, not on the merits of the scientific evidence, but as to whether this table does in fact defy logic.
This could be a simple, but very important analysis of the IPPC Report, and I’m interested to hear your thoughts on it. And so is the author.
Read the complete article: Harmless Sky
I think Dr Tim Ball explains it best and the link is here http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116
he says in part … The pattern of falsifying appearances began early. Although he works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Stephen Schneider was heavily employed in the work of the IPCC as this biography notes.
Much of Schneider’s time is taken up by what he calls his “pro bono day job” for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II of the IPCC from 1997 to 2001 and a lead author in Working Group I from 1994 to 1996. Currently, he is a Coordinating Lead Author for the controversial chapter on “Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risks from Climate Change,” in short, defining “dangerous” climate change.” – Pubmedcentral.nih.gov
He continued this work by helping prepare the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released in April 2007.
Schneider, among others, created the appearance that the Summary was representative of the Science Report. However, he provides an early insight into the thinking when speaking about global warming to Discovery magazine (October 1989) he said scientists need, “to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.” The last sentence is deeply disturbing—there is no decision required.
The Summary for Policymakers is designed to convince everyone that global warming is due to human production of CO2. In SPM AR4 issued in April 2007 they say, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” The term “very likely” is from a table reportedly produced by Schneider and means greater than 90%. Professor Roy Spencer says about probabilities in this context. “Any statements of probability are meaningless and misleading. I think the IPCC made a big mistake. They’re pandering to the public not understanding probabilities. When they say 90 percent, they make it sound like they’ve come up with some kind of objective, independent, quantitative way of estimating probabilities related to this stuff. It isn’t. All it is is a statement of faith.”
and
Problems begin with the definition of climate change used because it requires they only consider human causes. From the United Nations Environment Program (article 1) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.” But you cannot determine the human portion unless you understand natural climate change. As Professor Roy Spencer said in his testimony before the US Senate EPW Committee, “And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research.”
Media and public are allowed to believe the IPCC make climate predictions, but they don’t. The First Assessment Report (Climate Change 1992) said, “Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such.” While the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios says; “Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts. Climate Change 2001 continues the warnings; “The possibility that any single in emissions path will occur as described in this scenario is highly uncertain.” In the same Report they say, “No judgment is offered in this report as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not assigned probabilities of recurrence, neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations.” This is a reference to the range of scenarios they produce using different future possible economic conditions. Of course, they didn’t build in the recent financial collapse.
Climate Change 2001 substitutes the word projection for prediction. Projection is defined as follows, “A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty”.
This and similar statements are based on the unproven hypothesis that human produced CO2 is causing warming and or climate change. The evidence is based solely on the output of 18 computer climate models selected by the IPCC. There are a multitude of problems including the fact that every time they run them they produce different results. They use an average of all the runs. The IPCC then take the average results of the 18 models and average them for the results in their Reports.
the date of the article is December 2008
here’s an australian flavour from Andrew Bolt’s blog today http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Robyn “100 metres” Williams demands more truth
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 09, 10 (07:47 am)
ABC science presenter Robyn Williams in 2007:
Andrew Bolt: I’m telling you, there’s a lot of fear out there. So what I do is, when I see an outlandish claim being made…so Tim Flannery suggesting rising seas this next century eight stories high, Professor Mike Archer, dean of engineering at the University of NSW…
Robyn Williams: Dean of science.
Andrew Bolt: Dean of science…suggesting rising seas this next century of up to 100 metres, or Al Gore six metres. When I see things like that I know these are false. You mentioned the IPCC report; that suggests, at worst on best scenarios, 59 centimetres.
Robyn Williams: Well, whether you take the surge or whether you take the actual average rise are different things.
Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.
ABC science presenter Robyn Williams in 2010:
The issue has been bombarded with misinformation… And after Climategate – too much mea culpa. It’s time for (scientists) to get their skates on. To be aggressive in the cause of truth.
and my comment
Well I read Mr Williams’ rather hysterical piece and what struck me is how he referred to denialists as ‘the voices of the extreme’ when I would say the opposite is the case; the ‘voices of the extreme’ are the warmists and they are the ones who still have the privilege of having the main stream on side; just look at the ABC tv science interviews; the one I recall the most was Kerry O’Brien’s interview of Prof Oppenheimer in the 7.30 report of 4 February 2010. Kerry O’Brien asked how does the IPCC undo the damage to its credibility from the recent embarrassing revelations on issues like the Himalaya glaciers and the Amazon rainforests. Prof Oppenheimer agreed the Himalaya issue was the one that carries with it some embarrassment. A mistake was clearly made. But the fact that other (mistakes) haven’t turned up, should lend a strong note of faith. There was a bit said in the interview about the very strong review process in the IPCC’s reports. He said ‘But it’s good, because in all – again, all the hundreds of thousands of facts, we only see one, maybe there’s two, errors that anybody’s been able to turn up with in the last assessment.’
Now at this time there had been numerous scandals involving the IPCC’s processes and reports including Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated, the Admission by IPCC that the glaciergate figures were known to be wrong at the time, but that the report was included to persuade Asian governments to sign up to the IPCC’s agenda on climate change action; the IPCC concocted false evidence on the increased likelihood of bad weather events as the planet has warmed, Evidence that the IPCC ignored critical comments from reviewers, and that the review process is not open and transparent; numerous non scientific citations in lieu of scientific studies including WWF; Greenpeace; Hitch hikers Guide; Newspaper reports and unpublished theses from Students. Then there was the error concerning the Netherlands. The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. Then there was the refusal to comply with freedom of information requests; manipulation of weather data and tree ring data from Russia; AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming. Plus ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. I might have missed a few but they’re the ones that come immediately to mind and there are far more mistakes than ‘maybe two.’ Kerry O’Brien failed to ask any follow up questions about that assertion.
All those scandals show errors erring on the side of alarmism. The ‘rising seas’ claim itself was seriously alarmist. And this was a claim which was disputed in 2007 by the sea level specialist Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner – here’s the link http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf. And he has a bit to say about the IPCC process as well. An endless amount of money has been given to the side which agrees with the IPCC. And which side looks extremist to me is not the denialists but the warmists; the warmists have the use of powerful use of lobby groups including the IPCC.
So when Mr Williams says extremists (he means denialists) seem to now dominate has been the powerful use of lobby groups I say where has the money been spent on this apocalyptic scare campaign; it certainly hasn’t been on the denialists. Check out Jo Nova at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm. When Mr Williams says We go by published research results, in top journals and commentators with a reputation for probity … well when the IPCC latest report became the focus I say look at the errors. Peer Review in the IPCC means review by colleagues. So where’s the truth Mr Williams; from where I’m standing it doesn’t look to be on your side.
sometimes the bigger picture is the best
Bold face lies is more like it.
What we now see and hear from the AGW alarmists is the “EXTRA SIZZLE” they need to frighten the populations into worshiping at the altar of climate change.
The AGW assertions of future events can be read in the book of REVELATIONS .
The seven seals being the reports of the IPCC. and the spectres fire,famine,war and death.
The IPCC reports are the collective possibilities of “future events” which are “likely ” ,the “scientists” who have predicted our future are no more “likely” to be correct than soothsayers,fortune tellers,palm readers.
With no proven physical science to give credance to their pronostigations,they have convinced,or given succor,to the gullible or greedy politicians in their lust for total power over the future world development.
Now we are to be deluged in dire predictions to convince us theirs is the only way.
Beware, et ecce equus pallidus ,et qui sedebat super eum,nomen illi Mors. et infernus sequebatur eum,fame,et Morte.
The summary is what’s touted in the newspapers and it’s one thing to knock those scarey predictions down one by one, but by exposing the whole methodology used to make them, shows the whole report for what it is, exaggerated political propaganda.
It’s shameful that any respectable scientist should want to stand anywhere near it, and the fact that some do should cause their dismissal from future scientific projects.
It’s the ‘smoking gun’ evidence of ‘scientists behaving badly’ (to parody a UK TV show) and there’s no way to redeem the report with that evidence lying at the very core of it.
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this email. IPCC,
me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
An article I just read points out how Carbon Trading is an echo back to the times when you could buy an ‘indulgence’ so that sinning was turned into a money spinner.
Sinning was evil, but could be paid off if you have the money to do so. Just to add mockery to the sham our governments are handing out free ‘indulgences’ which can then be traded, so that ‘the chosen ones’ are credited with immoral behaviour in advance. It’s the equivalent of multiple ‘get out of jail free’ cards, but with a cash in surrender value.
If Henry VIII had been so smart he wouldn’t have had to execute all those wives and could have made a fortune out of infedility.
HERE’S an interesting analysis John McLean
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
to quote from page 15
Chapter 9 of the WG I report contained the fundamental contention of a significant human
influence on climate. This claim forms the basis of chapters 10 and 11, which deal with global
and regional climate projections respectively, and the subsequent WG II and WG III reports, but
if that claim is wrong then those subsequent have no validity.
might be helpful
Yes Val that’s a very interesting and informative website.
Shooting down various individual claims had been successful in raising doubts about the report, but supporters come up with the argument that the report is full of many other claims supported by a majority of scientists.
As I have shown previously, a much larger portion of the report contains ‘grey’ literature than they would like to admit. The grey literature is unverifibale and even much of the research didn’t include the raw date to enable any effective affirmation.
Mclean then shows that the 4,00 scientists who put their name to the report is also a myth. The number isn’t that large, and few of the much smaller number gave any real affirmation, in fact, those who submitted contrary opinions were ignored, contrary to normal practice, and yet they are still counted as being supporters.
The very nature of the report is nothing more than a fraud. It cannot be resurrected. That would be like trying to turn a ‘clunker’ into a limousine. The IPCC cannot let go of it, because they could never pull the same trick twice.
The argument over ‘methodology’ and the fiction of scientific consensus support, along with the proliferation of grey literature and ‘science without data’ may not grab the attention of the general public, but that’s what finally kills this report as anything related to science. It throws shame on the UK scientific establishment that they have the nerve to support such piffling trash in front of the TV cameras.
here’s some more relevant stuff
Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff
http://www.powerlineblog.com
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
It Didn’t Start With Climategate
Share Post Print
January 1, 2010 Posted by John at 7:34 PM
The whistleblower at the University of East Anglia who leaked emails and other documents that reveal the fraud that is being perpetrated by the world’s leading global warming alarmists did us all a great service. But it is important to realize that the deception didn’t just begin: rather, the global warming hysteria movement has been shot through with fraud from the start.
The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Second Assessment Report, which was published under the auspices of the United Nations in 1996. This report was the principal basis for the Kyoto Accord which was signed in 1997, and for the nonsense that has been inflicted on the world’s elementary school students ever since.
But the Second Assessment Report was hijacked by an AGW activist who re-wrote key conclusions and injected a level of alarmism that had not been present in the consensus document. You can get the whole story here, along with a great deal more information about the global warming controversy. The Science and Environmental Project summarized what happened as follows:
IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers (SPM), are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Perhaps the most blatant example is IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR), completed in 1995 and published in 1996. Its SPM contains the memorable phrase “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” You may recall that this 1996 IPCC report played a key role in the political deliberations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. Nothing of the sort has ever happened. The IPCC has consistently ignored the major natural influences on climate change and has focused almost entirely on human causes, especially on GH gases and more especially on carbon dioxide, which is linked to industrial activities and therefore ‘bad’ almost by definition.
How then did the IPCC-SAR arrive at “balance of evidence”? It was the work of a then-relatively-junior scientist, Dr Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), who has recently re-emerged as a major actor in ClimateGate. As a Convening Lead Author of a crucial IPCC chapter, Santer carefully removed any verbiage denying that human influences might be the major or almost exclusive cause of warming and substituted new language. There is no evidence that he ever consulted any of his fellow IPCC authors, nor do we know who instructed him to make these changes and later approved the text deletions and insertions that fundamentally transformed IPCC-SAR.
Graham if you like I could post my list of grey material
I don’t need to be convinced val. In the UK our politicians have disgraced themselves with the corruption over their expenses scandal and it seems that scientists are no better. I am just amazed that the three most senior UK scientific figures speak such clear lies on TV, in the hope that ordinary people won’t investigate their claims.
The problem they have is that if more than 50% of people don’t believe them, then it’s harder for them to lie, because there is always someone who can provide the truth. They like to talk about ‘tipping points’ without understanding that they’ve passed one themselves. The irony of seeing intellectuals fall into a trap they are always warning us about is quite amusing.
Real issues about toxic waste and harming the environment are being lost as they pick on the most harmless pollutant of all. No one has mentioned the Baltic Sea or cleaning it up at any IPCC Conference, but there’s no money to be made doing that.
Scientists should be ashamed of themselves, or I mean, the few who actually support the IPCC.
Wazzup?
Temps are falling
Snow is falling
Sierra Club memberships are falling at a dangerous rate.
[...] UN IPCC junk science; wildfires, ignored 3x, Alarmism grossly overstated, UN IPCC exaggerations continue [...]