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

The evidence that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, according to a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.

The “fingerprints” of human influence on the climate can be detected not only in rising temperatures but also in the saltiness of the oceans, rising humidity, changes in rainfall and the shrinking of Arctic Sea ice at the rate of 600,000 sq km a decade.

The study, by senior scientists from the Met Office Hadley Centre, Edinburgh University, Melbourne University and Victoria University in Canada, concluded that there was an “increasingly remote possibility” that the sceptics were right that human activities were having no discernible impact. There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes.

The study said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had understated mankind’s overall contribution to climate change. The IPCC had said in 2007 that there was no evidence of warming in the Antarctic. However, the panel said that the latest observations showed that man-made emissions were having an impact on even the remotest continent.

Oh wait, I just noticed that the Met Office is involved in the study.  Given their accurate forecasting record, I feel much better.

Read the story:  Times Online

Round of applause for Russia Today. They always seem to feed us the nitty-gritty that most American media is afraid to cover.

In this video, Pat Michaels of the CATO Institute states: IPCC doesn’t do research; it picks and chooses from scientific reports and environmental organizations “in order to create the reports that it wants to create.”

Happy to hear someone giving it to us straight.

It’s not exactly the same feeling Rajendra Pachauri must have felt from the adoration of worshipers as he took the stage to share the Nobel Peace prize with Al Gore, but the Wall Street Journal gave him and his IPCC some press today. In fact, they placed the story right smack on the front page, in the article entitled, Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel.

Here’s a short excerpt:

The IPCC has faced withering criticism. Emails hacked from a U.K. climate lab and posted online late last year appear to show scientists trying to squelch researchers who disagreed with their conclusion that humans are largely responsible for climate change. And last month, the IPCC admitted its celebrated 2007 report contained an error: a false claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. The IPCC report got the date from a World Wildlife Fund report.

Even some who agree with the IPCC conclusion that humans are significantly contributing to climate change say the IPCC has morphed from a scientific analyst to a political actor. “It’s very much an advocacy organization that’s couched in the role of advice,” says Roger Pielke, a University of Colorado political scientist. He says many IPCC participants want “to compel action” instead of “just summarizing science.”

To restore its credibility, the IPCC will focus on enforcing rules already on the books, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and other officials said in interviews. Scientific claims must be checked with several experts before being published. IPCC reports must reflect disagreements when consensus can’t be reached. And people who write reports must refrain from advocating specific environmental actions—a political line the IPCC isn’t supposed to cross.

Of course, WSJ readers are likely more skeptical (and intelligent) than readers of most other news publications, but even so, the accompanying readers’ poll showed vast numbers of people are now seeing the whole scheme as a fraud. The poll asked readers to grade the IPCC on how good of a job they were doing. At the time we read it, with about 650 votes in, 82% had given them an F.

Is that an F for fail or an F for fraud?

He will try to save his job and shore up support for the IPCC in the wake of the discovery of errors in its latest report.

He is attending a special closed meeting of environment and climate ministers in the fringes of the annual assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council, the biggest such event since Copenhagen climate summit that ended in confusion and recriminations last December.

After reading the entire article, it sounds like another dog & pony show. They really can’t fire him now, and it sounds like the UNEP probably wouldn’t even if they could. I’d venture a guess this will be more like a meeting of the minds to come up with some new and improved BS so they can justify not replacing him. But then, I’m a suspicious person.

Instead ministers will press him to regain their confidence by outlining measures to prevent future errors and subject his organisation to independent scrutiny.

I wonder if “independent scrutiny” is a code word for having watchdogs from the UN all over him so he doesn’t screw up this time?

After all the lies, deceit, manipulation and corruption, I can’t fathom why they would even want to talk to this guy, much less expect him to regain UNEP’s or anyone else’s confidence.

A quote from Forrest Gump comes to mind: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Not Evil Just Wrong reports:

In another blow to the organization’s crumbling credibility, a senior Irish member of the IPCC admitted that he has not bothered to read the fourth IPCC report in its entirety, but advocates “changing our lifestyle” based on its findings.

Pat Finnegan is a member of Working Group III (WG3), which is the mitigation panel of the IPCC. In a shocking admission, he recently disclosed on Irish Radio, during a debate with documentary film maker Phelim McAleer that he has not read the full IPCC report.

Mr. Finnegan explained he had not read the report because “it was over 1800 pages long.”

But not reading 75 percent of the report didn’t stop Finnegan from telling us in a 2007 press release that the world needs to change because of what was in the report and that we all need to “change our lifestyle.”

Is it just us, or do you think he might not be the only IPCC member who hasn’t read it?

Shows Scientists Violated Ethics, Reveals Major Disagreements on Climate Science

Link to EPW Minority Report on CRU Controversy
Link to a Sampling of CRU Emails
Link: IPCC Gets the Science Wrong
Link: Endangerment Finding Based on Flawed Science

Washington, D.C.-The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report today titled, “‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy.” The report covers the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN’s IPCC, and how revelations of the IPCC’s flawed science impacts the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

• Obstructed release of damaging data and information;
• Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions;
• Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
• Assumed activist roles to influence the political process.

“This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “It’s about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world’s leading climate scientists.

“The report also shows the world’s leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It’s time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline.”

Contact:
Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797
David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-5642

Source: US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

The list of unsupported and unscientific claims in the IPCC Climate Change Report 2007 grows ever longer.

Five senior scientists have written to the head of IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri, to highlight “serious and dangerous deficiencies” in the notes on biofuels in the recently released IPCC AR4 Mitigation book [1]. The IPCC Synthesis Report is expected to be approved by national delegations this month.

They highlight that no proof has been given, even when requested from the relevant Author, of the claim in the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) that biofuel blending, as a policy, measure or instrument, had been “environmentally effective…in at least a number of national cases.”

They are now calling for the full basis for this claim in the SPM to be revealed, or for the claim to be withdrawn.

If they knew then what we know now, they wouldn’t have bothered.

This is how it appeared:

(click to enlarge)

Yvo de Boer illustrates what it would be like to stay on at the UN

Yvo de Boer, the UN official who oversaw four years of climate talks has suddenly quit his post. He claims disappointing Copenhagen outcome was unrelated to decision, but it doesn’t sound that way:

De Boer said that he was not quitting the key UN Framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) post because the Copenhagen climate talks in December were widely seen as a failure. “We were about an inch away from a formal agreement. It was basically in our grasp, but it didn’t happen. So that was a pity,” he said.

But he was known to have been frustrated by the outcome, and doubtful whether anyone could steer through a major global agreement between wildly diverging rich and poor countries. Today he said hat the talks were “on track,” but that he was uncertain that a full treaty could be finalised this year.

De Boer became known as “the crying Dutchman” after he broke down in tears at the end of the Bali UN climate conference in 2006. But is the world’s most experienced climate change negotiator and the UN faces a difficult task finding a replacement at this late stage in what have been called the most complex negotiations that have been attempted under the UN system.

Bye, bye. Now, who next?

It looks like we now have the evidence of a full-blown Scandinaviagate to further crush the credibility of the crooks that run the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Climate skeptic blogger Frank Lansner at Hide the Decline (EU) has done an excellent job in bringing to our attention the analysis of Swedish scientist and skeptic, Dr. Wibjorn Karlen from Stockholm University, who has studied the Scandinavian temperature records between 1900 and 2000.

Dr. Karlén has debunked the fraud of the IPCC for falsifying the temperature of the Scandinavian region at the end of the 20th century to make them appear a staggerring 0.7 Degree Centigrade higher than actually existed.

In fact, the peak in temperatures for this cold northern European territory occurred not in recent years, but between 1930-50. After compiling data from all the available data sources in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden Karlén found that:

“The very significant temperature peak around 1930-40 has been reduced almost removed totally.”

In the left hand graph Karlen shows a plot of 25 data series from the NordKlim database.

On the right graph we see the IPCC´s temperature spread for the area–it wholly fails to show the actual cooling that occurred in Scandinavnia from 1940-1980. Is this yet another example of IPCC’s attempt to hide the decline?

Dr. Karlen is professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University. He is famous for critiquing the Associated Press for hyping climate fears in 2007 and was also named in a 2007 minority report of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as one of 400 “prominent scientists” who were said to dispute global warming.

Dr. Karlen proves that it is not only Scandinavian ground temperatures that have become cooler in recent times. He shows us that ocean temperatures indicated from Iceland, Jan Mayen and Faroe Islands actually shows a clear pattern of lower temperatures at the turn of this century than in the decade 1930-40.

His conclusion: “Still no sign of global warming in Scandinavia.”

Our conclusion: time to kill off the IPCC and finally bury the great global warming con.

Source: Hide The Decline EU

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his services free to the site and is not a site employee. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.