Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Decline and Fall of the IPCC
· In mid-August, after repeated requests for such data under the Freedom of Information Act, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), one of the three international agencies that calculate global temperatures, announced that it discarded the raw data used to calculate global surface temperatures. The CRU action renders independent review and verification of the temperature trends
published by the CRU impossible – a clear violation of principles of science and
the Freedom of Information Act .
· In October, at the 2009 annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Dr. Don Easterbrook presented graphs demonstrating how tree ring data from Russia
showing a cooling after 1961 were truncated and artfully disguised in IPCC
publications. The artful deceit, so exposed, indicates that the IPCC Assessment
Report 4 (AR4) contains deceptions rendering the entire document scientifically
· In November, emails from the CRU were leaked to the public. These emails reveal
efforts to suppress independent studies that are contrary to IPCC conclusions of
human caused global warming. Thus, the IPCC scientific review process has a
systematic bias of an unknowable magnitude in favor of human induced warming.
· In mid-December, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) reported
that the Hadley Center for Climate Change of the British Meteorological Office
(Met Office) had probably tampered with Russian climate data and that the
Russian meteorological station data do not support human caused global warming.
The Met Office collaborates with the CRU in reporting global temperatures. The
reported global surface temperature trends are unreliable and probably have a
strong warming bias of an unknown magnitude.
· In January, Joe D’Aleo and E. Michael Smith reported that the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NCDC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) dropped many meteorological stations from their data bases in recent years. The dropped stations, many of which continue to make appropriate reports, are generally in colder climates. The actions by NOAA -NCDC and NASA-GISS make their
reported temperature trends unreliable and likely to have a strong warming bias
of an unknown magnitude. [NOAA-NCDC and NASA-GISS are the two other
organizations that report global surface temperatures.]
· Thus, all global surface temperatures and temperature trends announced by the three major reporting international organizations probably have a warming bias of an unknown magnitude rendering their announced temperatures and temperature trends scientifically unreliable.
· On January 23, 2010, the Sunday Times (London) reported that the AR4 wrongly linked natural disasters to global warming. AR4 claimed that global warming is causing increases in property losses. Yet the Sunday Times reported the actual published report upon which this claim was based actually stated: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses
· In January, Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the AR4’s chapter on Asia, stated that the report deliberately exaggerated the possible melt of the Himalayan glaciers. “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” This admission demonstrates that the AR4 is a political document and not a scientific one.
· This past week, additional reports reveal that IPCC’s claims that warming will cause extensive adverse effects in the Amazon rainforests and on coral reefs came not from peer reviewed science but from publications by environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. Thus, the IPCC pretense that it represents peer reviewed science is false.
On December 7, 2009, the EPA administrator made the determination that Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The EPA determination is based almost entirely on the reports of the IPCC. During the public hearing period, which closed on June 23, 2009, a number of scientists, including members of SEPP, testified that the IPCC reports are not the best science available; thus such a determination is scientifically flawed. At that time it was not clear the extent to which IPCC science had been compromised. The recent revelations demonstrate that the science upon which the EPA relies is hopelessly flawed.
I blew off the AGW hysteria as a hoax a long time ago. If you still believe - why?
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]