IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks
Marc Sheppard at American Thinker has posted this outstanding comprehensive piece on the state of climate science and the IPCC:
IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks
I highly recommend you read the entire piece and all of the linked supporting sources. I do want to highlight some of the article (italics are from the article):
The year was 1988, and Colorado Senator Tim Wirth had arranged for Hansen to testify on the subject before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to help sell the dire need to enact national environmental legislation. As Wirth has since admitted, he intentionally scheduled Hansen’s appearance on what was forecasted to be the hottest day of the hearings. And in a brilliantly underhanded marketing ploy, he and his cohorts actually snuck into the hearing room the night before and opened the windows, rendering the air conditioning all but useless.
Please note that Tim Wirth is still working on behalf of the U.S. promoting climate alarmism. Here’s a link to his Wikipedia page, which I’m sure William Connelley has properly sanitized. Nice to know we have a PR expert manipulator looking out for our best interests.
Back in 1989, future Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Working Group 2 (WG2) lead author Stephen Schneider disclosed several tricks of the trade to Discover magazine:
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
Boy, this sure sums things up. It’s OK to lie as long as you promote your own goals.
As previously discussed, it was in the same 2001 TAR that the IPCC suddenly and inexplicably scrapped its long-held position that global temperatures had fluctuated drastically over the previous millennium and replaced it with a chart depicting relatively flat temperatures prior to a sharp rise beginning in 1900. This, of course, removed the pesky higher-than-present-day temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period of 900-1300 AD, the existence of which obstructed the unprecedented-warming sales pitch.
Anyone who has been doing their own research on climate change, rather that believing the mainstream media, is already aware of this. For those that aren’t already educated, here’s the graphs. First up, the graph from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c:
- IPCC 1990 Figure 7c
Next up, the infamous, debunked “hockey stick” graph, with data tortured beyond belief (image from Wikipedia, also sanitized by alarmist William Connelley):
- Debunked hockey stick – hide the MWP
As you can see in the images, the climate “scientists” manipulated the data to show today is warmer than the past. See Climate Audit to educate your self on the details behind this manipulation of the data and science. To summarize, you can put garbage data into Michael Mann’s climate model and end up with a hockey stick.
And this, coupled with the disclosure of the Jones “hide the decline” e-mail, provided more evidence that MBH98 — and ergo unprecedented 20th-century warming — is a fraud.
Real Climate and other alarmists have claimed that “trick” refers to a mathematical technique. Sorry, but no. The trick was used to hide recent tree ring data because it doesn’t match current temperatures – the tree ring proxies go down when they should go up. They wanted to present a nice tidy story about how the past was cooler. The trick hides what is known as the divergence issue. It seems that tree ring growth doesn’t behave as expected in the last few decades (growth growth is down when temperatures are up), but then why do they think trees make good thermometers? Here’s a great summary of the “trick” from Climate Audit.
But one in his own ranks, Dr Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the chapter making the claim, had the astoundingly bad manners to admit that he knew all along that it did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. Apparently, so had Pachauri, who continued to lie about it for months so as not to sully the exalted AR4 immediately prior to Copenhagen.
So we know the IPCC lied about the Himalayan glaciers and exaggerated. But here’s what Dr. Lal said:
“It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”
It seems the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one.
It should be noted here that IPCC rules specifically disqualify all non-peer-reviewed primary sources.
The IPCC certainly didn’t follow this rule, as documentedvery nicely by Donna Laframboise in blog posts here, here, and here. The IPCC cited Greenpeace, WWF, student papers and climbing magazines.
For outside of the U.S., many news organizations and politicians already get it. Some are calling for Pachauri’s resignation, and others for a full investigationinto his possible financial conflicts of interest. There have also been demands for a complete reassessment of all IPCC reports, including a suggestion from the Financial Times that, given the IPCC’s central role in climate science,an independent auditor must be commissioned to look at all the claims in the 2007 report and remove any that were not soundly based.“
Where’s the U.S. mainstream media? Sadly, missing in action.
Read the full story in American Thinker. It’s well worth the time.
