IPCC And CRU Are The Same Corrupt Organization

Source:  Canada Free Press

by Tim Ball

Cost of the corruption of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is likely a trillion dollars already and there is no measure of the lives lost because of unnecessary reactions like biofuels affecting food supplies. Stories appear about the corruption at the IPCC and others about the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most people, including the media, don?t seem to realize the IPCC is the CRU. Some articles mention both but don?t make the connection. A recent article in the Globe and Mail is a good example.

The article is a small shift because the Globe has consistently promoted human caused warming and attacked skeptics. However, failure to make the connection allows people involved to develop defenses, withdraw from associations or go into hiding.

A Very Large Cast

Universities and governments are already whitewashing the behavior of prominent individuals like Phil Jones and Michael Mann. Nobody else involved with the scandal is facing even biased internal investigation. Many are not mentioned in the limited media reports on the scandal. People like Mike Hulme, Tom Wigley, Benjamin Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Raymond Bradley, John Holdren, Jonathan Overpeck, Caspar Amman, Michael Oppenheimer, Tom Crowley, Gavin Schmidt, William Connolley, Tim Osborn, Thomas Karl, Andrew Weaver, Eric Steig, and all names on the CRU emails require investigation. They had to know what was going on, partly because they all used the same vehicles of attack and deception. By investigating only two individuals the collective culpability of the CRU and the IPCC goes unchallenged. Investigation of two individuals underscores the false claim there are one or two ?bad apples? but the overall science is unaffected. The IPCC received a Nobel Prize collectively; they must bear the blame collectively.

There are also those in government who acted in extremely questionable ways. Chief among these are members of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) including John Mitchell. He was review editor of the IPCC and initially denied access to information then claimed it was erased. The UKMO later said the information existed but said it was protected information. The Telegraph newspaper said of this, Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office?s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.

What was the role of government officials who selected their country?s representatives to prevent skeptics participating. Such was apparently the case in Canada, the UK and likely the US. UK Science advisor John Beddington has already said failure to include skeptics was a mistake. ?I don?t think it?s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can?t be changed.? The problem is exacerbated when it is still an active policy of government. Work for the next IPCC Report is underway and there?s no apparent change in participants or procedures. CRU people were involved from the start and triggered the first problems

Corruption From the Start

After the IPCC was formed at Villach Austria in 1988 work began on the first Report that appeared in 1990. This report is no longer available on the IPCC website. It included Figure 7.1c the diagram of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that challenged the CRU claim the 20th century was the warmest ever. (Figure 1). This led to the first major corruption as they rewrote the historic record by creating the hockey stick.

image

Figure 1: The controversial Figure 7.1c in IPCC 1990 Report

There is extensive discussion of the origin of the diagram in a January 5, 2007 email from Phil Jones, disgraced Director of the CRU and Wikipedia exploiter William Connolley. As Jones says, I?ve added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can definitively determine where the figure in the subject title comes from. The background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I?d like to prove that it is a schematic and it isn?t based on real data, but on presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s. If you think it is based on something real. What we?d like to do is show this either on ?Real Climate? or as background in a future paper, or both. The diagram contradicted the hockey stick graph in the 2001 Report so proving it was not valid strengthened the case. At the same time they undermined the credibility of Soon and Baliunas who proved existence of the MWP in a multitude of other records.

The first public exposure was dubbed the Chapter 8 scandal and involved Benjamin Santer. He was lead author of that chapter and rewrote portions without consulting other authors. As Lord Monckton explains,  ?In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature ? I?ve seen a copy of this ? Santer went through, crossed out all of those, and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.? Santer originally denied the accusations and said his actions were covered by the rules that required the Scientific Report agree with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). It was an early measure of the way the CRU people used the rules to control the results. They even stared down a senior US scientist Dr Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences over the issue.

CRU control increased in degree and extent. It became arrogant and bullying so they believed they could control all aspects. They accepted as fact the unproven hypothesis that increasing human CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a runaway global temperature. With the help of bureaucrats they ensured exclusion of skeptics. They falsified the weather record of stations and used a reduced number to prove their claims. Phil Jones refused to disclose how he calculated the increase of 0.6°C since the end of the 19th century. This with the hockey stick was pivotal in the claim for human causes in the 2001 IPCC Report. Jones still fails to disclose the information. They built models with inadequate data and programmed them to produce the results they wanted. They left out major parts of the natural system of climate effectively ignoring the Sun, water vapor, and geothermal heat among others. They controlled published literature, the peer review process, and what was included in the Reports. They controlled and falsified the world?s view of climate change by deliberately releasing the Summary For Policymakers (SPM) with all its exaggerations and limitations. That the factual Technical Reports were required to agree with the political SPM indicates deliberate deception.

The Cost Is Enormous

The CRU is the IPCC. Their work has cost the world an enormous amount of grief, conflict and money. It is time to total the massive amounts of money given to narrowly directed research; the cost of the impact on energy policy and economies; the lost jobs and opportunities from industries forced out of business; the unnecessary subsidies to research and businesses chasing unworkable alternate energies; the taxes and legislative restrictions on businesses and other activities. They provided the false vehicle to carry left wing policies of tax and total control followed by President Obama. Their deception has set world progress back at massive cost and it is time they are all held accountable.