Source: Wattsup

Source:  The Global Warming Policy Foundation

CCNet – 3 November 2011

The Climate Policy Network

 New Research Reveals IPCC In Bed With Green Lobbies

A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. –Perry Chiaramonte, Fox News, 2 November 2011 (more…)

Source: Climate, Etc.

by Judith Curry

The consensus on anthropogenic climate change provided by the IPCC is the source of much controversy.  Central to the controversy is the meaning and implications of “consensus,” in both scientific and sociological contexts.

Some important insights on this issue are provided by this paper on The authority of the IPCC and the manufacture of consensus by Jean Goodwin at Iowa State University.  Some excerpts are provided below:

Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the IPCC has managed to establish as a political “given” that the earth is warming, and that human activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration’s shift from statements like this:

We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it. (more…)

Source:  Canadian Free Press

by Tim Ball and John McLean

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’. But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”.  The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny. (more…)

Source:  Scientific American

by Michael D. Lemonick

In trying to understand the Judith Curry phenomenon, it is tempting to default to one of two comfortable and familiar story lines.

CRITIC: Judith Curry has traded harsh words with many of her colleagues in climate science

For most of her career, Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has been known for her work on hurricanes, Arctic ice dynamics and other climate-related topics. But over the past year or so she has become better known for something that annoys, even infuriates, many of her scientific colleagues. Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black­board. Along the way, she has come to question how climatologists react to those who question the science, no matter how well established it is. Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty. “Yes, there’s a lot of crankology out there,” Curry says. “But not all of it is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.” (more…)

Source:  Climate Change Fraud

by John O’Sullivan

A staggering new finding seems to mire the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in global warming scandal every bit as devastating as Climategate.

The news broke June 24, 2010 on a Czech climate skeptic blog, Klimaskeptik.cz, that calls the latest global warming scandal, “Judithgate.” (more…)

Source:  No Frakking Consensus

by Donna Laframboise

We read a lot of magazines in our house. Occasionally, an issue arrives in which nearly every article is engaging and (in the case of cooking magazines) every recipe sounds amazing. In short, the issue is a keeper.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had an experience like that. It was so impressed by one edition of the academic journal Climatic Change that it cited 16 of the 21 papers published that month. The journal editors should take a bow. When three-quarters of a single issue of your publication is relied on by a Nobel-winning report, you’re doing something right.

Except for one small problem. The issue in question – May 2007 – didn’t exist yet when the IPCC wrote its report. Moreover, none of the research papers eventually published in that issue had been finalized prior to the IPCC’s cutoff date. (more…)

Source: No Frakking Consensus

A printer-friendly PDF version of the Citizen Audit report I released last month is now available. It’s 30 pages in total, includes clickable links to supplemental online material, and at 500 kb isn’t too huge a file.

There’s also an easy-to-remember short URL for the online report:

The public has been systematically misled about the nature of the climate bible produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Citizen Audit, conducted by 40 people in 12 countries in five weeks, has exposed one of the biggest myths of all. (more…)

Source:  Istituto Bruno Leoni

The Italian Senate stands for climate realism. A motion passed on last Wednesday commits the Italian government to promote a sound discussion on climate policies with the European Union and the United Nations, with particular regard to the major changes that have occurred after the economic recession, the Climategate scandal, and the failure to reach a global deal in Copenhagen. In fact, the Senate asks both that the current commitments under the EU climate and energy package are re-negotiated, and that an independent investigation is started on the IPCC process. (more…)

Soure: FOX News. com

By Gene J. Koprowski

It may be time for the United Nations’ climate-studies scientists to go back to school.A group of 40 auditors — including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe — have released a shocking report card on the U.N.’s landmark climate-change research report.

And they gave 21 of the report’s 44 chapters a grade of “F.” (more…)

Source:  http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/press-release.php

Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.” (more…)

Source:  http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/03/almost-half-non-peer-reviewed.html

Despite protests from expert reviewers, 42% of the documents cited in one chapter of the climate bible are grey literature rather than peer-reviewed.

Economist Richard Tol has been taking another look at everyone’s favourite mega-document, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. In guest posts on blogs here and here, he argues that while one section of the report (produced by Working Group 2) “appears to have systematically overstated the negative impacts of climate change,” another section (written by Working Group 3) appears to have systematically understated the costs to society associated with emissions reduction.

Click image for larger version. From p. 7 of a Dec. 2009 document issued
by the US Environmental Protection Agency (39-page PDF here) (more…)

Source:  The American Interest

The Washington Post this morning has a strong story on the collapse of the movement to stop climate change through a binding treaty negotiated under UN auspices.  And even the normally taciturn New York Times is admitting that the resignation of the top UN climate change negotiator suggests that no global treaty will be coming this year.

Short summary:  the current iteration of the movement–with its particular political project and goals–is dead.  This will not be news to readers of this blog where the news was announced on February 1, but never mind.

Anyway, as the Post now belatedly acknowledges, the movement to stop climate change through a Really Big and Comprehensive Grand Global Treaty is dead because there is no political consensus in the US to go forward.  It’s dead because the UN process is toppling over from its own excessive ambition and complexity.  It’s dead because China and India are having second thoughts about even the smallish steps they put on the table back in Copenhagen.

Doornail dead. (more…)

Source:  Watts Up With That?

I’m honored to offer this guest post by Jerome Ravetz, of Oxford University in the UK. Mr. Ravetz is an environmental consultant and professor of philosophy of science best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity, discussing the science wars and post-normal science. Read more about him at his personal web page here, his Oxford page here, or at his blog the Post-normal Times. Also, my thanks to WUWT regular “tallbloke” for his facilitation. – Anthony

Guest post by Jerome Ravetz

At the end of January 2010 two distinguished scientific institutions shared headlines with Tony Blair over accusations of the dishonest and possibly illegal manipulation of information.  Our ‘Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035?  of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is matched by his ‘dodgy dossier’ of Saddam’s fictitious subversions.  We had the violations of the Freedom of Information Act at the University of East Anglia; he has the extraordinary 70-year gag rule on the David Kelly suicide file. There was ‘the debate is over’ on one side, and ‘WMD beyond doubt’ on the other. The parallels are significant and troubling, for on both sides they involve a betrayal of public trust. (more…)

Source:  SPPI

by Robert Ferguson

Peabody Energy has filed a petition [executive summary] with the EPA asking them to reconsider their findings that greenhouse gases released by human activities “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The Peabody Petition was filed in light of the massive evidence of the manipulation of the IPCC process—a processes highly prized by the EPA—which has been exposed by the Climategate emails.  The EPA conducted little-to-no assessment of their own into the science of climate change, but instead relied heavily on the work of the IPCC—work which the Petition shows, in no uncertain terms, is tainted and unreliable.

The full Petition is one of the strongest cases yet presented that the EPA’s reliance on the IPCC Assessment Reports is misplaced, scientifically as well legally. It includes an in-depth look at the behind-the-scenes manipulation that took place with such topics as the “hockeystick,” tree-ring divergence, the “trick,” the warm early Holocene, the Medieval Warm Period, the surface temperature record, Freedom on Information requests, scientific peer-review, journal contents, and many other topics.

Here is an excerpt (from the 200+ page Petition) that provides a general summary of the science problems: (more…)