Posts Tagged ‘IPCC Procedures’

Oversensitive: How The IPCC Hid The Good News On Global Warming

Friday, March 7th, 2014

Source: GWPF

Chart by Dr. John Christy

Chart by Dr. John Christy

A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating.

The clues for this and the relevant scientific papers are all referred to in the recently published Fifth Assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

However, this important conclusion was not drawn in the full IPCC report – it is only mentioned as a possibility – and is ignored in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM). (more…)

The IPCC: Looking 95% Foolish

Wednesday, October 30th, 2013

Source:  No Frakking Consensusdonna

by Donna Laframboise

As the gap between its models and reality has grown, the IPCC has become more adamant that its conclusions are correct – rather than more cautious.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims to be a rational, scientific body. But when scientists worthy of the name are wrong, they admit it. The IPCC does the opposite.

Once you peel multiple layers off the global warming onion, you’re left with computer models. According to these models, the small amount of warming that results when humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere is supposed to be amplified by other factors. It isn’t the CO2 itself but this amplification that the IPCC believes will lead to dramatic rises in temperature and dangerous consequences. (more…)

IPCC Zero Order Draft files found and put back online

Monday, January 2nd, 2012

Source: Wattsup

Galloping Camel writes: The IPCC issued its fourth assessment report (AR4) in 2007, updated for the Copenhagen conference in 2009. This report raised a fire storm of criticism which elicited only a feeble response. As a result the IPCC’s credibility has been seriously damaged. Will the new “AR5? report correct the faults of its predecessors?

On December 12, 2011 documents purporting to be the “Zero Order Draft” of the WG1 (Working Group 1) committee was published on the Internet. Less than 48 hours later the site went dead. Fortunately, most of the files were recoverable.

If you have any of the missing files, please send a copy to info@gallopingcamel.info (more…)

New Research Reveals IPCC In Bed With Green Lobbies

Thursday, November 3rd, 2011

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…)

Manufacturing(?) AGW Consensus

Sunday, July 17th, 2011

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…)

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

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…)

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues

Monday, October 25th, 2010

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…)

New Global Warming Scandal: ‘Consensus’ on Sun is One Expert

Saturday, June 26th, 2010

Source:  Climate Change Fraud

by John O’Sullivan

sun_endless

New global warming data fraud scandal seems to show a faked ‘consensus’ of the impact of solar forcing on Earth’s climate based on one finding.

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…)

IPCC Cites an Unpublished Journal 39 Times

Friday, May 14th, 2010

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…)

Citizen Audit Report on IPPC 4th Report

Friday, May 14th, 2010

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.

DOWNLOAD IT HERE

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

TinyUrl.com/CitizenAudit
(not case sensitive)

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…)

Italian Senate Calls For Re-Assessment Of Climate Policy, IPCC Science

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Source:  Istituto Bruno Leoni

by Carlo Stagnaro, 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…)

Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an ‘F’

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

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…)

UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 “F”s on Report Card

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

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

TORONTO — 21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card released today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,500 sources cited in the report – finding 5,600 to be not peer-reviewed.

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…)

IPCC Sources: Almost Half Non-Peer-Reviewed

Friday, March 5th, 2010

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…)

How Al Gore Wrecked Planet Earth

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

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…)

  • pyaemia