28 Jul

Audit exposes fake science of climate change

Rodney Hide:

Breaking news: the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits assessments nonsense.

That’s not quite true. The IPCC made the admission but it wasn’t breaking news. In fact, it wasn’t news at all.

A kind reader alerted me to the admission.

It goes like this. Schoolboy errors in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment were widely publicised in 2010. The UN Secretary General and the IPCC chair responded asking the InterAcademy Council (IAC) to undertake an independent review of IPCC “processes and procedures.” Last month, the IPCC announced that it had implemented “a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council.” That is, the IPCC accepted the IAC’s findings.

That’s the admission.

Here is what the IAC found. “The IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and no “transparent author-selection process or well-defined criteria for author selection” (P15).

It’s mates choosing mates. And the most important thing is for authors to believe the human-induced global warming nonsense before they start.

The information used in “IPCC assessments often appears in the so-called “grey literature,” which includes model output produced by government agencies, international organisations, universities, research centres, nongovernmental organisations, corporations, professional societies and other groups. The extent to which such information has been peer-reviewed varies a great deal, as does its quality” (P16).

So much for the constant refrain from IPCC whooper-uppers that it’s all peered-reviewed and top notch science. It’s nothing of the sort.

Indeed, “Many of the conclusions in the ‘Current Knowledge About Future Impacts’ section of the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers are based on unpublished or non-peer-reviewed literature” (P34).

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

5 Responses to Audit exposes fake science of climate change

  1. mathman says: 1

    There is a saying in computer science. “Garbage in, garbage out.”
    In other words, the computer does not care about the validity of the input. The computer takes whatever you put in and does its computations accordingly. The computer cannot detect the thumb on the scale.
    This was true in 1939; it is still true today.
    Famous lawsuit (1980s): Visicalc was sued because it was used to prepare a contract proposal. The user forgot to put in the profit margin; the quote was the actual cost. The contractor had to take a bath, and sued. The courts ruled that the program had properly computed its quote, based on the input data.
    So the nitwits diddled with the numbers “hide the decline” and came up with an eek! eek! eek! prediction.
    Hasn’t come true.
    Will not come true.
    Go visit Anthony Watts’ blog site for more details.

    ReplyReply
  2. Randy says: 2

    But I bet it is true on Venus! The whole reason there are skeptics of AGW is the data is not scientificly produced. There are too many inconsisticies. In place of proof, there are loud words, published documents in non-peer reviewed papers and finger pointing to those who disagree. Computer print outs are suppose to show proof, but are only hypothesis. If only one of these AGW scientists fraussters could proof only one part of their AGW theory, there would be considerable support for thier theories. There isn’t and all of us are paying higher taxes to solve a non problem. Maybe we should all sue them when they finally admit they were wrong. After all, they have our tax dollars. Look at James Hanson. He is a multi-millionaire!

    ReplyReply
  3. Greg says: 3

    @Randy, #2:

    “If only one of these AGW scientists fraudsters could proof only one part of their AGW theory, there would be considerable support for their theories.”

    How do you define considerable support?

    From Skeptical Science:

    That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

    The results presented by the Global Warming Petition Project are very misleading.

    Consider the Qualifications of the Signers page.

    Of the 31,487 American scientists who have signed the petition, only 494 have a background in Atmospheric Science, Climatology, or Meteorology.

    That’s a bit over 1.5 percent.

    So, of the experts in the field, you’ve got 95 percent who believe that human activity is contributing to global warming.

    Of the scientists who disagree, only 1.5 percent are actively involved in climate research.

    ReplyReply
  4. Randy says: 4

    Theories Greg is not proof. Believing is not proof. Only scientific proof is proof. Show me one scientific study that shows CO2 is causing AGW. If not, Greg, you may want to move on to something you know about. Not sure what that could be!

    ReplyReply
  5. Common Sense says: 5

    @Randy: Randy, trying to get Greg to sober up from the Kool Aid is a wasted effort. He is a died in the wool wacho liberal that has been totally blinded with liberalism and refuses to accept the truth. If you corner him he will change the subject to escape. If he has to he will play the blame Bush card.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site