Posted on 12/14/2007 8:43:59 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
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...
For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released...
A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter...
Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments...
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
GREAT POST!!!
THANK YOU!!
cool - maybe in a few years they’ll be adding “freeping” to Websters dictionary!
“Did you notice the “Freep This” button on the web-page? “
Did you notice it is TOP of the LIST?
Yeahhhhhh!
But what does Oprah believe?
I believe that the comments probably fall into three main categories.
1. Minor quibbles. In the interest of time, most of these were probably ignored.
2. Incorrect statements. Hopefully, most of these were identified as such and quickly disregarded. Some of the "disregardments" might have sounded banal.
3. Actual substantive comments. I hope that they made changes when they received such comments.
Beyond that, what can I say?
By the way, the three names in the article — Gray, McKitrick, and Ball — are pretty prominent skeptics. Is there a bias in this blog, possibly?
The conclusion that global warming is anthrogenic has been accepted by the national academies of science of all the major industrialized countries, as well as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy see footnotes 13-20.
If that is not “the smallest little bit of proof to you” that a consensus exists—OK, you’re certainly entitled to an opinion.
As to me being a mental midget with my head up my ass, for keeping an open mind, and being concerned about what may be happening to the climate, I guess you are entitled to that opinion to.
Your post, bereft of anything constructive, and abusive in its tone, reminds me of something you might see on DU. Don’t you see the irony of complaining about how climate skeptics are shouted down or marginalized, only to belittle me for having a view which differs from your own?
Sadly, I must agree. Over the years, after having seen some examples of their deceptive, sloppy or just plain ignorance up close and personal when I knew the story they were reporting intimately, I have come to disbelieve nearly every thing I hear or see in the media unless I can somehow verify it independently. IMHO, they are not always wrong, but they are wrong more often than right.
Bottom line. They can not be trusted.
Ha ha. Sometimes I do feel like we’re in a real live version of Groundhog Day.
But this is the first time I’ve seen details on the makeup of the ‘consensus’ that supposedly supports the IPCC report. I’ve been wondering why that hasn’t been disclosed, and it’s because the IPCC knows there is none.
The only thing the Bali Communique said was that the industrialized nations should take the lead. Do you seriously think a status quo where Americans and Canadians emit 10x the per capita GHGs of the Chinese is fair? I mean we can have cars, and dishwashers and air conditioners—but they can’t? Of course they must participate, but it makes sense for us to take the lead.
Are you more concerned with “fairness” or with results?
If China, India, and others are exempted — will any actual reduction of “greenhouse” gases result? (Greenhouse is in quotes, because an atmosphere is only very roughly analogous with a glass-covered building.)
What about the problem of aerosols generated by Chinese coal plants? The west drastically reduced aerosol emissions over 20 years ago, at great cost. Dirty brown smoke from China continues to circulate the globe. This is the stuff we used to call “air pollution” — does it make it easier to breath because it comes from China. Does it’s origin somehow make it “fair”?
If massive amounts of money are diverted from productive nations to third-world basket cases, will the world be a better place? Or is it more likely that the money will disappear into a morass of corruption and incompetence?
If the objective is to help less developed countries, is the Bali solution the best available?
Melstew,
Sorry but citing an entry on Wikipedia as “evidence” is pretty laughable. Even if that article is 100% accurate in it’s representations (haven’t bothered to fact-check it myself) ..... given the nature of how Wikipedia articles are written/edited.... you may as well cite a Magic 8 Ball.
It can be usefull occasionaly on non-controversial topics, but that is about it. On anything even slightly controversial it’s about 50/50 whether you get fact or outright fabrication.
Furthermore, the fact that certain Academies and Associations which purport to represent scientists have adopted specific policy positions doesn’t say very much about consensus among scientists themselves. We would have to know alot more about the internal working of those institutions, thier memberships.... and the nitty gritty of how those policy statements are determined to be able to speak to that point.
“Do you seriously think a status quo where Americans and Canadians emit 10x the per capita GHGs of the Chinese is fair? I mean we can have cars, and dishwashers and air conditioners—but they can’t?”
1) Since when is science supposed to be about “fairness”?
Natural Selection isn’t exactly very fair either... does that mean we get to ignore it?
Its simple, either a solution will achieve the desired results or it won’t. Regulating industrialized nations while ignoring developing ones won’t do anything to reduce the over-all level of GHG’s produced... it’ll just simply shift where they get produced (from regulated to unregulated environments).... because it will be FAR CHEAPER for the producers to shift where they produce the GHG (or better yet, simply buy “Carbon Credits” from undeveloped nations) then to actualy reduce thier production of GHG..... the diplomats at the UN know this... which is the REAL political impetus for GW policies at the UN... not any legitimate concern about climate change. Under-developed nations see this as an opportunity for major increase in income (particulary for the diplomatic/governing class of those nations) with little need for real political reforms or investments in infrastructure that would spur genuine economic growth in those countries.
While we are on the subject of fairness. What is fair about this scenerio.... 5 people on one side of a river have 5 acres of land to farm, it support them suffeciently.... they pass on that land to thier 5 children who it also sustains..... 5 people on the other side of the river have 5 acres of land to farm which supports them sufficiently.... they pass that land along to the 50 children they have... who turn around and complain that the land along the river is not “fairly” distributed.
Good post. I am interested in achieving results—but am prepared to be fair in doing so. The developing nations problem is thorny to say the least. They must be part of the solution or there will be no solution. My point was that (if you believe there is a potential problem) the Bali reference to the industrialized nations “making the greatest effort” does not seem so out of line. I mean, if my neighbor diverts 10,0000 gallons from the river and I divert 1000 gallons, and the river was running dry, I would expect him to make a “greater effort.” Similiar problems exist with us needing Idonesia and Brazil to preserve the rainforests as carbon sinks. Aerosols are a different issue. I would agree that China’s pollution and Asian dust are very serious concerns. As long as we don’t emit more than them on a per capita basis, I do not feel hypocritical demanding that they do something about it.
Solutions involving multiple solvers should be fair. Otherwise, its hard to get solutions. I never said science was fair.
I don’t believe in Kyoto, and I agree that there can be no solutions without participation of developing nations—so don’t hand me those tar babies.
I made two points, there is a danger to allowing justified distrust of Gore, the UN and the media, push us in to a corner where we only embrace one side of the science. And, the Bali refenence to the Industrialized nations doing more, doesn’t seem so out of line. See...nothing there about science being fair, or joining Kyoto, or giving away our sovereignty.
Whatever the media is backing, I’m backing away from it.
A sound litmus for this age of deception and ignorance.
I posted to Wikipedia link because it had many many citations on the conensus. But since you didn’t have time to look them up—here’s a copy of a letter from several national academies of science—including our own. I am sure you are familiar with the membership of the National Academy of Science. Their opinion on something does not make it so. Indeed, I strongly support your right to reach your own conclusions. But you are lying to yourself if you don’t except there is a consensus on this issue.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.