When any public organisation is exposed as being incompetent and deceptive, thereby destroying any semblance of credibility, it needs to be disbanded.
The discredited United Nations IPCC has produced another of it’s alarmist global warming report, the difference this time is, who cares, and who is listening, it has an increasingly sceptical public. The lack of attention in this latest report is a symptom of the lack of belief in the IPCC, which is being shown to be no more than a sham.
We knew the IPCC would lose its credibility, as it was making it’s reports from a fabric of lies. It will be eventually ignored if it continues to make statements and then manufacture the report to justify the statement.
In 2005, US Senator Inhofe, sent a letter to IPCC Chair Dr. Pachauri that contained several suggestions on how the IPCC could reform its flawed peer-review process. Yet as Reuters reported, Pachauri refused even to acknowledge his concerns: ‘In the one-page letter, [Pachauri] denies the IPCC has an alarmist bias and says “I have a deep commitment to the integrity and objectivity of the IPCC process.” Pachauri’s main argument is that the IPCC comprises both scientists and more than 130 governments who approve IPCC reports line by line. That helps ensure fairness, he says.’
“In the aftermath of the Climategate scandal, when over one hundred errors in the IPCC science were revealed, Senator Inhofe was proven right, so much so that even the mainstream media began to call for reforms at the IPCC. Today, the consequences are clear: as the discredited IPCC releases its latest report, very few people have even noticed.
Many of the Alarmists today try to link today’s weather patterns as severe weather events, and an example of Climate Change, these attempts by the left, I say nice try, but no cigar. This effort will fail as miserably as all their previous endeavours to promote fear and scare the public into action. This is indicative of the nature of the IPCC as can be witnessed in these statements:
“We need to get some broad based support to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data.
We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame, climate modeller, Oxford University
I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore, Climate Change activist
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
– David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth
If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
– Judi Bari, principal organiser of Earth First!
In addition to not being able meet anything close to the standards for evidence in a law court the models and the modelling process do not meet the standards of science as understood from philosophers such as Popper.
Dennis Nikols, P. Geo. Says
“The American people may not care about today’s IPCC Summary for Policymakers, but they do care that policy decisions are based on sound science – and the IPCC has clearly shown that science is secondary, even non-essential to their primary goal of pushing a political agenda. The American people also care about the $300 to $400 billion annual price tag of EPA’s forthcoming greenhouse gas regulations, which are based on the endangerment finding – whose foundation is the flawed IPCC science – and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost from these destructive policies.”
Crisis of Confidence in the IPCC
August 31, 2010 in the Financial Times – Time for a change in climate research:
“Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the widest possible range of scientific views.”
January 28, 2010 ABC News Can Climate Forecasts Still Be Trusted?
Confidence Melting Away: Doubters Grow in Climate Change Debate: But other climatologists are calling for consequences. They insist that IPCC Chairman and Nobel laureate Rajendra Pachauri is no longer acceptable as head of the panel, particularly because of his personal involvement in the affair. “Pachauri should resign, so as to avert further damage to the IPCC,” says German climatologist Hans von Storch. “He used the argument of the supposed threat to the Himalayan glacier in his personal efforts to raise funds for research.” Storch claims that the Indian-born scientist did not order the retraction of the erroneous prediction until it had generated considerable public pressure.
February 8, 2010 New York Times Article Sceptics Find Fault With U.N. Climate Panel: U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege:
“Just over two years ago, Rajendra K. Pachauri seemed destined for a scientist’s version of sainthood: A vegetarian economist-engineer who leads the United Nations’ climate change panel, he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the panel, sharing the honour with former Vice President Al Gore. But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate sceptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists.”
February 15, 2010 Washington Post Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda:
“But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes—including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level—give doubters an opening.”
February 17, 2010 New York Times Editorial “With Stakes This High”:
Given the stakes, the panel cannot allow more missteps and, at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its deliberations more transparent. The panel’s chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, an Indian engineer, also is under fire for taking consulting fees from business interests. Mr. Pachauri says he does not profit personally and channels the fees to a non profit research centre he runs in New Delhi. Yet as the person most responsible for the panel’s integrity, he cannot afford even the appearance of a conflict of interest. All this follows last November’s uproar over leaked e-mail messages that, while they had nothing to do with the panel’s reports, portrayed climate scientists as thin-skinned and fully capable of stifling competing views. The controversy over the 2007 report has been stoked by charges of poor sourcing and alarmist forecasts, prominently a prediction – in a 938-page working paper – that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. This was clearly an exaggeration, though it was not included in the final report. An overblown warning of crop failures in North Africa made it into the final report.
January 20, 2010 Seth Borenstein Associated Press UN climate report riddled with errors on glaciers:
Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world’s most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful. The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 – hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.
January 21, 2010 Time magazine Himalayan Melting: How a Climate Panel Got It Wrong:
‘Glaciergate’ is a “black eye for the IPCC and for the climate-science community as a whole.”
the great Himalayan glacier melting hoax. According to the IPCC, these glaciers could disappear by 2035. The alarmists went wild stating it was almost too late to save the world. They ignored the fact that this claim was never made by the scientist it was attributed to, although it was used by the chairman of the IPCC to justify a massive research grant to his own organisation.
January 21, 2010 Newsweek, The Economist Off-base camp – A mistaken claim about glaciers raises questions about the UN’s climate panel:
“This mixture of sloppiness, lack of communication, and high-handedness gives the IPCC’s critics a lot to work with.”
There are the “climate experts” who have withheld information, been “creative” in their presentation and tried to shut down any dissent. Some of these are IPCC contributors whose methods are now subject to parliamentary and potential criminal investigation.
Isn’t enough is enough. It’s time for the increasingly discredited IPCC to be replaced by a competent, clinical and dispassionate assessment of the facts surrounding climate change rather than the left-wing extreme environmental agenda the IPCC has pushed for the past decade.
Once this occurs we will need to look at this government and the false claims and the hiding of the truth from the public, when they were pushing ahead with the Carbon Tax, which Australians did not want, they tried using corrupt science to justify their claims, however, we had Climate scientists able to shoot these arguments down with facts, then the Government made a blanket statement saying the science is settled, and they will not argue the science. True to their words they have ignored the science ever since.
Only a Government that knows the science is flawed would make this move, because to be fair Climate Change is very much in the realm of science, and I believe it will be established the Earth is controlled by the planetary and solar influences on this planet.