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.
Continue reading ‘The UN climate change numbers hoax’ over at OLO.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So Nigel Calder was right, we are simply being lied to, (Swindle Movie).
As I’ve often pointed out, climate science has been hijacked for political purposes, much as geology was in the early 19th century by Lyell and the Whigs.
It never was a science thing, but a smokescreen for another agenda – and tomorrow we shall find out.
New from Roy:
weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm
====================================
That’s what I like about this place, you never know what you’ll read next. Like a data analyst with a sense of humour.
I could be wrong here, but if a reviewer has no comment to make, then they just don’t make a comment, because there is no need to.
Is there any chance to sue these swindlers for fraud? Thousands today are dying due to the food crisis brought on by bio-fuels and higher energy prices.
From the link:
“That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely.
Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.”
Actually I agree. Why not make McIntyre the head author of the next report just for the entertainment value it would be. Let him run around compiling all the reports. I am sure that the present scientists, that gave years of work and missed time with their families would appreciate the rest.
AR5 this way could turn out the funniest document of the century. You could even have ads in it. “AR5 brought to you by the Coal Coalition – CO2 we call it life”. I think there is a huge opportunity going missing here – seriously.
Can’t wait for the reference list for McIntyre’s AR5 at least it would be nice and short.
“I am sure that the present scientists, that gave years of work and missed time with their families would appreciate the rest.”
Just for the record – is there a single one of them that has complained about this? Visiting the top tourist spots of the world (Rio, Bali, Paris, Bangkok, etc)? Expenses-paid junkets at the taxpayers’ expense? Nobel Prize — etc etc.
Keep smoking ’em.
“AR5 this way could turn out the funniest document of the century.”
Even funnier than AR4? Undoubtedly it will be, and it won’t need any help from any outsiders.
pierre, any different to when thousands were dying when food was cheap and ethanol in it’s infancy? What was the excuse then.
rojo — so what are you saying here? Because a lot of people were starving before, what does it matter if a few more insignificant people starve so that we can have fuel in our cars? Charming.
So now it seems SJT is claiming that all non-comments are votes in favour? How quaint, our very own Mugabeite. And as usual, Ender just wanders off into an imaginary world of his own.
Come on dudes, the facts appear fully capable of establishing fraudulent misrepresention by the IPCC and criminal conspiracy by the IPCC Editors. Either present additional information that might explain/excuse these actions or accept that the IPCC is wrong.
“Why not make McIntyre the head author of the next report just for the entertainment value it would be. Let him run around compiling all the reports. I am sure that the present scientists, that gave years of work and missed time with their families would appreciate the rest.”
Straw men and puerile sarcasm in abundance – no fact stops your verbal diarrhoea, does it mate ? You have a planet to save
The IPCC has released this data. The journalistic summary, although written with some usual meeja bombast, is reasonably accurate. It’s simply not a surprise, is all.
A good story, but why now, when the article is a reprint in full from Canadian Free Press on December 14, 2007? If OLO feels it important to say it again, shouldn’t they say why? And if this blog feels it is important to say it again, shouldn’t it say why?
Brian,
I don’t think that I have seen this issue addressed in the main stream media, have you?
And it appears to me that the various national governments, including the Rudd government, are hurtling headlong along their path in the apparently sincere belief that what the IPCC has told them is actually true.
Seems to me that the more airtime this issue gets, the better.
Ian Mott – “Come on dudes, the facts appear fully capable of establishing fraudulent misrepresention by the IPCC and criminal conspiracy by the IPCC Editors. Either present additional information that might explain/excuse these actions or accept that the IPCC is wrong.”
So counting the number of scientists that took part in the IPCC report is more important than its content? You people must really be getting desperate. Have you taken a step backward and see how you sound.
How does the number of scientists affect the science within? Has anyone counted the number of scientists in the references to the peer reviewed work that made up the IPCC report?
So your science is about counting now – whats the matter is the real science just too hard and this is something you all understand?
ender; you are really being disengenuous; the consensus concept, as an advance form of ad hominem, has been shovelled at the apostates since Oreskes came out with her groundbreaking ‘survey’; which as someone once said, wasn’t worth the paper it was written on ( it was on the web, so it wasn’t written on paper, get it, mmm); this revelation is more than throwing back at AGW its spurious arguments, it is also revealing, once again, the lack of transparency, elitism and corruption in the AGW camp; regardless of the ‘science’, the politic behind AGW is vile.
cohenite – “it is also revealing, once again, the lack of transparency, elitism and corruption in the AGW camp; regardless of the ‘science’, the politic behind AGW is vile.”
So this a pathetic attempt to justify the graft and corruption behind the anti AGW movements by attempting to show that the IPCC is as bad?
Also the IPCC does not do the science it just summerises what the current thinking in climate science is.
I was being perfectly serious in my first comment. If you people think you can do a better job of summerising the current research then put your hands up and do the job or shut up.
“If you people think you can do a better job of summerising the current research then put your hands up and do the job or shut up.”
Easy – the summary would be:
“It’s all bull$shit. Carry on as before.”
Let me know who to send my invoice to.
“So counting the number of scientists that took part in the IPCC report is more important than its content?”
Like you said the IPCC doesnt do science, it just assesses, arrives at a position and then proclaims a consensus, when there isnt one.
If the IPCC was ethical it wouldnt be making claims it cannot suppport
As to the content, well the documents dont support the main contentions,(made in the summary documents) either. So its not only numbers, but substance as well.
Brian, I asked the same question as to why On Line Opinion was carrying a 6 month old story. Apparently we found out late in the day, so my editor was already more or less committed to it. However, thinking about it a little longer, like Mondo, I hadn’t seen it covered in Australia so it went up.
It’s sparked some fireworks and Clive Hamilton has submitted a piece which we will publish later this week, to which I will reply. He thinks it represents the “demise” of On Line Opinion. I beg to differ.
Ah yes, misery-guts Clive Hamilton; he’s always been a fan of transparency and the rights of the hoi poloi; give him heaps Mr Young.
Ender,
“Summerising”?
Nobody could a better job of “summerising” than the IPCC.
Ivan,
I think you hit the nail on the head!
Will someone explain to poor old Ender that it was the IPCC that started the numbers game with their specific mention of 2500 scientists. And the facts now become clear that most of those 2500 didn’t do ANY job at all so it would not be a very big ask to do a “better job” as he demands of us.
Get back under the rock, Ender, the slime moulds are getting lonely.
30000 real scientists agree IPCC is wrong. perhaps penny wrong should stick to law…