The IPCC is a single-interest organisation, whose charter presumes a widespread human influence on climate, rather than consideration of whether such influence may be negligible or missing altogether. Though the IPCC’s principles also state that a wide range of views is to be sought when selecting lead authors and contributing authors, this rule has been honored more in the breach than in the observance.
More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other’s work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence on climate significant enough to be damaging to the planet were unrepresented in the authorship of chapter 9. Many of the IPCC authors were climate modelers – or associated with laboratories committed to modeling – unwilling to admit that their models are neither accurate nor complete. Still less do they recognize or admit that modeling a chaotic object whose initial state and evolutionary processes are not known to a sufficient precision has a validation skill not significantly different from zero. In short, it cannot be done and has long been proven impossible. The modelers say that the “consensus” among their models is significant: but it is an artifact of ex-post-facto tuning to replicate historical temperatures, of repeated intercomparison studies, and of the authors’ shared belief in the unrealistically high estimate of climate sensitivity upon which all of the models assume.
The hypothesis of damaging, man-made warming is a long way from being proven – and, given the recent trend in the peer-reviewed literature, is well on the way to being disproven. Recent cooling of the planet further suggests that man-made warming is at best too weak to be detected in the “noise” of natural internal variability.
Governments have naively and unwisely accepted the claims of a human influence on global temperatures made by a close-knit clique of a few dozen scientists, many of them climate modellers, as if such claims were representative of the opinion of the wider scientific community. On the evidence presented here, the IPCC’s selection of its chapter authors appears so prejudiced towards a predetermined outcome that it renders its scientific assessment of the climate suspect and its conclusions inappropriate for policy making.
Continue reading: Prejudiced authors, Prejudiced findings – Did the UN bias its attribution of “global warming” to
humankind? by John McLean
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I linked to that .pdf in another thread but no one was interested.
It’s like saying the Australian Armed forces during WWII existed purely for the purpose defeating Germany using force of arms. Of course they did.
The IPCC was created due to the results of scientific research. What where they supposed to do? Create a body that existed soley to question the reason it exists?
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=1
So, Sjt, what is the difference between the Japanese Imperial army poised to invade Darwin and Brisbane and AGW fear mongering by fat bureaucrats whose gravy train is beholden to prophecies of fear and loathing?
The ADF’s existence did not depend solely on the Japanese or German threat, nor was the Axis a post-modern figment, ie dependent upon a relativistic narrative for validity. WWII was bloody in your face reality, as in bombs falling and people dying. Hello?
All good science exists to question the reason for its existence. Perhaps you have confused political corruption with rational inquiry? The IPCC has proven itself to be neither heroic, like the ADF, nor capable of proper enlightened scientific methodology.
The real problem is the level of decadency and historical illiteracy which seems to prevail in our society to the point where one could imagine a comparison between the IPCC and the young Australians who gave their lives in WWII seems, like cool, dude.
Pass the bong, dude.
“Pass the bong, dude.” OK so Wes is Motty after all – sorry Sir Ian – we knew it – though may we say brilliant disguise.
Excellent paper by John and nice font too. Will be useful in the coming campaign.
Like, list in plain English the assumptions of the models, like. Like, give confidence intervals for the estimates of future temperature and rainfall, like. Like, explain what a confidence interval is to Kevin and Penny, like. Like, draw a socio-web of the IPCC ‘experts’, like. Like, vote Kevin and Penny out as soon as possible, like.
When the IPCC embraced the “hockey stick ” chart and hypothesis with a complete lack of critical evaluation strategies they deserve no respect. On this one issue we see an eclipse of reason and total loss of all credibility on climate. This is not some harmless oversight or mere mistake that can be brushed off. It says everything about the delusional or more accurately, shonky IPCC.
Janama;
It was also referenced by Mark on another thread. This is serious stuff as Keiran has already commented.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf
The extent to which the rug has been pulled over our eyes by incompetent or extremely naive elitist groups acting in concert, to advance their own self interests, at everyone elses expense, is highly disturbing.
Perhaps the worst breach is that by Karoly signing off as Review Editor, with a one liner being passed off as a Written Report required by the IPCC rules to elaborate on where significant differences of opinion in scientific issues remained..and for this to be included as an Annex.
Given what is known by a large number of others who hold a different view, … by any professional standard this is just not good enough.
On the basis of this sort of rubbush we are about to corrupt our economy and do God knows what else,for bugger all benefit.
‘When the IPCC embraced the “hockey stick” chart and…”, had it been a Public Corporation, it would have been charged with criminal offence, and its Directors would have faced gaol terms.
However, the IPCC feeds off the taxpayers of the world, but is answerable to no one, and regards itself as above any law.
Like a leech feeding off a hosts blood, it would shrivel and die if the money supply were cut off.
And the world would become a better place, with the $ billions it has been syphoning off, hopefully going to support real research in so many much needed areas, presently deprived.
Oh no, not Karoly…
Wasn’t he the ‘jack in the box’ on Tone the Bones ABC hatchet job on TGGWS ?
Listen to Reynolds go – what an apologist. Still going to church Sid? TGGWS was undefendable bunkum.
There are many AGW offshoots which satisfy the definition of corporation under the TPA, and I’m sure a case could be made for the IPCC to satisfy the definition of a foreign corp, as it is clearly engaged in trade and commerce; the issue, as with the Plimer case, would be misleading conduct under S.52; a class action against a nominated AGW corp; a local council perhaps or even a blog such as Connor’s or Lambert’s would, prima facie, satisfy the act. In a class action damages would potentially be huge.
“When the IPCC embraced the “hockey stick ” chart and hypothesis with a complete lack of critical evaluation strategies they deserve no respect.”
You haven’t got a clue, have you? Of course there is critical evaluation of science, that’s part of the scientific method. This whole topic is pile of conspiracy theorist waffle that’s just as stupid as the 9/11 idiots.
Good idea Cohenite – a class action against denialist outfits is a great idea. Thanks.
Yes malcolm – I realise how serious the article is which is why I posted the link to it in the first place. Unfortunately I’m not able to start a thread so I had to post it somewhere.
if my attemp at posting a pic doesn’t work click the link below 🙂
[img]http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/07/17/ttCartoon_gallery__571x400,0.jpg[/img]
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/07/17/ttCartoon_gallery__571x400,0.jpg
Janama
I wasnt having a go at you, just using your entree here to try and draw more attention to it.
It seems that not many people comprehend that the way the thing was organsied AND managed, made it a self fulfilling thing from start to finish.
Shonkademics have a had a field day ..
luke; identify a sceptics’ ‘outfit’ which satisfies S.52 TPA; more to the point, quantify ‘real or actual’ damages which have been incurred due to sceptics’ actions and I’ll compare those with ‘real and actual’ damages which have been incurred as a result of AGW supporters’ actions; if you come up with anything we’ll get a cross-claim underway.
I’m not disclosing the next moves or anything underway. We might send you the bill for the current drought and all payments since 1990 – might keep you busy with some paperwork. That’s just for starters.
Good start, Cohenite, but the problem with the TPA is the application of the ‘shield of the crown’. So even though the test for ‘corporation in trade or commerce’ may be met, the TPA will still not apply. I pursued a similar line with the ACCC in respect of another matter and this was their considered response.
However, no such shield of the crown applies to the various state fair trading legislation so that might be an option.
The best line of attack is by way of professional misconduct under the various public sector management Acts. This can be by way of deliberate misconduct (breach of discipline) by way of conspiracy to effect an improper exercise of power, as a consequence of ignoring relevant facts and placing excess weight on irrelevant material.
This then feeds right down through informing on matters of professional ‘best practice’, professional duty of care, negligence and reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions. There is a huge resource of case law in this area and it should be applied ruthlessly.
The first step is to advise every single public officer involved in the decision chain of the key facts, and the possible reliance on irrelevant facts, and then advise each of the character and scale of the detriment that may be inflicted as a result of improper consideration of this material.
And then urge each of them, by name, to take all reasonable and practical steps to prevent harm, as is their professional duty of care. You would not, then, need to advise any of them that their professional endemnity from prosecution does not extend to acts done unlawfully or negligently.
These people have got away with all this so far because we let them. We did not apply the existing laws and community expectations to them as we obviously should have done. They are now at the action phase of their sordid little plans so now is the time to “do the business”, to take and hold territory and inflict casualties on enemy combatants.
The IPCC is a crock. Even the American Physical Society (50,000 physicist members) is having serious doubts. Apparently the “debate”, far from being over, is only just beginning.
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
SJT,
How about reading what the IPCC website states as what their MANDATE is?
Here it is to show that AGW believers fail to realize that it has from the start a narrow preset direction to their meta-analysis search to fit their mandate.
From the website: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
“Mandate
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.”
Highligting to make sure you do not miss this biased approach:
“Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
This is pathetic.Since it is obvious they have not lived up to their high falutin declaration.
SJT, the critical evaluation we are talking about didn’t come from within the IPCC now did it? That is the point. M Mann’s attempted revision of the last millennium’s climatic history with his “hockey stick ” chart and hypothesis is not the issue because it is the in-house peer review and the IPCC itself who accepted it purely because it told them exactly what they wanted to hear. Like-wise with pre industrial CO2 levels that the IPCC reduced from the expert scientific evidence giving 335ppm.
“This is pathetic.Since it is obvious they have not lived up to their high falutin declaration.”
I think they have done an excellent job of it.
“Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change,”
SJT,
Do you really believe this B.S. as being fulfilled?
I noticed that you did not comment on this part.Could it be because it is a biased mandate?
LOL.
“…relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change…”
Notice that right off the bat they are already in 1988.Stating that it is human INDUCED climate change.
20 years later there has been ZERO increase in world temperature.
So why are they still around when the so called human induced climate change claim is minor and not a concern?
See why you guys are running on empty?
The IPCC certainly does conduct its own peer reviewing process. The “Peer Review Club”.
With regard to the ‘hockey stick’, the IPCC was even brazen enough to appoint Dr. Mann to review his own work, which shows just how they thumb their nose at ethics and truth; and how far above the law they place themselves.
Ian; the Shield may be circumvented by the commission of tortious acts by public authorities and individuals, but generally, you are correct in your summary of the possible causes of actions; I was more interested in having a shot at private corps and individuals who are not protected and who will definitely be caught by duty of care and professional standards; it’s a shame to have to put ‘science’ to the legal sword, but stuff it, why should the AGWer’s be the only ones racking in the cash.
“The IPCC certainly does conduct its own peer reviewing process. The “Peer Review Club”.”
For some curious reason, AGW science is the only field in science that suffers from this problem.
“A new study examines the basis for the belief that greenhouse gases can only result in atmospheric warming and concludes that that assumption is incorrect.”
This new paper might throw a few spanners in the works, just from the title alone, but it’s behind a green wall. Anyone got any access to it?
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a788582859&fulltext=713240928
Tony
I purchased the paper, and contact me
hissinkl1947 AT bipgond.com
Tony,
it’s bigpond.com 🙂
SJT
AGW science isn’t a science.
That is its pronlem