This month the IPCC will meet with great publicity to write the political executive summary of their 5th Assessment Report. See Vincent Gray on the background to these here. David Rose at the Mail on Sunday questions how they got it all so wrong.”Climate change sceptics are more outspoken. Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’.
IPCC AR5 Renews Demands For Governments Buy Their Climate Change Pig In A Poke
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Buying “a pig in a poke” refers to buying an unseen piglet in a sack. The piglet was actually a cat, so when you opened the sack after purchase “the cat was out of the bag.”
Governments bought the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘pig’ ‘that human CO2 was causing global warming wrapped in the ‘poke’ of their Reports. IPCC assured buyers it was a pig with 90+ percent certainty.
They fooled governments and media four times now they offer a new poke in Assessment Report 5 (AR5), but with 95 percent certainty it’s a pig. This is despite the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. Their predictions have failed. For 17 years global temperatures have declined while CO2 levels continue to increase. Arctic summer ice, supposedly all gone by 2013 has recovered by 60 percent in one year. Severe weather has not increased. Damage done by policies already implemented, such as green jobs and alternate energies, is already evident. Newspaper coverage declined dramatically as people sense problems even if they don’t understand (Figure 1). Decline followed the peak created by Gore’s false fantasy An Inconvenient Truth.
Instead of acknowledging error, the IPCC [tries] to defend the indefensible. This alone warrants disbanding of the agency.
They’re in a corner of their own design. They manufactured the poke through an organization, process, and computer models designed to prove their claim. Now we know it contains a cat. More frightening for them, people, including governments, are asking questions. A report by German scientists showing 65 climate models failed to predict the current no temperature increase period caused EU and US governments to ask questions.
“U.S. and European Union envoys are seeking more clarity from the United Nations on a slowdown in global warming that climate skeptics have cited as a reason not to “panic” about environmental changes, leaked documents show.”
To admit this the IPCC would expose their fraud. This includes ignoring the scientific method, changing terminology by switching from global warming to climate change and flooding the media with misleading stories about connections between natural events and their claims. AR5 indicates the has IPCC decided not to admit their deceit. Consider the problem for governments and people as a investment decision.
Would you invest time, money, and political capital in responding to a demand for total global action based on 23 years of failed predictions?
Would you take action when the few countries and regions who pursued the proposed remedial action of green jobs and alternate energy already prove it doesn’t work.
Would you even listen if you learned that:
• Their research of global warming/climate change was deliberately narrowed by definition to only studying human causes.
• You cannot determine human causes if you don’t know or understand natural causes.
• The demand for political action was based on an untested hypothesis.
• The standard scientific methods and tests of the hypothesis were ignored.
• Computer models were created to produce the predetermined outcome.
• All predictions made for 23 years were wrong.
• After five years they abandoned calling them predictions and opted for the term projections.
• Projections were created with low, medium and high potential scenarios.
• Even the low projections were greater than what actually occurred.
• Their claims of increased severe weather events proved wrong.
• Their claims of sea level rise were incorrect.
• The actual record since 1998 shows temperatures leveling and declining while CO2 increased.
• Instead of admitting their hypothesis was wrong and amending or rejecting it, as science requires, they changed the hypothesis from global warming to climate change.
• Instead of admitting their claim of 90+ percent certainty that human CO2 was the cause was wrong, they raised the claim to 95 percent certainty.
Would you invest in a plan promoted using a Report deliberately created to exaggerate and distort actual results. Their Science Report acknowledges all the severe limitations of their knowledge about climate and climate change. It itemizes the severe limitations of their climate models. However, they know most won’t read or understand what it says. Just in case they do they deliberately release a doctored report called the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) months before they release the Science Report.
As David Wojick, UN IPCC expert reviewer, explained
…What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
The IPCC already sold four pigs in pokes in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 Reports. Distortions, deceptions and deliberately falsified data was used. The most infamous was the “hockey stick”, which literally rewrote climate history, in the 2001 Report. Corruption was exposed in leaked emails of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose members dominated the IPCC.
AR5 SPM is scheduled for approval in Stockholm at the end of September for release shortly thereafter. If you’re tempted to buy consider German physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus comments about the IPCC pig in a poke.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
It is time for global outrage and accountability