Global Warming Claims Rejected by Science Panel

Posted: September 10, 2010 in global warming fraud



The Unmasked Fraud of Manmade Climate Change: A report by the InterAcademy Council, composed of the world’s top science academies, branded the UN’s IPCC panel, led by Rajendra Pachauri (pictured) as basing its assertions on “little evidence” while focusing on a non-fact-based worst-case scenario.


                Did you miss it?  Probably.  The report hardly made a ripple in the sea of global warming propaganda that permeates the popular press.

                First, a little background.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the organization that spearheads the effort to convince the public, and more importantly, our political leaders that the earth is headed for catastrophic warming and that man is largely to blame.  For years, many of us have been arguing that the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis is both mired in politics and totally devoid of science.  The evidence piling up is revealing that we were right all along. 

                Amid claims that surfaced last year about the shoddy science that the IPCC used to compile their latest and much publicized Fourth Assessment Report (2007) there was many calls from scientists worldwide for an independent investigation into the methodology employed by the architects of the AGW hypothesis.  This, coupled with the widespread dissemination of the hacked emails of climate scientists who engaged in downright fraud in manipulating climate data and suppressing scientific criticisms–an independent investigation seemed prudent. [ii]  Well, you may not have heard about it, but the independent investigative report was issued last week. The verdict is just what many of us suspected: global warming is a hoax. 

                Last week the InterAcademy Council (IAC), a multinational organization of science academies that regularly produces independent analyses on major scientific, technological, and health issues, released a 113 page assessment of the UN’s IPCC.  In the kind of diplomatic language you would expect from such a distinguished body, the council strongly hinted that Rajendra K Pachauri, the current IPCC chairman, should resign. While it was Pachauri who shared the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore for their work on spreading the Global Warming mantra–it should be noted that neither one has an ounce of scientific training.  The IAC’s assessment notes that many of the IPCC’s science panel leaders have skirted the science in favor of advocating specific policies.  It also suggested that the panel should change the way it evaluates scientific doubts about their reports, that the process of choosing the scientists who write the reports be more open and that the conflicts of interests by members of the IPCC should be made public.

                Overall, the IAC rebuked the IPCC for reporting “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence.  Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’ to the statements.”  The report goes on to state that “many such statements are not supported sufficiently in the literature.”

                In reporting the IAC’s assessment (on their opinion page), the New York Times, a long-time media outlet for global warming advocates, said that “straying into advocacy can only hurt the IPCC’s credibility.”  Gee, you think?  The New York Post, known for not mincing words, was more deliberate.  It asked: “What does the best evidence now tell us?  That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the ‘right’ results.”  In reference to the aforementioned hacked emails, The Post took the opportunity to further state: “the warming ‘scientific’ community, the emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other’s papers–and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.”

                The reaction to the report from skeptical scientists has been positive.  A climate scientist at the Institute of Meteorology at the University of Hamburg, Dr. Hans von Stoch, has labeled the report damning and has called for the resignation of Mr. Pachauri.  Dr. von Storch said that the deliberate errors in the IPCC reports “exaggerated the effects of climate change.”  He said he hoped the IPCC would heed the criticisms by the IAC in order to “make the climate panel much less aloof and help the climate change debate.”  He added, “I am pretty optimistic that all this will lead to a much more rational and cooled-down exchange.”  I am not as optimistic as Dr. von Storch.  I suspect that the criticisms will only make the handful of scientists who run the IPCC circle the wagons.  They have way too much to lose in an open exchange.

                For years, individual scientists who publicly called the science of global warming “suspect” or more accurately, “junk science” were dismissed as fringe “deniers” who simply didn’t have all the facts.  Now, the “deniers” have an international body of scientists to hang their doubts on and the self-proclaimed “keepers of the facts” have their own dismissal to deal with.

                Al Gore and his alarmist minions have insisted for years that “the debate is over”–that the science was “settled.”  What a load! 

Jim Hatem           

[i]    In fairness, the news was spread across the front pages of newspapers all over Europe.

[ii]   This entire email scandal is well documented in the book, Climategate, by veteran meteorologist, Brian Sussman.

  1. Altair Maine says:

    Jim, you’re being ridiculous. Did you actually read the report in question? I just did. Here’s the first paragraph of their conclusion:

    “The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. However, despite these successes, some fundamental changes to the process and the management structure are essential, as discussed in this report and summarized below.”

    Nowhere do they criticize the broad conclusions reached in the IPCC report, nor even most of the particulars. Instead they critique management style, in an attempt to reduce the number of errors, while still generally lauding the product.

    I too have some real issues with Pachauri’s leadership. But that’s quite independent of the science in question.

    • Altair, I am sure you didn’t mean to be insulting when you asked if I read the report. I have the whole thing on my hard drive. Reading this thing is like sitting through a 12 hour faculty meeting! I skimmed all of it, read a lot of it, and dissected some of it. That is generally how these things are done. You know that. You say I am being ridiculous but I maintain that I am being analytical. You know me better than to assume I am an idiot.

      As I mentioned in my essay, the report is written in the polite language of “diplomatese.” Hey, I think I just made up a new word–I hope it catches on. The investigation was not meant to be an investigation into the science. It was an investigation into the methodology of the goons running the IPCC. I was one of those who signed petitions over a year ago asking that the UN commission such an investigation. It would be folly for us to ask them to investigate the science. The thinking was that if the politics could be removed from the process, the science would speak for itself. The IPCC methodology is flawed and this report fully admonishes them for these shortcomings. There is no way any rational person could read the investigative report without concluding that IAC was in full agreement with those of us who knew the process was mired in politics.

      I think you agree with me more than you care to admit. You say that their criticism of the IPCC was an attempt to reduce the number of errors in their reports. EXACTLY! ERRORS! BLATANT AND PURPOSEFUL ERRORS. It is these errors that, unnoticed, have led to foolish policy decisions by governments who rely on the self-correcting nature of science to lead them. When you intentionally block this process you are no longer doing science. Errors arise when you use articles from hiking magazines to buttress your arguments, or confirm a notion to your liking based upon a phone call, or cite Sierra Club brochures as though they were peer-reviewed. Errors are bound to show up when members of the panel responsible for writing the assessment report have a financial conflict of interest in the “science” they are filtering. This is what the IAC looked at and criticized the IPCC for. This was their mandate. They did not criticize the science because they did not review it. They did recommend that the IPCC keep politics out of the process and allow skeptical viewpoints to appear in their assessments. That is the major rebuke by the IAC. It will never happen because the IPCC is a political body hell bent at transferring wealth from the rich industrialized countries to the poor, undeveloped world. All this is to be accomplished via “carbon taxes.” They want to tax us for breathing!

      I have been collecting newspaper headlines from all over Europe where this was widely publicized. I have seen dozens and dozens of them. Every single one of them, from the most stodgy, to the most tabloid has reported the IAC’s investigative report as a rebuke of the IPCC. Not a single editorial staff in a single European newspaper has published a headline claiming the IAC has lauded the IPCC for doing a wonderful job. Seems I am not alone.

  2. Trevor says:

    Can you tell us why global warming is wrong though? I like hearing the scientific aspects

  3. der6454 says:

    I’m sure your AP Environmental Science students all get 5’s on their AP exams. So how do you teach the topic of climate change in your class?

    Wow you must really be loving this. And the reason the global warming debate has become political? What, there was a feud among the ruling class, and the non-oil men wanted to get rid of the oil and coal billionaires? So what really changes? Now we’ll just be in the hands of the alternative fuel or nuclear billionaires.

    • You are right, they do mostly get 5’s. It was only after I started teaching this stuff that I came to realize that it is heavy on politics and light on science. I first teach my students to parrot the gospel for purposes of the exam. Once they take the exam, and only then, do I take off the gloves and tell them, “it’s all BS.” You might find it surprising to learn that it was largely the prodding by these students that led me to start blogging on this topic. Perhaps one or two of them out there could chime in here.

      • Mary T says:

        Yup I was a student, and that is exactly what he did. It was rather terrible to know that all the other students learning the subject were getting the ‘BS’ without the dose of reality at the end. And I definitely prodded. I am so glad you wrote this one Mr. Hatem!! Finally a way to show other people the reality.

      • Mary T says:

        Oh, and I am ashamed to say that I had previously bought into the global warming scam quite zealously… I’m glad you righted me Mr. Hatem, so very glad.

  4. zachattack says:

    To me, the copious amount of discussion on the origins of global warming is fruitless when – to whatever extent either side is true – we can all agree that climate change will happen no matter what, and our technology is capable of adapting to it once the reality puts enough pressure on us. The more important discussion should be about dealing with overpopulation: converting all resources to sustainable ones, and spearheading the reduction of industrial pollution (a floating “trash island” larger than the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean? Does that exist Mr. Hatem?) Shouldn’t these desired achievements, in the name of coping with growing population, be agreeable to everyone within the academic community?

  5. jendo321 says:

    Hatem, keep this up. So glad you are in a position to not give a crap and tell it like it is.

  6. a_engr1948 says:

    Jim, keep this up. We need sanity in this climate change arena.

  7. igneous1 says:

    You are right, dear sir, the only thing that was every settled was the sediment in Al Gore’s head.

  8. t_fish says:

    I was in Europe when this story broke. I was amazed at how little coverage it received in the US.

  9. jasperb says:

    I have always maintained that most of the global warming science was junk science. It appears to be even more than that. It is deception!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s