Right now the IPCC is like El Cid, whose dead body was propped up on a horse’s saddle, so that his enemies thought he was still alive! I invite all who still cling to the IPCC, to check their handhold, because the IPCC will start to break up under their grasp, soon! (Actually, that’s just a faint hope – the IPCC will carry on regardless. That’s what frauds do).
We already know about the Himalayan glaciers fiasco… a deliberate lie of the IPCC to make things seems worse than they are. We also have another similar fiasco – snow melting on top of mountains. It turns out the IPCC based that ‘expert’ peer-reviewed report on a student essay and observations made by climbers. (Sunday Telegraph, 31st Jan)
The IPCC must be a glutton for punishment, because the mountain-top snows report was issued by them just a short while ago! Of course, the supposed melting of the snows was ‘caused’ by global warming, CO2, blah blah, etc. Now we discover that climbers gave anecdotal comments to a popular climbing magazine, and the article was used as ‘evidence’ by the IPCC. The other source was a student who interviewed mountain guides. So, there you have it: the IPCC makes stupendous claims that affect the world, based on people climbing a few mountains. Quite scientific… how did the IPCC ‘peer-review’ a popular magazine article and a student essay?
Collection of Anecdotes
Prof Richard Tol, an IPCC author, said “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes. Why did they do this? It is quote astounding… illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two has been. There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”
But, the IPCC claimed the anecdotes go back to the 1900s! The two sources were from people who are avid climateers, which explains why they found their way into the IPCCs fairy-tale Report. The IPCC must be living in Lah-Lah Land, with no idea about what goes on in the real world. Or, rather, they don’t care – they create their own reality for their own greedy reasons.
The IPCC made use of 16 similar popular articles in its 2007 Report (CCNet-News 8/10), and the dubious WWF features in many. Yet, a recent survey of 400 authors and contributors say they are happy with the IPCC. Well, they would, especially as about 350 of them aren’t scientists! They also referred to the many big frauds as ‘minor errors’!
IPCC Lack of Credibility
“For the last 20 years, one IPCC report after another has been responsible for a relentless outpouring of doomsday predictions. The IPCC process, however, by which it arrived at its alarmist conclusions, has been shown on numerous occasions to lack balance, transparency and due diligence.” (Benny Peiser, Business Standard India, 28th Jan). That is a nice way of saying they produced fraudulent claims based on lies.
Peiser hits the nail on the head: “The IPCC’s work is controlled by a tightly-knit group of individuals who are totally convinced they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports.”
Peiser is far more lenient than I am – these people KNOW what they are doing; their aims are dictated by the UN and by socialist governments, who all want the big-bucks that come from being pessimistic and saying only they can save the world!
To suggest the IPCC lacks credibility is a bit of an understatement. I would rather say the IPCC is a lying, cheating pro-Marxist agitator. That brings it much closer to the mark.
R K Pachauri, head of the IPCC, has proved himself to be useless and shady, with no other interest other than himself. He built up an aura of respectability and scientific integrity for the IPCC that it neither deserved nor should have been given. Now, contradictions to the IPCC’s claims are coming thick and fast. Pachauri must go. The IPCC must go. Simple as that.
Stern Fakery Removed From Records
The Stern Review was a major player in the 2007 Report. The truth of that, too, is now being revealed. Basically, Stern produced figures for dealing with mythical climate change, but the figures were slyly and quietly removed because they had no scientific basis. Yet, the Stern Review is still being used to bolster climate claims! The refusal of the IPCC to put these things right is another indication of its unethical, non-genuine attitude.
The Stern Review, published in 2006, was commissioned by the UK government, and that alone tells us we should be very wary of its findings; it only asks ‘experts’ to write reviews if they are 100% behind government plans. The Review contained news of dire damage that ‘may’ be done to the planet if we allow CO2 levels to rise. And this was used by the UK government fat-cats to bring about drastic and unwarranted tax and other changes to society and country.
However, when the review was later published by Cambridge University Press in 2007, many of the dire claims had been watered down or removed, because they could not be verified. Yet, government continues to use the earlier claims, because they were far more traumatic and eye-catching! They wanted the tax monies, and no ‘minor error’ could deflect their path to success!
Some of the claims were really dramatic, but due to lack of actual evidence, reference to them was removed. The government, like the IPCC, never bothered to tell the scared public that the claims were invalid. Stern himself put these alterations down to ‘quality control checks’. In other words, someone knew they were lies, so he was forced to make alterations whilst trying not to lose too much face. His Australian references, for example – the “scientific references could not be located”. Well, what do you know, eh?
Other major changes he put down to “typographical errors”. Hm. Odd how all the IPCC-style ‘errors’ are so minor they can direct major political changes and huge taxation demands! I sometimes find typographical errors in my own articles, but, to my knowledge, none of them have drastically altered the main gist of the argument.
Whitewash of Lies
The ‘minor errors’ that changed the way the world acted are not so easily brushed aside by one of Stern’s critics, Prof Roger Pielke, University of Colorado. He found the changes and explanations “Remarkable”. He said “In any academic publication, changes to published text to correct errors or to clarify, require the subsequent publication of a formal erratum or corrigendum. This is to ensure the integrity of the literature and a paper trail, otherwise confusion would result if past work could be quietly rewritten. Such a practice is very much a whitewash of the historical record.” (Sunday Telegraph, 31st Jan). Another term for ‘lies and fraud’!
This is exactly what Stern did: after someone pointed out that his argument was hogwash he decided to whitewash! But, via the back door of publishing, leaving the original words to continue scaring people. And, the UK government didn’t tell the public or the media that changes had been made. This is because the official government stance is to plug CO2 and climate claims hard, and never to mention any kind of problems or doubts. That is what they have said, and it follows the attitude of Al Gore.
In the same Telegraph article, disaster analyst, Robert Muir-Wood, said the review “misused” data in order to make dire predictions. In the language of anyone else, that is called ‘lying your head off’! Stern purported to quote Muir-Wood’s analysis, but completely altered what was said. Muir-Wood commented that he had said no such thing (about rises in insurance claims since the 1970s due to climate change); he accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence.”
As the Daily Telegraph said in its article: we need facts, not spin! Peiser says “We must not underestimate the magnitude of the collapse. Academically, it is jaw-dropping to observe.”
This is what I have said before: the revelations are so hard and fast, there is no way anyone can be justified in listening to anything said by governments or the IPCC, because their claims are based on fairytales from Lah-Lah Land. And it is very hard to understand how anyone, including gullible greenies and their tree-hugging friends, can continue to hold up their placards and make their claims about CO2, etc., without at least a faint blush or embarrassed smile.