IPCC DISTORTIONS

An email from Vincent Gray [vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz]

I have been an "expert reviewer" for the IPCC since the beginning, and I have written many pages of comments and objections on their numerous drafts. I have also published critical articles on each volume, and for the last, a book "The Greenhouse Delusion, a Critique of 'Climate Change 2001'" which is currently available from the website of the publisher multi-science.uk

These volumes are a mine of information on all matters concerned with the climate. They have no index, so only an intimate knowledge can turn up information on any one subject. Anybody can become an "expert reviewer", so you can obtain a copy of the latest draft merely on application.

The IPCC is a propaganda exercise for the supporters of the theory that greenhouse gases have harmful effects on the climate. The Editors and Lead Authors are carefully chosen for their known advocacy, and just to make sure, the "Summary for Policymakers" which is the only part most people read, is agreed line-by-line by Government representatives.

Despite all these precautions they have never made a firm commitment to their theory. A typical statement is the notorious "The balance of the evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate". Note, this is only a "suggestion" (by whom?) and it does not mention greenhouse gases.

The "balance of the evidence" is distorted throughout the volumes, and their treatment of solar influences is typical. Most of the relevant published papers are mentioned, but any that suggest that the sun's influence is important are marginalised or deflated. When in doubt they leave really challenging papers out altogether.

They have the support of most of the important Journals in this exercise. Papers which emphasize the importance of the sun are sometimes published, but they often insert a phrase in the title which discourages readers from finding evidence in favour of the sun's influence. Many of the editors are environmental activists.

Not many people seem to bother with the actual IPCC reports. They are voluminous and require hard work to oppose. However, they are the source of most scientific argument in favour of "climate change" and they deserve more attention from scientists.





THE CLIMATE CONFERENCE AT THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, STOCKHOLM

Steve McIntyre, 19 September 2006

On Sep 11-12, 2006, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) in Stockholm, Sweden hosted an international seminar on climate variability (seminar website here). The seminar had 16 speakers from 14 countries and was attended by 120 people. It was organized by Peter Stilbs and Fred Goldberg, who extended great hospitality to the presenters. Anders Flodstrom, President of KTH, agreed to the seminar and was an impressive figure as convener of the closing panel.

The seminar arose as one of a series of Pro-and-Con seminars sponsored by KTH. In this case, the balance of presenters and audience was non-IPCC. This was not through the fault of the organizers who made diligent efforts to obtain IPCC-types. However, in the end, von Storch, Bengtsson and Kallen ended up being the only "IPCC" presenters. Bert Bolin, former IPCC chairman, attended for part of the Monday session. (He refused to pay a conference registration of about $25 despite being asked for payment - I guess he's used to expense accounts.)

The purpose of the seminar was not to present new results, but to summarize their views for a non-specialist audience. The following notes are not intended to be anything more than a rough impression and no slight is intended to those whose presentations are treated summarily.

Reconstructions

On Monday norning, presentations were broadly speaking on reconstructions of climate history, with presentations by Fred Goldberg, Wjiborg Karlen, Bob Carter, Hans von Storch and myself.

Fred Goldberg is a material scientist, who has been an active "skeptic" in Sweden. He presented an account of historical information on the MWP and Little Ice Age. He showed some results on cloudiness thatI had not seen before, illustrated by some interesting paintings. (Fred travels to Svalbard every year and is familiar with the Arctic.)

Wjiborn Karlen is a prominent paleoclimatologist who has published dozens of peer-reviewed articles (curiously he's joint on Moberg et al 2005). He presented information on variability in the Holocene. He showed the Briffa 2000 reconstruction - which, as I've pointed out here, is much influenced by the Yamal substitution. We chatted afterwards; he's very concerned over the integrity of CRU temperature data and stated that no article involving Philip Jones could be relied on; I asked him if I could quote him on that and he said yes.

Bob Carter is an Australian geologist, who has professionally collected important deep sea cores from sediments offshore New Zealand showing climate variability in Deep Time. He presented on variability over Deep Time emphasizing that variability existed on every scale imaginable, showing what "trends" looked like over 10,000 years, 1000 years, 100 years and 10 years. He described the collection and interpretation of cores investigating northward flows of Antarctic water offshore New Zealand. He closed his presentation with an alarming quote from a reviewer for a grant who stated that grants should not be given to scientists who make public comments of the type that Carter has made. When I see the variability in Carter's cores, in which centennial variability of the scale of the past century is routine, assertions that the variability over the past century requires anthropogenic influence seem rather over-confident. His PPT is online here.

Then moi. I explained how I got interested in the climate debate and how our present analysis evolved, beginning with the 2003 exchanges. Some aspects of our dialogue with Mann make more sense in this context. I presented a couple of new graphics - one showing the impact of one contaminated proxy on a von Storch-Zorita pseudoproxy network; one on Wahl and Ammann, but I'm finding that this sort of detail doesn't play very well - not just with this sort of audience, but even highly specialized audiences.

Having said that, my pseudoproxy graphic did get understood immediately by von Storch. Von Storch and Zorita had sent me benchmark pseudoproxy results in the spring. They had reported last year (GRL) that Mannian PCA made "no difference" in a VZ pseudoproxy network in which the pseudoproxies were gridcell temperature plus white noise. In our Reply, we had argued that the pseudoproxy network was an irrelevant test for the impact of Mannian PCA on MBH proxies, but von Storch wasn't convinced by the reply. A few months ago, they sent me a pseudoproxy run for me to reconcile. I replicated the VZ result on a pseudoproxy network of 55 series (their "region 1") agreeing that Mannian PCA did not have an impact on such a network. However, I showed a graphic illustrating the impact of the introduction of one synthetic nonclimatic hockey stick series on the network - Mannian PCA latched onto the nonclimatic HS and, under some circumstances, even flipped over the actual signal.

We had a nice chat in the afternoon - it was a beautiful sunny day in Stockholm. This is the third occasion tis year that we've co-presented: at the National Academy of Sciences, at the House Energy and Commerce Committee and now the KTH Seminar. He thought that my presentation was more relaxed than the previous presentations. He got the point of the new graphic instantly; he suggested that I publish it without mentioning bristlecones - as a purely mathematical exercise, although bristlecones will be the unmentioned elephant in the room. I guess one can be prudent in climate science from time to time.

Although my presentation was obviously very critical of the hockey stick, neither Bert Bolin nor Kallen had any questions or comments. The only critical question came from Bengtsson, who claimed that Mann's error bars covered any problems. I replied that Mann's error bars were meaningless as they had been calculated on calibration period residuals on an overfitted model and were "not worth the powder to blow them to hell". Bengtsson did not pursue the matter.

Von Storch made a classroom-type presentation on detection and attribution. He had little invested in the presentation and pretty much mailed it in, but it was nice of him to show up. He challenged skeptics who thought that solar influence or any other influence was capable of explaining modern warming to do so in the context of a structured climate model - which seems fair enough to me although I wonder what sort of funding and support would be available for such an enterprise.





Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

Views 'out of step' with others are good for science, academic says

The Daily Reporter-Herald, 19 September 2006

Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation's top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning. Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk. Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants. "I think we're coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations," Gray said. "I'm sure that's it."

Gray's view has been challenged, however. Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity. "Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues'," Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is "good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding." "We should always listen to the minority," said Pielke, who spoke from his office in Boulder. "But it's prudent to take actions that both minimize human effect on the climate and also make ourselves much more resilient."

At the breakfast, Gray said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is "a great act of faith, and I don't believe any of it," he said. But even if humans cause global warming, there's not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive. "Why do it if it's not going to make a difference anyway?" he said. "Whether I'm right or wrong, we can't do anything about it anyway."




Queenslanders: Hands off our Reef



Queensland's tourism industry will fight an influential British think-tank that wants the Great Barrier Reef virtually closed. The Centre for Future Studies says visitors may have to win the right to visit the Reef by a lottery system by 2020. The same group - which claims Australians are not looking after the Reef for the long-term - also wants a host of the world's most popular destinations declared almost off-limits. The entire Greek capital of Athens and Italy's Amalfi coast are among those it says should be far more exclusive.

But the suggestion, contained in a report paid for by a British insurance company, has infuriated the local tourism industry and been outright rejected by Australian scientists and the Federal Government. About 1.8 million people a year travel to the Reef, generating $5 billion and keeping about 800 companies in business. And local experts say the ecosystem which comprises the world's largest living organism is in good shape.

But CFS director Frank Shaw - a man whose biography boasts of him owning a "bolt hole" in a Canary Islands tax haven - claims "economic goals" mean other problems are being overlooked. "There is a conflict between environmental concerns and commercial interests," Dr Shaw said. "Rising sea water temperatures are already damaging the Great Barrier Reef." His group's report also names Nepal's Kathmandu; the Florida Everglades, the Taj coral reed in the Maldives and Croatia's Dalmatian coast as places that should limit their tourism numbers. Tourists could be asked to enter a holiday lottery in which they could win or earn the right to holiday in a particular place.

But coral reef expert Terry Hughes, who directs the biggest coral reef institute in the world at Townsville's James Cook University, said the Great Barrier Reef was a big place and the tourism industry had little impact. "I don't believe there is a conflict between environmental concerns and commercial interests," Professor Hughes said. He said rising sea levels were unlikely to impact on the Reef. "It's already underwater and a few more centimetres, or even half-a-metre over the next few decades is not going to have a huge impact," he said.

Federal Tourism Minister Fran Bailey said tourism operators were ferocious defenders of the Reef's pristine environment. "They rely on the health of the Reef and so have become intimately involved in protecting that environment," she said.



The idea of having to compete for a chance to see one of the great natural wonders of the world - or not see it at all - outraged German tourist Susanne Heiduczek. Ms Heiduczek and her boyfriend Martin, both medical students, said experiencing the Reef was one of the best ways to make people appreciate it. "If people can't see the Reef, what will prompt them to fight for its protection?" she said.

Queensland Tourism Industry Council chief executive Daniel Gschwind said yesterday that tourism operators constantly monitored changes on the Reef in collaboration with groups such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************