Tale of Two IPCC Leaks

Are Earth’s weather patterns and sea levels being radically altered because of the undeniable rise of human-caused CO2 emissions into the atmosphere?

It’s a question of science. The last thing it should be is a question of politics.

Yet, that is exactly what it has become. Climate science has turned into a battleground between big government liberals and small government conservatives the world over.

Politics is driving the climate science debate (yes, there is one), not science.

That’s made abundantly clear, once again, in this tale of two IPCC leaks.

Assessing Climate Change

The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) is a United Nations body created back in 1988 to assess the effect, if any, of rising CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere.

It has published four assessments. The first was in 1990. The fourth in 2007. The 5th assessment – AR5 – is set to be released beginning next month.

In each previous assessment it was concluded that human-caused CO2 emissions are the overwhelming cause of radical climate change.

It recommends steps governments should take to stop or reverse its effects. Those steps (cap and trade) are not trivial. Globally, the cost will likely be in the 10s of trillions of dollars.

For Mother Earth, the stakes are high.

AR5 Leak One

Leaked AR5 graph compares IPCC predictions with Earth’s actual temperature

Last December, IPCC “expert reviewer” Alec Rawls pre-released the entire text of Working Group One’s second order draft of the IPCC fifth assessment report (AR5).
Everyone in the world was given access.

That is a forbidden no-no. Rawls probably didn’t get invited to the IPCC’s Christmas party.

Working Group I documents the science behind human-caused global warming.

Reactions came swift. The IPCC cried foul:

The unauthorized and premature posting of the drafts of the WGI AR5, which are works in progress, may lead to confusion

The draft makes it clear that drafts are not to be cited, quoted or distributed and we would ask for this to continue to be respected
IPCC official statement, 12/14/2012

IPCC supporters immediately expressed horror that such a dastardly crime could be committed by an IPCC critic bent on destroying its credibility.

On the politically conservative side, however, IPCC skeptics and AGW detrators pored over every word, every syllable, studying the science in WGI. It didn’t take long to find major flaws.

The graph above shows each of the IPCC’s previous four temperature rise statistical forecasts (colored patterns) compared to the Earth’s actual average yearly temperature (black bars).

It’s obvious that the IPCC’s assessments of temperature rise – the fundamental basis for all AGW theory – is off. When 2012’s global temperature gets added it’ll be worse. Earth’s real temperature at the end of 2012 will put it at the very bottom of the IPCC 3rd assessment report statistical significance boundary and below that of all the others.

Put bluntly, scientific jargon converted into layman’s terms says:
‘The IPCC just proved all its temperature rise forecasts are wrong!!’

It gets worse. From the pre-release of AR5, the situation for methane rise (a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) is even further below the IPCC’s forecasts.

Leaked AR5 graphic proving the IPCC predicted methane rise is flat out wrong

Perhaps the pre-released temperature rise and methane rise graphs are what the IPCC means by “may lead to confusion”.

AR5 Leak Two

Two weeks ago the AR5 report was leaked again.

This time was quite different.

This time, no one admitted to being the source of the leak.

This time, no full text report was posted for folks to read.

This time, no official IPCC condemnation about “may cause confusion” or that it should “not to be cited, quoted or distributed” prior to release was forthcoming.

This time, no charts, graphs or scientific measures of any kind documenting the science behind AR5 got released. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nyet, Keine. Méiyǒu.

This time, the leak simultaneously went directly to selected IPCC-friendly blog and news media outlets.

This time, conservative leaning science and news sources were excluded.

Quoting the final draft report, the New York Times is leak representative:

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010

There is high confidence that…

Odds are at least 95 percent that humans are the principal cause
– “Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming
Justin Gillis, New York Times, 8/18/2013

The 95% certainty that humans are the cause of it all, which has been bandied about, is particularly suspect. The IPCC’s own data from the first leak proves that its forecasting of both temperature and methane rise are totally wrong.

Based on that, logic argues that the probability of certainty should go down, not up. Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen in going on 16 years.

In the second leak, though, there is no possible way to verify or refute the AR5 findings.

Hmmmm… who could possible have been behind the leak?
You get three guesses. The first two don’t count. ;)

Conclusions

The climate change debate (yes, there is one) is being championed by a political body, not a scientific one.

Contrary to popular belief, the IPCC is not a scientific organization. Its a political one. Its an arm of the biggest political body of them all – The United Nations.

One would hope IPCC membership were limited to the finest scientific minds in the world. Many of its members are. But many, if not most, aren’t even scientists. Its members are political appointees made by UN member nations.

The IPCC doesn’t fund any research. It doesn’t conduct any original research. It only produces reports. Its findings are not peer reviewed by anyone but itself, and in strictest secrecy.

Yet, IPCC skeptic Alec Rawls, a non-scientist, got designated as an “expert reviewer” for WGI AR5 by just asking! How scientific is that?

Anyone wanna bet the two leaked graphs above will make the final cut?

About these ads

About azleader

Learning to see life more clearly... one image at a time!

Posted on Aug 30, 2013, in Business, Climate, economics, Economy, environment, Government, news, Politics, science, technology. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. These are the facts in a one-page synopsis of an autobiography in progress:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Synopsis.pdf

    They were first summarized in messages to the Congressional Space Science & Technology Committee:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Creator_of_Life.pdf

    Sent from my iPhone

  2. edit:
    “detrators poured over” detractors pored over

    About the (putrid, worthless) 95% confidence standard, expert judgment is the very worst method of prediction:

    “Comparative empirical studies have routinely concluded that judgmental
    forecasting by experts is the least accurate of the methods available to make forecasts.
    For example, Ascher (1978, p. 200), in his analysis of long-term forecasts of electricity consumption found that was the case.”

    http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf#page=4&zoom=auto,186,939

    • As has been remarked before, if expert opinion were proof of anything then we’d still believe the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe.

      Nature recognizes no political boundaries. A growing body of contrary scientific data appears to be turning the tide against AGW theory in its current form.

  1. Pingback: Tale Of Two IPCC Leaks | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Comments and questions are welcomed!

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 358 other followers

%d bloggers like this: