‘Climategate’ suggests a conspiracy to commit fraud by a small gang of influential UN panel scientists
S FRED SINGER
April 8, 2010
THE United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged they made a mistake in their projection of 2035 as the date when all the Himalayan glaciers would melt. But the Himalayan blunder is not a one-off mistake; it is only the latest of a long list of errors that have dogged the IPCC over the past 10 years. And by now, after the ‘Climategate’ flap of last November, ‘Glaciergate’ seems to have opened the floodgates with reports on ‘Amazongate’, ‘Natural-disaster-gate’, and many more.
In their 2001 report, the IPCC had claimed that the 20th century was ‘unusual’ and blamed it on human-released greenhouse gases. Their infamous temperature graph shown there, shaped like a hockey stick, did away with the well-established Medieval Warm Period (around 1000AD, when Vikings were able to settle in southern Greenland and grow crops there) and the following Little Ice Age (around 1400 to 1800AD). Two Canadians exposed the bad data used by the IPCC and the statistical errors in their analysis.
Since then, the litany of IPCC errors continues to grow.
In mid-August 2009, after repeated requests for such data under the Freedom of Information Act, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), one of the three international centres that publish global temperatures, announced that it discarded the raw data used to calculate global surface temperatures. The CRU action renders independent review and verification of the temperature trends published by the CRU impossible – a clear violation of principles of science.
In October, at the 2009 annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Dr Don Easterbrook presented graphs demonstrating how tree-ring data from Russia showing a cooling after 1961 was disguised in IPCC publications. The artful deceit so exposed indicates that the IPCC Assessment Report-4 (AR4) of 2007 contains deceptions rendering its conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic (human-caused) scientifically questionable.
In November, emails from the CRU were leaked to the public, creating what became known as ‘Climategate’. These emails reveal efforts to suppress independent studies that are contrary to IPCC conclusions of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Thus, the IPCC scientific review process has a systematic bias of an unknowable magnitude in favour of human-induced warming.
In mid-December, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) reported that the Hadley Centre for Climate Change of the British Meteorological Office (Met Office) had probably tampered with Russian climate data and that the Russian meteorological station data does not support human-caused global warming. Thus the reported global surface temperature trends are unreliable and probably have a strong warming bias of an unknown magnitude.
In January this year, American researchers Joe D’Aleo and E Michael Smith reported that the US-National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NCDC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) dropped many meteorological stations from their databases in recent years. The dropped stations, many of which continue to make appropriate reports, are generally in colder climates. Thus, all global surface temperatures and temperature trends announced by the three international reporting organisations probably have a warming bias of an unknown magnitude – rendering their announced temperature trends scientifically unreliable.
On Jan 23 this year, the Sunday Times (London) reported that the AR4 wrongly linked natural disasters to global warming. The published report upon which this claim was based actually stated: ‘We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses.’
In January also, Dr Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the AR4’s chapter on Asia, stated that the IPCC deliberately exaggerated the possible melt of the Himalayan glaciers. ‘We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.’ This admission demonstrates that the AR4 is a political document and not a scientific one.
More recently, additional reports reveal that the IPCC’s claims that warming will cause extensive adverse effects in the Amazon rainforests and on coral reefs came not from science studies but from publications by environmental advocacy groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. More scandalous even, the IPCC based their lurid predictions on anecdotal, non-peer-reviewed sources – not at all in accord with its solemnly announced principles and scientific standards.
Full article here
This article was posted: Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 4:38 am
Print this page.
Comment on this article