No actual science, just political science behind Global Warming scam

The enablers of the global warming scam like to claim that there is scientific consensus, but as is being shown there is very little scientific rigor being applied to the fraught topic.

Certainly not now that the politicians have got hold of it.

How can the IPCC be more confident that more than half the temperature rise since the mid-20th century is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions when it is less sure of the climatic impact of carbon dioxide? The explanation is that IPCC reports, especially the summaries for policymakers, are primarily designed for political consumption. And as if on cue, British Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the IPCC report, “If someone said there is a 95% chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5% that doesn’t agree with it, you still take out the insurance.”

But poke beneath the surface of the IPCC’s latest offering and the confection is revealed for what it is. The IPCC’s quantification of the separate components of the warming since 1951 (greenhouse gases, cooling from aerosols, internal variability) is deemed only “likely” (66%-100% likelihood). Only at the IPCC could the sum of these components be given a greater likelihood than the individual building blocks. Perhaps the most revealing aspect is that none of the climate scientists involved seems embarrassed at this nonsense or protests at the manipulation of science for political ends.

This time around, the greatest difficulty faced by the IPCC was explaining the ongoing 15-year pause in atmospheric temperature increases. The body estimates that between 2011 and 2005, there has been a 43% rise in human-induced radiative forcing—the difference between solar radiation entering the atmosphere and infrared radiation leaving the atmosphere, whose balance is supposedly greatly disturbed by heat-trapping man-made emissions. But there has been little warming for 15 years. 

Global warming and climate change were always only ever about politics.

If climate scientists are really as confident in their understanding of the climate as the IPCC’s 95% confidence headline figure is meant to suggest, they would put a firm date by when the pause must end and temperatures bounce back to what the IPCC claims is the long-term upward trend. All too predictably, the IPCC avoids such a hard-edged test. It merely projects a likely temperature rise of 0.3°-0.7°C for 2012-2035 compared to 1986-2005, offered with “medium confidence.”

A better indicator of the evolution of what climate scientists really think can be found elsewhere. In the IPCC’s first assessment report of 1990, there was discussion of scientists’ then-inability to reliably detect predicted signals of global warming. The second report, in 1995, said the “signal” was still emerging from the noise of background variability. Have climate scientists at last unambiguously detected the greenhouse signal? The word is not mentioned once in the summary of the 2013 report.

Not mentioned because it is bullshit.

Ever since the second assessment, controversy has surrounded these reports. It first erupted on these pages in 1996, when Frederick Seitz charged that he had “never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process.” An official in the U.S. State Department had ordered text to be amended “in an appropriate manner.” Justifying the intervention, Stephen Schneider, a leading IPCC climate scientist, argued that the Second Assessment Report was “fraught with political significance” as the Clinton administration was on the verge of announcing its acceptance of binding emissions cuts.

Politicization is thus an ingrained feature of IPCC reports. After the fiasco of the 2007 assessment, the U.N. secretary general asked the InterAcademy Council to review IPCC processes and practices. The committee, chaired by Princeton economist Harold Shapiro, observed that government representatives and scientists meet to agree the final wording of the summary for policymakers line by line “for clarity of message” and to get government “buy-in.” Perhaps that’s being polite. The real question is who is buying whom.

The committee recommended changes in IPCC governance, which were mostly ignored, and specifically recommended that the IPCC not use the quantitative probability scale that it re-used last week, as in the IPCC’s 95% probability headline. The body’s flagrant disregard for the InterAcademy Council’s findings and its reluctance to address the 15-year warming pause are symptomatic of a failure of leadership. The conclusion is unavoidable: The IPCC is unreformable and the Fifth Assessment Report should be the IPCC’s last.

Time to disband the IPCC, it is nothing short of a global fraud.




THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • thor42

    It is outright FRAUD according to the evidence here –

    Quote –
    “Steve McIntyre, in his post at Climate Audit attempting to asses this fraud, notes that:

    None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.”

    In other words, some people at the IPCC – and we need names for this one – snuck in this fraud at the 11th hour, site unseen even by the IPCC scientists tasked with reviewing the document.”

  • cows4me

    Of course it’s fraud and our government is a very willing participant. It has to be clear to the all but the very stupid that all the taxes government take on behalf of AGW go nowhere but into the slush fund. Our very own gangsters can’t even till us where all the money goes. Every cent in tax taken doesn’t increase our prosperity, it just slows growth and lines the pockets of the feckless and vote buying.

  • Patrick

    But the science is settled – the Political Science if you are a socialist

  • XM16E1

    “Victoria University professor Timothy Naish says the evidence that
    humans are contributing to rising temperatures is clearer than ever,
    despite the report’s official stance leaving room for doubt at “95
    percent” sure.”

    • thor42

      Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.

      • XM16E1

        Exactly. At least the weather watch site allows comments. They need a few as they seem to push the climate change barrow fully loaded.

  • Kevin O’Brien

    These issues are heating up not the climate.Norway has abandoned an overly expensive carbon sequestration scheme while its wheat crops are diminishing as the growing time shortens. Science is being rejected by reality. The IPCC reports would not stack up in court and are a masterly abuse of psuedo science, statistics and contrived advocacy. The Australians have seen through it, now to get our thick numbskull politicians likewise. Great ammo on where the latest reports are critiqued by many capable and prominent people.