It Didn't Start With Climategate
n00 b
January 1, 2010 Posted by John at 7:34 PM
The whistleblower at the University of East Anglia who leaked emails and
other documents that
reveal the fraud that is being perpetrated by the world's leading global
warming alarmists did us
all a great service. But it is important to realize that the deception
didn't just begin: rather,
the global warming hysteria movement has been shot through with fraud from
the start.
The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global
warming movement was the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report, which
was published under the
auspices of the United Nations in 1996. This report was the principal basis
for the Kyoto Accord
which was signed in 1997, and for the nonsense that has been inflicted on
the world's elementary
school students ever since.
But the Second Assessment Report was hijacked by an AGW activist who
re-wrote key conclusions and
injected a level of alarmism that had not been present in the consensus
document. You can get the
whole story here, along with a great deal more information about the global
warming controversy.
The Science and Environmental Project summarized what happened as follows:
IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers
(SPM), are noted for
their selective use of information and their bias to support the political
goal of control of
fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming
(AGW).
Perhaps the most blatant example is IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR),
completed in 1995 and
published in 1996. Its SPM contains the memorable phrase "the balance of
evidence suggests a
discernible human influence on global climate." You may recall that this
1996 IPCC report played a
key role in the political deliberations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining
both human and natural
influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and
carefully weighing
their decision. Nothing of the sort has ever happened. The IPCC has
consistently ignored the major
natural influences on climate change and has focused almost entirely on
human causes, especially on
GH gases and more especially on carbon dioxide, which is linked to
industrial activities and
therefore 'bad' almost by definition.
How then did the IPCC-SAR arrive at "balance of evidence"? It was the work
of a
then-relatively-junior scientist, Dr Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence
Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL), who has recently re-emerged as a major actor in
ClimateGate. As a Convening Lead
Author of a crucial IPCC chapter, Santer carefully removed any verbiage
denying that human
influences might be the major or almost exclusive cause of warming and
substituted new language.
There is no evidence that he ever consulted any of his fellow IPCC authors,
nor do we know who
instructed him to make these changes and later approved the text deletions
and insertions that
fundamentally transformed IPCC-SAR.
The event is described by Nature [381(1006):539] and in a 1996 WSJ article
by the late Professor
Frederick Seitz (See also my Science Editorial #2-09). Seitz compared the
draft of IPCC Chapter 8
(Detection and Attribution) and the final printed text. He noted that,
before printing, key phrases
had been deleted from the draft that had earlier been approved by its
several scientist-authors.
This is from Professor Seitz's 1996 Wall Street Journal article:
This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely
because it has been
peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved
by an international body
of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But
this report is not what
it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the
contributing scientists listed on
the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American
scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the American Physical
Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the
peer-review process than the
events that led to this IPCC report.
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists
and the published version
reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted
what they thought was
the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC
would obey the IPCC
Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions.
Nothing in the IPCC
Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been
accepted by the panel of
scientific contributors and the full IPCC.
The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in
Madrid last November;
the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15
sections in Chapter 8 of
the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and
against a human influence
over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with
examining this question had
accepted the supposedly final text.
Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove
hints of the skepticism
with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a
major impact on climate
in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved
report but deleted from the
supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed
[climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has
positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date]
to anthropogenic
[man-made] causes." "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate
change are likely to
remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of
the climate system are
reduced."
The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves
and the IPCC honest. I am
in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the
report's lead author,
Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.
IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon
taxes and restraints
on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive
impact on the economies
of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant
changes, their effect is
to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific
evidence shows human
activities are causing global warming.
Fred Singer, in the SEPP editorial quoted above, continues:
[I]n addition to these text changes there are also two key graphs that
were doctored in order to
convey the impression that anthropogenic influences are dominant. Again, my
Hoover essay gives the
details.
1. According to all climate models, [greenhouse] warming shows a
characteristic 'fingerprint': a
'hot spot' in temperature trend values in the tropical upper troposphere.
Michaels and
Knappenberger [Nature 384 (1996):522-523] discovered that the IPCC's claimed
agreement with
observations was spurious and obtained by selecting a convenient segment of
the radiosonde
temperature data and ignoring the rest.
2. Santer also claimed that the modeled and observed patterns of
geographic surface temperatures
were correlated, with the correlation coefficient increasing over time
(suggesting to the reader
that a growing human component gradually emerged from background noise). I
found, however, that
Santer had obtained this result by simply deleting from a published graph
all the trend lines that
disagreed with his desired outcome [Eos 80 (1999):372]. In fact, the
original paper had Santer
himself as lead author and did not appear in print until after the IPCC
report was completed - in
contravention of IPCC rules.
It is interesting that these several documented falsifications went
largely unreported and had
little impact on scientists and politicians, who went on to support the
passage of the Kyoto
Protocol -- in spite of the absence of any scientific support.
So the Kyoto protocol was based on fictitious science, exaggerated or
fabricated outright for
political purposes. The same Professor Santer who hijacked the Second
Assessment Report figures
prominently in Climategate. Many of his emails were disclosed by the East
Anglia whistleblower;
among other things, they show Santer resisting all efforts by independent
scientists to obtain
information, through Freedom of Information Act requests, about the
statistical manipulations that
Santer applies to raw climate data to "prove" the existence of anthropogenic
global warming.
Fraud: it is the one constant in the history of the global warming hysteria
movement.
SPierce
"n00 b" <s...@vvv.com> wrote in message news:4b417bf6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
>
> January 1, 2010 Posted by John at 7:34 PM
> So the Kyoto protocol was based on fictitious science, exaggerated or
> fabricated outright for
> political purposes. The same Professor Santer who hijacked the Second
> Assessment Report figures
> prominently in Climategate.
> Fraud: it is the one constant in the history of the global warming
> hysteria movement.
>
Fraud it is. Waiting for the suicide report now.
Szczepan Bia�ek
"SPierce" <ecr...@bigpond.net.au>wrote
news:mgf0n.66749$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
What for the Kyoto Protocol was?
See at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png
In only on region the emmision of CO2 drops. But in that region is only one
country where the 100% of electric energy was from coal. Do you know what
happend with the industry in that country.
S*
>
Eunometic
> "n00 b" <s...@vvv.com> wrote in messagenews:4b417bf6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
I'm wandering if kyoto is part of the "Cloward-Priven" strategy of
generate a crisis to drive marxist change: The video is quite
chilling:
http://apathetic-usa.com/
SPierce
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:b73ac57e-c83b-45d1...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)I'm wandering if kyoto is part of the "Cloward-Priven" strategy of
# Well, it can never be proved to be Causal...but certainly Coincidental.
Unless of course one or some of the culprits actually admits to being a
traitor to his country. And who ever does that.
The strange thing about that generation growing up in the 1960s anarchy
period is that few have ever grown out of that mindset. They seem to thrive
on hatred of their own people and culture. Marxism did not grow in Christian
American households, it was spread stealthily through universities.
Someone needs to do some research on them on their deathbeds and see if they
crack and ask for forgiveness. There is something very odd about that
generation who never grew up. Even the one's who married and have children,
you find the children are politically like their parents. The normal family
has children who 'react' against their parents beliefs.
Szczepan Bialek
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
news:b73ac57e-c83b-45d1...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Kyoto destroyied industry in Poland. In result: "But while birth rates have
been falling steadily across the continent for decades, the fertility rate
in Ireland is now 1.98, not too far off the population replacement level of
2.1. In Poland, it's just 1.23, among the bottom five in Europe. " ,
and: "Another dramatic change came with the transition from communism to a
market-based economy. Under communism unemployment officially didn't exist.
Now, at 18%, it's the highest in the European Union. "
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4852924.stm
S*