The infamous IPCC report

It is quite obvious how deeply concerned our media is with the Global Warming situation. They use their powerful platforms to press the issue on the public, to raise awareness. They have made it their duty to educate everyone about this troubling matter.

But, I wonder. In the midst of their doomsday predictions, are they deeply concerned with absolute truth on the issue? If they were, you would expect them to be even-handed in their presentation of the facts. I mean, if they are truly an “objective” source, they wouldn’t hype certain facts and ignore others, just to forward their own agenda. Would they?

For instance, if the media heralded the IPCC report as, “Case Closed,” and then evidence was discovered that the report was flawed, do they have a responsibility to report the new evidence? I would certainly think so. But, bear in mind, I have no illusions that our media is the slightest bit “objective.”

The Courier-Mail, a news source out of Australia, ran an article by Bob Carter. Carter had interviewed Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading advisors of the IPCC. Here are just a few bits from the article:

A New Zealander by birth, Trenberth has had a distinguished career as a climate scientist with interests in the use of computer General Circulation Models (GCMs), the basis for most of the public alarm about dangerous global warming.

When such a person gives an opinion about the scientific value of GCMs as predictive tools, it is obviously wise to pay attention.

In a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine's Climate Feedback blog, Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people.

Among other things, Trenberth asserts “. . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been". Instead, there are only "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.

According to Trenberth, GCMs “. . . do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents".

“None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.”

GCMs “assume linearity” which “works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle . . . the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate”.

So, I guess the case isn’t closed after all. Interesting. But, there’s more:

In a paper being presented at the 27th International Symposium on Forecasting in New York this week, Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green audit the relevant chapter in the IPCC's latest report. They find that “in apparent contradiction to claims by some climate experts that the IPCC provides 'projections' and not 'forecasts', the word 'forecast' and its derivatives occurred 37 times, and 'predict' and its derivatives occur 90 times” in the chapter….

Having analysed the IPCC's approach in detail, Armstrong and Kesten conclude that “because the forecasting processes . . . overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific.”

Ouch. That has to hurt.

But, these guys weren’t the only ones to question the misinformation surrounding the contents of the IPCC report. The IPCC, itself, has called into question the comments being made about the report. The Heartland Institute issued a press release concerning the IPCC’s review.

On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called “scientific consensus” touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:

In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.

“It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction,” stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.

So, we have several of the IPCC’s own scientists and expert reviewers who are saying that much of the media hype surrounding the IPCC report is just that. HYPE! I would say that this is very important information if there is to be truthful discussion about Global Warming.

I wonder if the media will report it.


Post a Comment

<< Home