I WOULD urge all my readers to look very closely at the re-blog of Donna LaFramboise’s post which I posted last week.
(I should say at this point that I owe Donna an apology. Though her site does permit re-blogging, I failed to click the box saying what I had done and by the time I got back it had, of course, disappeared. I’ll do better next time.)
To begin with she records the fact that
Back in 1992 – well before science had anything conclusive to say about humanity’s impact on the climate – the United Nations persuaded countries to sign an international treaty aimed at saving the planet from ‘dangerous’ human-emitted greenhouse gases.
She adds: “Let me repeat that. The treaty came first.”
In 2010, she then reports, a committee of the InterAcademy Council reported that it had identified “significant shortcomings” at “each major step of [the] IPCC’s assessment process.”
The IPCC simply ignored the report and carried on as ‘normal’.
The following year Donna published her book “The Delinquent Teenager (who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert)” which pulled together pretty much all the evidence then known (or suspected) that the “top scientists” who compiled the five-yearly IPCC reports were in reality nothing of the kind. Recognised experts in various relevant fields were sidelined because their views were considered “unhelpful” and less well-qualified (or in some cases not at all qualified) people more pliant (or compliant) appointed instead.
Others have also remarked on the extent to which environmental activists, most notably from Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth, have been heavily involved in these reports and that a considerable amount of input — not peer-reviewed in spite of the IPCC’s repeated claim that only peer-reviewed material is acceptable — has come from such organisations.
Donna then introduces a report, running to close on 200 pages, from the French Société de Calcul Mathématique which rips the IPCC to shreds (yet again!) with such comments as:
The IPCC report is totally flawed in terms of basic scientific method, since it ignores the natural variations in the variables that it seeks to analyze…
The IPCC report is equally flawed in terms of data acquisition, since in principle it chooses the data or datasets that support its theses and discard[s] all the rest…
The IPCC report is highly ideologically biased. It does not follow any of the basic rules of scientific research…
Once again, I urge you to follow the link in Donna’s article and read the whole thing.
To add to this triple blow there now comes another report, this time from German Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert and commented on by Pierre Gosselin in his NoTricksZone blog here
Ewert’s claim is that there has been massive manipulation of the NASA-GISS datasets, a claim that has been made before so while this latest manifestation is worth consideration the findings need perhaps to be taken at this stage with a pinch of salt. Follow the link above and see for yourself.
The common thread running through these three assaults on the integrity of the IPCC or the guardians of climate data — the IAC report, the SCM report, and now Ewert’s claims — is that their authors have no axe to grind. They have no dog, you might say, in the climate change/global warming fight. Warmists are quite likely to use that as an excuse to ignore the findings (which would be par for the course) but this could well turn out to be a mistake because if there is any solid factual basis, especially for the claims of the SCM and Ewert, they cannot be dismissed simply as shills for the fossil fuel industry which is the warmist fallback position when challenged.
In particular if it can be shown that Ewert’s claims have validity and that the adjustments to the land-based data lack justification, an argument that has been gathering strength in recent years as satellite observations and ground-based observations diverge and models continue to over-state warming, the scientific climate community will find it increasingly difficult to justify their claims.
With Paris unlikely to do other than cobble together a non-agreement, a cold winter in Europe on the cards together with increasing energy bills, and a growing awareness by people and government that the whole climate schtick is passé. I’ll leave you with one more link to another blogger. Pointman’s take on what is and is not likely to happen in Paris next week really, really is something you should read!