"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 2/19/10 7:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Hint 2; The IPCC was exposed for telling that lie already.

I'll bet you have never read the excellent:

Global Climate Change Resources
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf



Forty Three Reasons Not To Trust The IPCC

20 Feb 2010



The IPCC officially released its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007.



This document is often regarded as the definitive word on the science behind
global warming.



However, AR4 gives a distorted, misleading, biased and often erroneous
picture.



Examples of these distortions are listed here, with attention focused on the
Working Group 1 Report "The Physical Science Basis" (WG1), and in particular
its Summary for Policymakers (SPM).



Curiously, the SPM was released in February 2007, several months before the
main report. Confusingly, a "Synthesis Report" was issued in November 2007,
with its own SPM. More background to the structure of the IPCC report is
given here.





Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGI Report



How the IPCC invented a new calculus. The IPCC authors invented a new way of
measuring the slope of a graph, in order to create the false impression that
global warming is accelerating.



The table that didn't add up. The WG1 SPM was approved by the IPCC even
though it contained a table with arithmetic errors. The table was quietly
corrected with no admission of the error.



False statement about Antarctic sea ice. The IPCC claims that there is no
significant trends in Antarctic sea ice. In fact several papers (ignored by
the IPCC) show a significant positive trend.





Misleading claims about sea level rise. AR4 gives the misleading impression
that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, using the trick of switching
from one measurement system (tide gauges) to another (satellites).



Incorrect calculation of an average. An arithmetic error was made in the
calculation of an average of a contribution to radiative forcing. Hence four
diagrams in AR4 are wrong and misleading.



False claims about Antarctic ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the Antarctic
ice sheet is melting and that this is contributing to sea level rise, but
recent research papers show that in fact the ice sheet is thickening.



Dubious claims about Greenland ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the Greenland
ice sheet is melting and causing sea level to rise - ignoring or
misrepresenting research that shows the opposite.



Erroneous claims about snow cover. The IPCC makes the false claim that snow
cover is decreasing in both hemispheres.



Exaggerated claims about water vapour. The IPCC summary claims that water
vapour has increased. In fact studies show no significant trend or in some
cases a decrease.



Erroneous claims on increased tropical cyclone activity. The IPCC states
that tropical cyclones have increased, but research papers find no evidence
of this.



The IPCC contradicts itself over the medieval warm period. The IPCC's own
data shows clear evidence that the medieval warm period was as warm as the
late 20th century, but the text states the opposite.





False statement about paleoclimate studies. The IPCC claims that there is
increased confidence in proxy temperature reconstructions, but in fact the
opposite is the case.



Proxies that aren't proxies. The IPCC makes use of 'proxy' data such as tree
rings to justify their claim that current temperatures are unusual - but
this data doesn't match measured temperature.



Downplaying the urban heat island effect. The IPCC significantly
underestimates the influence of the fact that many temperature measurement
sites are located in cities.



The UN misquotes its own report. A UN press release coinciding with the
release of AR4 blatantly misquoted the report, incorrectly claiming that
man-made global warming was unequivocal.



Underestimating past variation in carbon dioxide. The IPCC claims that
variation of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere was very low, ignoring
published research that shows much greater variation.



Biased reporting of the literature. One of many examples where the IPCC
ignores or disparages research that does not support its agenda, in the area
of past solar activity.



Where's the beef? The crucial step of the argument for global warming - how
carbon dioxide causes heating - is barely mentioned and the numbers not
justified by the IPCC.



Hypothetical positive feedback. The alarming predictions of the IPCC rely on
the assumption of a strong positive feedback, for which there is no
evidence.



The lost continent of Antarctica. A world map of 'global warming' in the SPM
omits Antarctica, where there has been cooling.



Misleading claims about increased greenhouse effect. The IPCC claims that
observations show an increase in the greenhouse effect, referring to one
paper but ignoring more recent ones.



Misleading statement about ocean heat. The IPCC SPM says that ocean heat
content is increasing, without mentioning a paper that shows recent ocean
cooling.



Ignoring research that does not fit the agenda. Work of a Finnish research
team with 34 publications in the field of tree ring temperature
reconstructions is completely ignored by the IPCC.



Inconsistent statement about wind strength. The IPCC SPM claims that the
strength of westerly winds has increased - but if true this would be
evidence for cooling of the atmosphere.



Error regarding total radiative forcing. The 'total net anthropogenic
radiative forcing' given by the IPCC is incorrect, according to climate
scientist Roger Pielke.



Unfair citation of criticism. IPCC author Kevin Trenberth cites his own
criticism of the work of other authors, but does not mention those authors'
response to his criticism.



Ignoring criticism of the surface temperature record. Many papers have been
written raising questions about the accuracy and bias of surface temperature
measurements, but these are ignored by the IPCC.



No explanation for mid-century cooling. The IPCC has no consistent or valid
explanation for a period of cooling from 1940-1970.



False statements about tropospheric warming. The IPCC claims that the
troposphere (lower atmosphere) has warmed more than the surface, but the
IPCC's own graphs show that this is not true.



Unsubstantiated claims of human influence. The IPCC makes confident claims
about man's influence on the climate but has no evidence to support these
claims.



Misleading temperature trends (1). The IPCC claims that the trend from
1906-2005 is larger than that from 1901-2000 due to recent warm years, but
in fact this is due to a sharp drop in temperatures from 1901-1906.



Misleading temperature trends (2). The IPCC compares chalk with cheese in
order to convey the false impression that temperature trends are increasing.



False claim of warming since the TAR. The IPCC's claim that temperatures
have increased since its 2001 Third Assessment Report is demonstrably false.



More false statements on temperature trends. The IPCC significantly
underestimates temperature trends in the early part of the 20th century.



Misleading claims about hurricanes. The IPCC makes unsustainable claims
about increasing hurricane activity and a link with global warming; this
lead to one expert resigning from the IPCC.



If you don't like it, resign. Some scientists who do not support the IPCC
agenda find they have no alternative but to resign from the IPCC process.



Reviewer comments ignored. The IPCC reports undergo a process of review by
scientists and goverments. But many valid comments and criticisms of the
IPCC view are simply ignored.



Exaggerated claims of increased precipitation. The IPCC summary greatly
exaggerates the claims from its main report about an alleged very slight
increase in heavy rainfall events.



Trying to suppress work that doesn't support the agenda. IPCC authors try
to keep a paper by McKitrick and Michaels out of AR4, "even if we have to
redefine what the peer-review literature is".



Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGII Report



Incorrect claim about Himalayan glaciers. The IPCC incorrectly said that
Himalayan glaciers could melt to one fifth of their current area by 2035.
This is probably a misreading of 2350.



False claims about disaster losses. The IPCC claims a link between disaster
losses and climate, by relying on a single cherry-picked non-peer-reviewed
paper.



Unsubstantiated claim about loss of Amazon rainforest. Chapter 13 of WGII
claimed that 40% of the Amazon rainforest could 'react drastically' to a
change in climate. The source for this was a WWF report that does not even
support the claim. See also BBC report and The Telegraph.



Error about the Netherlands and sea level. Chapter 12 of WGII claims that
55% of The Netherlands is below sea level. In fact the figure is about 26%.
See also reports here and here.





Acknowledgements: These examples come from many different sources. Many of
them arise simply from a careful reading of AR4. Many originated from a
thread at climate audit, so thanks are due to those who contributed to
that - especially Max. Several also come from Roger Pielke's Climate Science
blog.



Comments, questions and further examples of IPCC bias and distortion can be
sent to globwarmqs at googlemail.com



http://sites.google.com/site/globalw...questions/ipcc





Warmest Regards



Bon_0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

On 2/19/10 9:48 PM, @B O N Z O wrote:
"Sam wrote in message

Global Climate Change Resources
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf



Forty Three Reasons Not To Trust The IPCC



Nice scientific rebuttal!

On Feb 19, 10:32*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/19/10 7:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:



Hint 2; The IPCC was exposed for telling that lie already.

* *I'll bet you have never read the excellent:

Global Climate Change Resources
* *http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre
* *http://www.ipcc-data.org/
* *http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf

ø Nothing from IPCC is worth a roll of toilet paper
at least from the paper you can get a good wipe.

ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation
Get used to it!!

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena

On 2/19/10 11:43 PM, Last Post wrote:
ø Nothing from IPCC is worth a roll of toilet paper
at least from the paper you can get a good wipe.

ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation
Get used to it!!


Many of your arguments are addressed and rebutted in this
document:

http://www.swissre.com/resources/222...te_sceptic.pdf

Give it a read and follow the references.

"@B O N Z O" wrote in message
...
Dubious claims about Greenland ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the
Greenland ice sheet is melting and causing sea level to rise - ignoring or
misrepresenting research that shows the opposite.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8357537.stm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...GyYoujhXjN6W1Q

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...h20100216.html

On Feb 20, 12:32*pm, "Cwatters"
wrote:
"@B O N Z O" wrote in ...

Dubious claims about Greenland ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the
Greenland ice sheet is melting and causing sea level to rise - ignoring or
misrepresenting research that shows the opposite.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8357537.stm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...NzZ3TfAriwGyYo...

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...h20100216.html

Ø 3 links without a real fact among them.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:45:21 -0800 (PST), Last Post
wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:32=A0pm, "Cwatters"
wrote:
"@B O N Z O" wrote in .=
au...

Dubious claims about Greenland ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the
Greenland ice sheet is melting and causing sea level to rise - ignoring=
or
misrepresenting research that shows the opposite.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8357537.stm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...NzZ3TfAriwGyYo...

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...h20100216.html

=D8 3 links without a real fact among them.

liar

http://cricketdiane.wordpress.com/20...ity-pollution/