Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

IPCC report I

  1. Jul 13, 2008 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

    But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

    Like the three IPCC “assessment reports” before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups.

    Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future “projections”. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”.

    The reports from working groups II and III are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 13, 2008 #2
  4. Jul 13, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    Do you want my award Andre? -)
  5. Jul 14, 2008 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    This is not a conspiracy theory, it happens to be true.

    Please link to the IPCC page here that was provided. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html if you do not understand the article.

    Seriously you should read this. When ever someone said the data could be wrong, that previous records had been ignored, etc... The were told that sorry, can't be included, not enough space. But when someone says Great job! They are included with a note: Thanks!

    Issue citing scientific issues and concerns:
    IPCC response:
    Oh, as in Data cherry picking

    Positive blurb with no science:
    IPCC response:
    And again scientific concerns about the validity of data and accuracy of assumptions
    IPCC reject reason, with no science to back it up:
    baseless compliment with no science:
    IPCC response:
    This goes on and on.

    This is unconscionable!! This places the whole IPCC assessment in doubt.
  6. Jul 14, 2008 #5
    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    It may have been noted that I have challenged that here in several threads in which I attempted do demonstrate that the ice core story about paleo temperatures is simply incompatable with the other geologic records.
  7. Jul 14, 2008 #6
    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    I don't see the point in this debate. Climate research tends to be focused on the very narrow (I have friends studying little things in polar science like the modelling of sea ice formation, or the sub-ice topography of Antarctica) - the IPCC report is a guide for policy makers, it trys to bring together some of this knowledge in a scientifically consistent way, it isn't supposed to be a great unification of climate science. As a guide to policy makers it needs to have some kind recommendation, otherwise it could be freely interpreted and would be of no use to anybody.

    Now, personally I feel that it is responsible for a guide to policy makers to emphasize the risks. Sure, there is uncertainty, but is that not the nature of risk?

    I would rather have the risks clearly documented for policy makers and public alike to see so as to make them aware of the potentially very real dangers of global warming, than to have either nothing at all or some highly convoluted jumble of opposing theories in some well-intended yet utterly impotent attempt to be scientific.

    Now, if the "skeptics" could prove that there were no risk then that would be all right and I would welcome this debate and I would damn the IPCC report. But the simple fact is they can't, they cannot reassure me, they seem determined to ridicule the IPCC report with any angle they can muster, but they cannot suppress the nagging doubt that perhaps we really are causing serious long term damage to the environment. I am not a gambler, and I am not prepared to gamble the planet for "science" - the IPCC report may not be perfect science/reporting all the way through, it might even be sensationalist, but does that make its warning wrong? I think not, afterall, independent of what the IPCC report says, many lines of evidence point to similar conclusions...
  8. Jul 14, 2008 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    When you supress scientific evidence to skew results to further your agenda, that's wrong, no matter which way you look at it. When you make "predictions" based on faulty models that's bad science.

    Have you even bothered to look into what any of these scientists were saying that the IPCC chose to omit because it would ruin the alarmism they wished to push? Did you even read all of the disclosure that the IPCC was made to publish due to the Freedom of Information Act?
  9. Jul 14, 2008 #8
    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    Yeah, I read it in 2007, so what? The bit that was suppressed was just from some kind of section on the background to the subject -- what exactly was suppressed that would have changed the entire scientific outlook of the report? What piece of key evidence was left out that would have "un-skewed" the report? And how exactly would the inclusion of that evidence have turned things around? (This is important, please, enlighten us!)

    As for models, this comes back to the narrow focus thing again, there are lots of models and they all tell us different things about very specific areas of study, some of them are better than others but they are all just models and I think all good scientists are perfectly aware of their limitations. People don't just blindly follow them, the conclusions/recommendations of the IPCC report incorporate a careful analysis of a plethora of numerical models, and significantly, they also look at other things too, based on empirical evidence believe it or not.

    As for this "alarmism", personally I have tried to argue that it is not necessarily a bad thing for alarm bells to be ringing - would you rather wait for the acid test or take precautions? Weigh up the costs Vs the benefits of each, considering the science will never be sure unless it's too late I know what I would rather choose.
  10. Jul 14, 2008 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    This thread is about what the IPCC did with the feedback they were given and how they misrepresented a supposed "consensus".

    Read http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

    and then ask yourself the questions posed "is it legitimate for the IPCC editors to reject suggestions from leading climate scientists when these scientists suggest that the level of confidence should be reduced in the final document’s phrasing.

    Ask yourself if it is possible that the IPCC ‘editors’ might be biased and might be selectively rejecting suggestions for improvements in wording that they receive from the qualified climate scientists — scientists who were ASKED to review certain chapters in the IPCC document.

    Ask yourself if it is possible that ‘vested interests’ are possibly controlling a hidden agenda and possibly skewing the final document’s wording in a predetermined direction.

    Please read the section that says “only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report”. Also please read the section that BEGINS “An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely ‘Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years’.”

    Then ask yourself whether it is ultimately FAIR to describe the final IPCC document as something that really represents a ‘consensus’ of 2500 leading climate scientists “of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [who] agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2008
  11. Jul 14, 2008 #10
    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    Perhaps as Evo pointed out...
    It has something to do with just how much of a consensus there really is in regards to the findings of the report.

    As far as alarmism goes I have been hearing the bells and they are asking for more money and taxes and calling for lawsuits against large corporations (to get more money).
    Can you show me where those alarm bells have gone to work on making an improvement in our lot? Can you show me any significant increase in spending on alternative energy sources with in the last couple years?
    I'm sincerely interested and not just trying to make a point. All I hear about are taxes, carbon credits, penalties, and lawsuits.
  12. Jul 15, 2008 #11
    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    Too bad you all choose to discus these matters while I need to rearrange some piles of moving boxes before finding a computer.

    Back later
  13. Jul 15, 2008 #12
    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    The whole "consensus" term is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.

    The fact that the editors of the IPCC chose what they wanted to include in their report and disregarded what they did not like is a travesty of science.

    These people KNEW that their report would be shaping policy, and made the concious choice to continue with their agenda.
  14. Jul 15, 2008 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    From Wiki.

    Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Once a decision is made it is important to trust in members' discretion in follow-up action. In the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus. In theory, action without resolution of considered opposition will be rare and done with attention to minimize damage to relationships.
  15. Jul 16, 2008 #14
    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    Unfortunately consensus and science are not compatible, since reality is neither listening nor adapting to our wishes.

    And Billiards, please don't judge too fast. The whole thing will unfold soon enough. In a few more years it will be clear who was right and who was wrong, or neither of course.

    From a major moving chaos,

  16. Jul 17, 2008 #15
    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    Anyway, I think that the opinion of David Evans is very close to the actual mechanisms that let the global warming concern to be growing out of proportion.


  17. Jul 17, 2008 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    Although the American Physical Society has not changed its stance re: climate change, this article as well as a conformist’s article appeared in the Physics and Society’s newsletter.

    Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley


    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

    1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
    2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
    3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

    Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.



  18. Jul 20, 2008 #17


    User Avatar

    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    This link appears to already be defunct, only a week after the posting I'm replying to.

    However, Ross McKitrick's highly illuminating "inside view" of numerous instances of apparent biases and "cherry picking" that he observed and personally experienced during the IPCC AR4 Refereeing and Commentary Process does still remain online (albeit admittedly at his blog site rather than some "official" site...).
  19. Jul 20, 2008 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  20. Aug 22, 2008 #19
    Re: The UN climate change numbers hoax

    Thats some scary stuff right there, and i beleive there is more "crazy ideas" besides this one.
    I beleive the earth can repair its self as long as it its not subject to too much abuse, we have been burning fossil fuels for 100 years now and it has had no significant impact on our climate. We probably wont even have fossil fuels available for much longer i doubt they will even last another century, I read somewhere it could be 30 years at our current rate of consumption. Plus hyrbid engines are becoming really popular and kyoto has been ratified by most of the large industrial nations.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: IPCC report I
  1. New IPCC report (Replies: 34)