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

The UN climate change numbers hoax

  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
    Thanks, Wolram

    If you would like to see what John McLean had to wade through you can go here http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html [Broken] and hit the accept button. Also of course if you would like to check his numbers.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  4. Jul 13, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Do you want my award Andre? -)
  5. Jul 13, 2008 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since when is an opinions page considered a valid reference. This not only violates our ruels for references, it also violates the conspiracy theory ban.
  6. Jul 14, 2008 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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 [Broken] 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.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  7. Jul 14, 2008 #6
    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.
  8. Jul 14, 2008 #7
    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...
  9. Jul 14, 2008 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
  10. Jul 14, 2008 #9
    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.
  11. Jul 14, 2008 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You did NOT read it in 2007, the have just been forced to release it. I can't believe that you are commenting on something you haven't read.

    I don't believe that you know what this thread is about. 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 [Broken]

    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 by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  12. Jul 14, 2008 #11
    I hate to break it to you but I did see this in 2007, in fact, it was Andre who alerted my attention to it here: http://earth.myfastforum.org/about16.html [Broken]

    Note the date on the post - 24 July 2007.

    So, perhaps I do actually know what I'm talking about. So the ball's back in your court and I still haven't had a decent response to this:

    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?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  13. Jul 14, 2008 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    My apologies, you are correct it was released in 2007. But that doesn't change the fact that the IPCC report was misrepresented.

    The fact that they misrepresented that there was an overwhelming consensus by 2,500 scientists. I was dating one of the climate scientists that reports to congress and he said back then the whole thing was a farce. The fact that they did not include the "problems" with the data and therefor the published report does not reflect accurate facts is a biggy. What was suppressed is in the document, if you've really read it, then you already know what the concerns were.

    What a lot of the scientists are referring to is the inacurate historical climate data.

    How familiar are you with earth's historical climate fluctuation?

    I suggest that you read this to get an idea of the abrupt natural climate swings.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  14. Jul 14, 2008 #13
    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.
  15. Jul 15, 2008 #14
    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
  16. Jul 15, 2008 #15

    What is this? First off I'm making comments on things I haven't even read, now I need to do some palaeoclimatology homework... Perhaps you're the one that needs to go back to school? [After all, the "historical" climate data you refer to are not really historical - that would imply that they were observed and recorded by our human ancestors - they are more correctly "geological". :tongue2:] I am pretty damn confident I know a helluvalot more than most on this subject (possibly even you :surprised), and I have the academic credentials to back it up (1st class MSci degree: geophysics, from five star Earth Sciences department in a top ten univeristy (in the world) + Excellence in Geophysics Award + >85% in physical oceanography module >85% in atmospheric physics + attended many seminars and read loads of papers around the issues (including palaeoclimatology!) - I don't normally resort to whipping out my CV but in this case I hope it will earn me at least an ounce of respect).

    Anyway, enough of that; I take your point about the misrepresentation, the over egging of a consensus, and how a few scientists might be a bit peeved about it. What I would say is that this is basic presentation skills taken too far, this is talking the language of politicians: the people this report is aimed at. I'm sure we're all guilty of embellishing the facts and neglecting to mention things to get our point across, people do it at conferences all the time, this is why having a strong personality often helps in the sciences (and in most (all?) other disciplines too).

    The way I see it we have maybe three or four scenarios:

    1) Scientists are in consensus that global warming is real but they disagree about some of the finer points.

    2) Scientists disagree about global warming but feel that (on the whole) it is at least a risk and as such they should communicate a clear and concise message about this to policy makers.

    3) Scientists have absolutely no idea about global warming, they made it up in the 70s to try and boost their research grants, it worked, they liked it, it snowballed, and now it is perhaps the greatest conspiracy of the modern era.

    It seems to me that scenario 3 is the most extreme here, with somewhere between scenario 1 & 2 being realistic. We have seen that the IPCC have been somewhat misrepresentative, yet the report is still peer reviewed, is it not? While I appreciate that the peer review process is not a flawless process, and that the misrepresentation is unfortunate and has offended some people, it still seems to me that attacking this is not really an attack on the content of the report, is it? My concern is that there are people out there that will attack what is a kind of sideline issue to try to advocate their personal feelings that are matched to scenario 3. Misrepresentation of concencus or not, global warming is still a threat, policy makers need to know about it, they need a clear message that they can understand.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  17. Jul 15, 2008 #16
    Billiards, there is a scenario 2.5: http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/groups/groupthink.html [Broken].

    We still need to discuss a lot of misconceptions in geologic climate history.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  18. Jul 15, 2008 #17
    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.
  19. Jul 15, 2008 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Are you joking or just uninformed?

    Just about every major University has a course on Climate History and Geologic History.

    http://www.jhu.edu/~lhinnov1/paleoguide/history.html [Broken]

    http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Geology/courses.html [Broken]


    I think you can figure it out without me continuing to post links.

    Considering that you didn't even know about climate or geological history as accepted terms, I guess not. An undergraduate degree (which is what MSci is in the UK) doesn't actually make you an expert.

    How do you feel about the term "Natural History" I guess Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History will have to change it's name. Hmmm, since I know someone quite well that holds two chairs at the Smithsonian, I will let him know that you disapprove. He only has an undergraduate degree from Yale and his Masters and PhD from Harvard.

    But, back to the thread topic.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  20. Jul 15, 2008 #19
    Evo, I would've liked to have an intelligent debate with you but clearly it is not possible. It's a shame, I had always regarded you as an intelligent woman, but if you can't show me any respect then that's it there's nothing left to say.

    It's funny though, I can't help detecting a hint of irony about it really: I try to challenge that attacking the IPCC for it's overstated concensus was somewhat a sideline issue, i.e. missing the bigger picture, and you retaliate by attacking me with (guess what!) a disconnected sideline issue. :rolleyes:

    Not that I really feel too concerned to continue this but where I come from we distinguish between the historical record and the geological record; "climate history" is a term widely used to describe the subject as a whole, sarcasm aside, it actually doesn't mean the same thing as "historical climate data".
  21. Jul 15, 2008 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, the topic is about the IPCC's lack of credibility. The fact that the report has been compromised "is" the bigger picture. You apparently are all for policy based on misinformation. It's not a "sideline" issue.

    Is your ability to form a rational defense of what the IPCC did so frail that you want to nitpick over how I chose to phrase something? :rolleyes:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook