Shame on The IPCC: Climate Change Consensus Was Phoney – Climate Gate Continues


(The National Post is Canada’s largest english language national newspaper. The Post exposes how an ‘Editor” at Wikipedia “rewrote” 5,248 climate articles – 

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider


Claims that 2500 scientists agreed were "disingenuous"

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.  The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia –  the university of Climategate fame is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

Additional quotes taken from his paper:

Consensus and Uncertainty

Understanding consensus as a process of ‘truth creation’ (or the more nuanced ‘knowledge production’) which marginalizes dissenting voices – as has frequently been portrayed by some of the IPCC’s critics does not do justice to the process {the process of scientific investigation} ….

Consensus-building in fact serves several different goals. As Horst and Irwin have explained, seeking consensus can be as much about building a community identity – what Haas refers to as an epistemic community – as it is about seeking the ‘truth’.

Pielke and Sarewitz agree that the IPCC has failed in its role as an ‘honest-broker’ and has moved towards being an ‘issue advocate’ in Pielke’s terminology, or even on some occasions a ‘stealth issue advocate’.

Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.

 Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. { –adjective lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous}.

That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts ….. questions about the status of climate change knowledge synthesized by the IPCC remain less widely investigated, questions which emerge from the agendas raised by the new geographers of science ……….knowledge that is claimed by its producers to have universal authority is received and interpreted very differently in different settings. …………

Day #55 in The Gulf! The Race Baiting Continues!

According to the MSM and the “Talking Heads” that claim the title of  “Democratic Strategists” there is no question. Oppose or criticize and you are branded a racist.

Personal Criticism of Obama, The Man and His Policies 

As an American and as a Conservative I was elated to celebrate the election of our first black President, however, I was not willing to celebrate the election of Barack Obama, the man,  nor am I currently willing to celebrate Obama’s policies. “Content of character not color of skin”.

Oh how I wish our first black President would have been General Colin Powell.  I can only speculate as to how General Powell would have handled our current set of crisis.

While I’ll never know for sure, I’d speculate that under General Powell’s leadership we would now be moving towards securing our borders, that after 53 days the oil leak in the gulf  would be capped.

Under General Powell’s leadership, Operation Desert Storm only lasted 40 days  (01/17/91 to 02/27/91) and the “ground war” with Iraq lasted a total of 13 days (02-14-91 to 02-27-91).

I just can’t imagine General Powell conducting an international “bow and scrape” tour or engaging in a never ending set of apologies for America’s role in world affairs.

I can’t imagine Powell embarrassing his Nation.

Under Powell’s leadership would we, as a nation, be speculating on whether the latest set of “impotent sanctions” against Iran would have any meaningful effect on stopping that rogue nation from developing nuclear weapons? Would the Nation be wondering, “and if these don’t work, what do we do next?”

I doubt that the national economy would be be any worse than it is today, if General Powell, if he were President, had simply ignored it.

Yes, these are speculations, but my strong criticism of Obama has nothing to do with race. My speculation as to  “what would General Powell do” has nothing to do with race either.   

When Obama was elected the Liberal Main Stream Media and the Democratic Party heralded the beginning of a “post-racial” America. Less than 18 months into Obama’s Presidency the MSM and the Democratic Political strategists are running to the familiar comforts of race and gender baiting.

It is 2010, isn’t it time we move on?  Let us remember and never forget the lessons of the 1960’s, even if those lessons are 50 years old! We, as Americans, need to learn and move on. To understand this is 2010 and not 1960. To learn from the past but not surrender to being a victim of it.

%d bloggers like this: