|
IPCC. This is the "unbiased", scientific body who's outpoorings are treated as Gospel.
Yet it's stated mission is to assess "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the risk of human induced climate change".
It is not set up to conduct impartial research which would focus on all causes of climate change. An impartial,
disinterested panel would consider all the main drivers of changing climate. At the top of the list must come the Sun, that vast thermonuclear furnace at the centre of our universe from which comes all the heat energy received by Earth and indeed all the planets in the solar system. In particular, the interactions of solar magnetic cycles, sunspot cycles and cosmic radiation have recently been shown to correlate well over millenial timescales with planetary temperatures. A disinterested panel would also look at climate change linked to the Earths orbit (or eccentricity), axial tilt (or obliquity); Earth's axial orientation (or precession); Earth's evolving shape (or dynamic oblateness); Earths magnetic field; the rotational velocity of Earths core; tectonic movements of the Earths surface; volcanic eruptions; circulation patterns of the oceans; salinity and chemistry of the oceans; reflectivity of the Earth (or albedo); variations in atmospheric water vapour, clouds and cloudiness. Somewhere close to last on the list would come minute variations in trace atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide. IPCC, for reasons of government policy - primarily European government policy - focuses solely on anthropogenic global warming, or AGW,
If you set up a bureaucracy to investigate human-induced climate change, naturally the first thing it's going to do
is establish that it's actually there.
It was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations. The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The IPCC is not a scientific body but a governmental one; it employs bureaucrats, not scientists; its chairman, for
example, Rajendra Pachauri, is a railway engineer.
Every five years or so, IPCC publishes assessment reports, of which the fourth and latest, called AR4, came out in 2007. The most-quoted part is the government-written Summary for Policymakers, which, pursuant to IPCC rules, was published before the rest of it. In other words,
the political conclusions preceded any objective evaluation of scientific knowledge both temporally and philosophically.
This by itself is a corruption of the scientific process, but it goes unremarked in official quarters.
The research portions are prepared by three working groups, the first - WG1 - focuses on the physical science; the second - WG2 - on impacts; and the third - WG3 - on mitigation. Since Working Groups 2 and 3 start off by accepting the conclusions of WG1, if these are wrong, then the entire work product of WG2 and 3 must also be wrong. So the entire edifice of AR4's logic rests on the credibility of WG1; and the entire credibility of WG1 rests on ch.9 of its 'physical science report': if ch.9 is undermined, then IPCCs
entire AGW argument is compromised and all the catastrophist conclusions of the AR4 report collapse.
Disclosures show that ch.9 had 53 authors, all of whom were part of a network who previously worked together. The last exposure draft received comments from many reviewers, only 5 of whom explicitly endorsed the entire chapter.
So a more accurate view on IPCCs basic claim in AR4 - that man-made CO2 is causing temperatures to rise dangerously
- is that 53 possibly biased authors and 5 reviewers agree with it far from IPCCs duplicitous claim that 2,500
scientists (most of whom are actually not scientists at all) agree upon so-called settled science. |
|