Shocking Truths About The IPCC And Their Reports

January 4, 2009 Liberal MSM Bias, Libtards on Parade, Lunatic Lefties, MSM Ignorance, News, Opinion, Stupidity, The Fiction of Global Warming View Comments

The members of the MDI* are NOT going to like this info

It is easy for a layman, such as myself, to blithely claim that a programmer can make a computer regurgitate whatever information that he/she wishes. That could be the only argument ever made by those of us who oppose the hypocritical and arrogant notion of anthropological global warming and we’d be right. We would also be correct in stating that it has been widely reported in the media that numerous scientists have gone on record opposing the anthropological argument as well. We could also make statements about how many so-called climate experts have been caught cooking the books so to speak – and we’d also be right.

Anyone with half a brain should realize that what is reported in the media is often times not complete. “Journalists” have a habit of omitting qualifying information to put the “sexy story” into context. After the IPCC report came out in April of 2007, anthropological global warming became “settled science” in the minds of the media and it was no longer permitted for anyone to oppose it. This sheepish mentality is something that liberal America has been arguing exists in Conservative America since the 1960s. But now we see first hand that the opposite is actually true.

Liberals oppose any dissension. For all their pretty rhetoric about Conservatives wanting to usher in Orwellian Big Brother, it is actually liberal America which has introduced the thought police. If you aren’t Politically Correct according to liberal standards, you are an outcast. We’ve become a nation of hyphenated people. No longer is a person black or a negro, they are African-Americans. No longer Indians, it’s Native-Americans. No longer Asians, it’s Asian-Americans. It matters not if the person actually lived in these places, but you are a hyphenated person in this country unless you are a caucasian. No, we’re not European-Americans we’re white.

The group mentality of the specialized sub-culture of liberal America has virtually eliminated free thought on the left. Marching in lock-step not daring to step out of line, they lost the ability to think clearly and that is what has given us the mass hysteria known as anthropological (man-made) global warming.

It is a hoax. A fabrication designed to syphon as much taxpayers’ money from government coffers into phony research projects just to keep the so-called scientists in the public eye and eating well. If anyone actually read any parts of the IPCC reports, they would see where the scientists who contributed to this widely misrepresented document attempted to send signals that they weren’t exactly sure what they were saying was accurate.

For example:

“Computational constraints restrict the resolution that is possible in the discretized equations, and some representation of the large-scale impacts of unresolved processes is required (the parametrization problem). “ (AR4 Chapter 8. p.596.) SOURCE

The “AR4″ is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report released September 5, 2007.

In the introduction of the “Synthesis Report” it says specifically on page 27 of the Introduction…

The IPCC uncertainty guidance note1 defines a framework for the treatment of uncertainties across all WGs and in this Synthesis Report. This framework is broad because the WGs assess material from different disciplines and cover a diversity of approaches to the treatment of uncertainty drawn from the literature. The nature of data, indicators and analyses used in the natural sciences is generally different from that used in assessing technology development or the social sciences. WG I focuses on the former, WG III on the latter, and WG II covers aspects of both.

Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. Choices among and within these three approaches depend on both the nature of the information available and the authors’ expert judgment of the correctness and completeness of current scientific understanding.

Where uncertainty is assessed qualitatively, it is characterised by providing a relative sense of the amount and quality of evidence (that is, information from theory, observations or models indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and the degree of agreement (that is, the level of concurrence in the literature on a particular finding). This approach is used by WG III through a series of self-explanatory terms such as: high agreement, much evidence; high agreement, medium evidence; medium agreement, medium evidence; etc.

Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively using expert judgement of the correctness of underlying data, models or analyses, then the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less than 1 out of 10.

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.

WG II has used a combination of confidence and likelihood assessments and WG I has predominantly used likelihood assessments.

This Synthesis Report follows the uncertainty assessment of the underlying WGs. Where synthesised findings are based on information from more than one WG, the description of uncertainty used is consistent with that for the components drawn from the respective WG reports.

Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square brackets in this report indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e. there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best estimate.

The fact that they found a need to address “uncertainty” in the beginning of the “Synthesis Report” should be a signal to those reading it that it could possibly not be an accurate document. In fact, it isn’t

According to Dr. Timothy Ball…

What do the IPCC reports actually say about global warming? What is the basis for their position? All predictions of global warming are based on computer climate models. The major models in question are the ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to produce their Reports. The most recent, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) uses and averages output from 18 computer models. These Reports are the source for policy on climate change used by world governments. The Reports are released in two parts. The first release and the one used for policy by governments was the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) released in April 2007. The Technical Report (“The Physical Science Basis”) produced by Working Group I was released in November 2007. It is essential to read because it contains more, but not all, of the severe limitations in climate research including the data, the mechanisms and the computer models.

Hmmm… 18 computer models are the entire basis upon which the conclusions of the IPCC are based. Well then. How did they get 18 computer models to all say the same thing if the models were independently designed? The truth is they didn’t.

According to Dr. Ball…

The evidence is based solely on the output of the 18 computer climate models selected by the IPCC. There are a multitude of problems with the computer models including the fact that every time they are run they produce different results. The final result is an average of all these runs. The IPCC then take the average results of the 18 models and average them for the results in their Reports.

They couldn’t even get 1 computer model to agree with itself. They never were able to duplicate the same results on the same model. Now if they were going to provide data proving that man is responsible for drastic climate change to a degree of certainty that would convinced the whole of the world to alter the way we live, shouldn’t they be able to prove this information beyond a shadow of a doubt? I would think so but for some reason they cannot duplicate the results.

The computer models don’t take into account non-linear variables such as the atmosphere and oceans which are liquids. This situation is known as a chaotic environment. One that cannot be predicted. That said however, High Priest Al Gore, his minions of the MDI*, and the mass media made declarations that the information contained in the IPCC Report made the anthropological hypothesis settled science.

Science – that’s a joke for you.

According to Dr. Ball…

A simple single word definition of science is the ability to predict. It is rejected by the IPCC yet they present their work as scientific. Media and the public generally believe the IPCC is making predictions and that is clearly the assumption for government policies. Members of the IPCC do nothing to dissuade the public from that view. All previous projections have been incorrect.

So, if the “science” of the IPCC Report is to be believed, it must be able to accurately predict future changes. But let us keep in mind, that many of these “scientists” who worked on this document can’t accurately forecast a weather event more than 24 hours into the future.

The evidence presented in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report has been proven wrong in the past 2 years. Global temperatures have actually decreased .5 degrees Celsius in 2007 and 2008. Record snow fall totals have been recorded as well as record low temperatures. But the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report failed to predict this occurrence.

Something else the IPCC failed to predict, a substantial decrease in sunspot activity.

In an active solar year, it is not uncommon for the average sunspot activity in a month to be around 100. In the first 7 months of 2008 the average was 3. August recorded no sunspot activity at all. The last report that I had read was that for the bulk of November and the first half of December 2008, there hadn’t been any sunspots either.

The truth conveniently left out of Al Gore’s ~~‘Incomplete Deception’~~ ‘Inconvenient Truth’ is the fact that the earth’s temperature hasn’t increased at all since 1998. So from 1998 – 2006 the earth’s temperature failed to rise and in 2007, it began to actually fall. Where was that on Al’s Power Point presentation?

Here’s is the real ‘Inconvenient Truth’.

The earth’s temperature began to rise when ‘The Little Ice Age’ began to end roughly around 1750. Now, it seems that the earth may be entering a cooling trend. Is it another ice age? Who knows. But one thing is for certain, I doubt seriously that human activity has anything to do with it.

I’ve asked the question before and it bears repeating again. If liberals are right and humans are nothing more than another of the earth’s creatures, why must we be the only creature forced to alter the way we live our lives in order to save the earth or other species? I doubt seriously that whales and spotted owls would be willing to alter their lifestyles to save the earth or humans. When I see a whale swimming along with a “I break for humans” bumper sticker on its dorsal fin, perhaps I’ll begin to break for them.

As temperatures continue to fall due to inactivity of the sun, when will the orchestrators of the anthropological global warming hoax come forward, admit this fraud, and face the world?

I won’t hold my breath. I may buy a new parka, but I won’t hold my breath in anticipation for High Priest Al Gore’s* apology or the return of the Nobel Prize that he fraudulently accepted. As-a-matter-of-fact, I predict that for the first few years of proven cooling, it will be Al and his minions that will be claiming that the cooling is a blowback situation caused by warming and that the warming will resume. Even if that doesn’t happen for 1,000 years.

Bookmark and Share