IPCC. Call it propaganda, not science.

Gary Novak
Independent Scientist
Science Home

Global Warming:
Global Warming Main Page
Crunching the Numbers
Absorption Spectra
Details Explained
Oceans not Rising
Future Ice Age
Acid in the Oceans
Context

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Call it propaganda, not science

The IPCC is controlled by political hacks who override the scientists with a predetermined agenda. Calling it science is a fraud upon the public.

Tom V. Segalstad: Oceans Regulate CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.

Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2. See Global Dynamic page.

This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements...

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims. Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous. "They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

Original Source of Segalstad's Criticisms

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, calls for abolishing the IPCC.

Excerpt: The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

Original Article by Gray

Have you ever seen anyone quote the IPCC—the official source—the first, last and only word on the subject allowed by propagandists? It never happens, because the IPCC reports were written as muddled, irrelevant, superficial, opinionated blather with no mention of specifics or relevant evidence, so everything must be based on black-box computer models, which other scientists are not allowed to evaluate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is supposedly the last word on global warming. Those who promote global warming hype declare IPCC reports to be peer reviewed science, and peer reviewed science to be infallible. On that basis, critics are attacked for putting themselves above the unquestionable word of science.

But the IPCC is controlled by political hacks who reshape the science for their agenda. There is no place in science for arbitrary authority—least of all a subject as complex as climate change.

Alexander Cockburn, editor of Counterpunch, is a journalist who describes the position of the critics fairly well. He says, "To identify either the government-funded climate modelers or their political shock troops, the IPCC's panelists, with scientific rigor and objectivity is as unrealistic as detecting the same attributes in a craniologist financed by Lombroso studying a murderer's head in a nineteenth-century prison for the criminally insane."
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05122007.html

On another page, he adds, "Professor Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy, wrote in the Wall Street Journal already the 12th of June 1996 about a major deception on global warming: "I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html

But the problem isn't just the IPCC. The bureaucrats only paid for research which promoted their view of humans causing global warming. This bias is demonstrated by a survey by Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of science articles on global warming and found that 75% indicated humans are the cause, while 25% gave no indication, and none said humans are not the cause. It shows that grants were not issued to scientists who disagreed with the bureaucrats. Propagandists claim it shows all scientists agree with the official hype; but many other surveys show scientists do not all agree.
Example of Selective Grants

To promote a carbon dioxide agenda propagandists start at the end point of the science—drawing conclusions and picking numbers—and then work backwards to justify the results. They decided that there would be 0.6°C global warming at this time, even though satellite measurements show slight cooling due to increased precipitation and clouds, which reflect away solar energy.

There is no way to trace down the logic of the hype, because there is none. Computer models are used, and they have no relation to objective reality. The closest thing to a logic is a scheme called an energy budget. If you search this subject on the internet, you will find as many schemes as promoters of the hype. The budget schemes are nothing but a stab in the dark. They show arrows pointing into the sky, and back to the ground, tracing a supposed flow of energy of myriads of origins.

Basically, the energy budget schemes try to show how there can be a significant amount of energy stemming from human activity, when in reality the quantity is too miniscule to show up in the numbers. A common theme is to show as much or more energy flowing from the surface of the earth as striking the earth from the sun, and then coming back down from the atmosphere in approximately the same quantity. This number must be ballooned into a large size, because it is the only thing humans can influence.

If there really were that much energy flowing from the earth and atmosphere, your skin would be fried just lying in bed. The amount of radiation given off from matter is strictly determined by its temperature. If for example, the earth and atmosphere were liberating as much or more energy at 80°F as the sun adds, so would every object in a dark room, including a chair or a bed. Sitting or sleeping raises the surrounding temperature to about 98°F. Matter at this temperature producing more energy than the sun adds to the earth's surface would fry a person's skin. In other words, sleeping in bed would be as hot as sleeping on black asphalt on a 98°F day. You would get "sunburned" walking around in a dark room. (The infrared radiation emitted by matter, and picked up by carbon dioxide, is invisible to humans.)

Night vision equipment shows how much energy matter gives off at normal temperatures, because the purpose of night vision is to pick up that energy. A flashlight swamps night vision. Moonlight produces more energy than dark objects. How much energy is there in moonlight? Next to none. Normal-temperature matter does not give off significant radiation.

So where do those energy budget schemes come from? They are nothing but contrivances in conflict with obvious science. Frauds get by with it, because they have the government grant providers enforcing the scheme; and on this issue, a large group of agitators forces the fraud down everyone's throats.

Even if there were such massive amounts of radiation being emitted by normal temperature matter, it would not salvage the propaganda, because there are many additional falsehoods in the rationale. Every point is twisted and stretched for the purpose. And then when using the absurd quantities, they do not add up to a significant effect being produced by humans. Everything about the numbers is contrived including the end result.

These estimates show that there is no real mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. I explain how the numbers are derived on the web page called Crunching the Numbers.

claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C
95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C
1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C
8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C
3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.0039°C
5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C

Authority over reality is never used for any other purpose than fraud, because it replaces evidence. Honest persons use evidence instead of authority.

Secret Knowledge

Frauds always base their position on something which they claim to know but can't describe. You are supposed to trust them.

Constructive persons always describe the evidence, or they don't say it. They expect each person to do his own evaluating.

Why should a bunch of idiots who have never taken a science course in their lives tell people what to think about global warming? Do they know something others don't know?

Hundreds of years ago, when there was a theocracy, and social structures were frivolous, a religious group tried to institutionalize the standard of secret knowledge and called it gnosticism. The use of secret knowledge didn't begin or end with them; it is the only way corrupt persons present a subject. They will not describe the specifics of evidence and logic, because the evidence and logic contradict their frauds.

There is a constructive way to communicate and a destructive way to communicate. Constructive persons always explain. Destructive persons never do. The difference is in personal moral standards.

You need to recognize the difference and demand explanations instead of trusting frauds. Has anyone ever explained a single point of the carbon dioxide fraud? They never do. Supposedly the IPCC has it figured out, and all you have to do is go along with their conclusions.

If it can't be explained, it is a fraud.

External Links:
More of Cockburn on Global Warming
Dissidents Against Dogma
Why the IPCC Should be Disbanded
Modeling is Useless for Predicting — Pielke

Note: One of Pielke's critics who models says short term errors (as in the recent cool-down) can be expected in modeling, but the long term prediction of global warming is unquestionable. Previously, modelers were saying the opposite—that the short term predictions are the most reliable, while long term predictions are impossible. In other words, rationalizers will rationalize anything, and there is no such thing as proving anything to them regardless of how stark the facts.