This is a work-in-progress, updated as time and resources permit

United Nations Reports
www.energyplanUSA.com

Science not politics
Solar
   Core Beliefs
  • United Nations failed to analyse all possible drivers of global warming
  • U.N. has agenda (aka 1997 Kyoto Protocol)
  • They may or may not be right
  • Science not politics

Open letter to UN Secretary-General
2009
During the climate summit in Copenhagen, more than 150 scientists with backgrounds in climate science wrote an open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Excerpts follow:

“Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ — the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly the science is not settled.”

"There is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes.”

IPCC Summary for Policymakers Distorted the Scientists' Work
C-SPAN Congressional Chronicle 2009
The notion of hundreds or thousands of U.N. scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny--just not true. The Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the United Nations political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party's convention platform battle, not a scientific process. Only 52 scientists wrote the media-hyped U.N. summary for policymakers, and it was actually published by the politicians and not the scientists. One former U.N. IPCC scientist bluntly told of how the United Nations' IPCC summary for policymakers distorted the scientists' work. He said, "I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said." This was from South African nuclear physicist and chemical engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a U.N. IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 referred publications.

IPCC Report Criticized by a Lead Author
Energy & Environment 2007
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, says that the IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. His paper Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously illustrates that serious and persistent doubts remain concerning the danger of anthropogenic global warming despite the frequent claims that ‘the science is settled.’

No Consensus on IPCC's Level of Ignorance
BBC 2007
A view from a leading researcher into climate change tells us while most IPCC participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:

  • To some extent the IPCC reports are a result of a political process
  • Climate scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex they cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead

The real climate change catastrophe
Telegraph UK 2009
It is commonly believed that the IPCC consists of “1,500 of the world’s top climate scientists”, charged with weighing all the scientific evidence for and against “human-induced climate change” in order to arrive at a “consensus”.

In fact, the IPCC was never intended to be anything of the kind. One of the more startling features of the IPCC is just how few scientists have been centrally involved in guiding its findings. And from the start, the purpose of the IPCC was not to test the theory, but to provide the most plausible case for promoting it. This was why the computer models it relied on as its chief source of evidence were all programmed to show that, as CO2 levels continued to rise, so temperatures must inevitably follow.

More and more questions were being asked about the IPCC’s unbalanced approach to evidence – most notably in its promotion of the so-called “hockey stick” graph, produced in time for its 2001 report by a hitherto obscure US scientist Dr Michael Mann, purporting to show how global temperatures had suddenly been shooting up to levels quite unprecedented in history.

As the world has already been through two of its coldest winters for decades, with all the signs that we may now be entering a third, the scientific case for CO2 threatening the world with warming has been crumbling away on an astonishing scale.

 

 

Comment...

The results don't pass the smell test

In my opinion the United Nations' Climate Change 2007 report failed its mission. One doesn't need to be a scientist to spot the problems with its conclusion that greenhouse gases drive global warming. ...with carbon dioxide (CO2) the worst offender.

Smell Test #1: The IPCC loaded the dice. Whereas the report should have considered all possible global warming culprits then narrow the field, the the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) instead removed everything from consideration except greenhouse gases. Here's an example from the report (p. 95), "The topics have been chosen...for understanding the risks of human-induced climate change." According to the first sentence in Wikipedia, "The IPCC is ... tasked to evaluate ... climate change caused by human activity."

Leading climate scientists say that in order to explain global warming we need to also consider cosmic rays, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the sun's decreasing magnetic field, the earth's decreasing magnetic field, sun spots and contrails. Yet, nowhere in the IPCC report is there meaningful discussion of these possible global warming drivers. Climate Change 2007 is like an election in the USSR – one candidate from which to choose.

While there appears to be a great deal of good science in Climate Change 2007, it's conclusions are unsupported.

Smell Test #2: The earth's had hundreds of instances of global warming. ...all driven by natural forces. It strains credulity to think the present warming is the first not driven by natural forces.

Smell Test #3: Crystal balls do not exist. Why should we believe climate scientists can predict many years into the future? There own words don't inspire confidence. Remember, it was only a couple years ago that ALL economic models underestimated the risk to our economy of mortgage backed securities. Warren Buffet recently warned, "Beware of geeks bearing formulas."

Smell Test #4: The United Nation's developed the Kyoto Protocol. They have a vested and continuing interest in NOT finding that it valueless. A significant portion of their funding depends upon demonizing CO2.

Smell Test #5: What about water vapor? The IPCC, almost in passing, states that water vapor is more of a problem greenhouse gas than CO2 by a wide margin. Climate scientists know water vapor plays a big role in cloud formation and they know clouds play a big role in determining the earth's climate. Yet, the IPCC doesn't offer meaningful discussion of water vapor's role in global warming.

Smell Test #6: The United Nations is a political organization, where intrigue, power grabbing and backroom deals are the rule of the day. Why should we believe their science?

Smell Test #7: Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. It comprises less than four one-hundreths of one percent of our atmosphere. Is seems unlikely this is driving global warming.

Smell Test #8: The Summary for Policymakers asserted that CO2 drives global warming. It was released on February 2, 2007. But the IPCC waited over a month to publish the body of the report. Why? Could it be because the IPCC wanted to make a splash with their conclusions before anyone could call them on their evidence.

. . .

Global warming is an extremely complex and important issue. I propose that the United States start from scratch, with our best scientists and thinkers, and determine for ourselves:

  1. Is global warming real?
  2. If so, how does it impact the United States?
  3. Is it caused, or contributed to, by greenhouse gases?

The stakes are huge. If we respond to global warming incorrectly, our children and grandchildren will likely lead lives of increasing hardship and desperation.

. . .

The IPCC Climate Change 2007 report is over a thousand pages in length and makes for difficult reading. It's not that lay-people like you and I cannot understand complex scientific reasoning, it's that in my opinion the report is 'jargoned up' and designed to shut the door to further discussion. It's written in a 'we are smarter than you' style that does not entertain evidence contrary to its conclusions.

For your reading pleasure/displeasure and desire to get at the truth, you can read the entire Climate Change 2007 report using the links at the top right column of this page.

— Robert Moen, Founder        
rmoen@energyplanUSA.com

IPCC Too Blinkered and Corrupt to Save
Financial Post 2007
Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

Japan's Society of Energy and Resources Disses the IPCC
Watts Up with That 2009
Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission. Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. The scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

Climate Emails Stoke Debate
Wall Street Journal 2009
The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.

The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.

John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."

 

 

IPCC admits mistakes
Wall Street Journal 2010
Some top officials of a Nobel Prize-winning climate-science organization are acknowledging the panel made some mistakes amid a string of recent revelations questioning the accuracy of some of the information in its influential reports.

That officials with the IPCC are on the defensive is a big turnabout from 2007, when the then-obscure U.N. organization shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. The IPCC got the prize for its 2007 report concluding that climate change is "unequivocal" and is "very likely" caused by man. The report motivated countries around the world, including the U.S., to push for limits on greenhouse-gas emissions.

Complete IPCC Report in pdf
Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis

According to the IPCC, their 2007 report is the most comprehensive and up-to-date scientific assessment of past, present and future climate change. Do you agree? Have they adequately supported their claims? Have they scientifically eliminated all other possible drivers of global warming but CO2?

'Scientific Consensus' Not Represented in the IPCC Report
The Hill Times 2007
In a letter to Canada's The Hill Times, Dr Khandekar writes:

"As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by IPCC scientists, and that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming of the earth's surface. We suggest a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.

“Anyone still tempted to believe the scare-mongering generated by misinterpretation of the 2007 IPCC report, should do a simple reality check regarding the earth's temperature change. Since mid-1998, the earth's mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human-added CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.

Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief
Telegraph.co.uk 2010
A research institute headed by Dr Pachauri will receive up to £10 million funding over the next five years from the Department for International Development (DfID).

The decision by DfID to fund Dr Pachauri's institute, based in Delhi, will add to growing concern over allegations of conflict of interest with critics accusing Dr Pachauri and TERI of gaining financially from policies which are formulated as a result of the work he carries out as IPCC chairman – a suggestion he strongly denies.

Because Dr Pachauri's role at the IPCC is unpaid – although he does receive tens of thousands of pounds in travel expenses – he is exempt along with other panel members from declaring outside interests with the UN. But he is paid an undisclosed salary by TERI.