« Lego Shuns Troops, Extols Lefty Propaganda | Main | Laugher of the Week »

November 9, 2007

IPCC Member Calls for Its Abolition

This year the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the bad joke known as the igNobel Peace Prize with the Goracle as a reward for its politically motivated propagandizing on behalf of the potentially disastrous global warming hoax. But not everyone is in love with the IPCC — including those of its members who are not political hacks, but legitimate scientists with backbone and integrity.

As noted earlier, John Christy rejected the prize. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, goes further. He calls for the IPCC to be abolished:

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 organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

Given the propaganda tactics that have been passed off as scientific method, even the widely accepted belief that the planet is in a warming trend is disputable:

It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.
This claim fails from two fundamental facts.
1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.
How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?
What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming".
2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected".
It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is likely.
And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming".

Likewise, claims of large buildups of carbon dioxide are suspect:

The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals.

Even if it were proven that temperatures and CO2 levels are both rising, that wouldn't prove there's a correlation between them. But this doesn't stop moonbats from propping up wild-eyed predictions with unvalidated computer models:

Proper "validation" of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.
No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction.

After being forced to question the integrity of scientists who have been corrupted into playing along with the global warming hoax, Dr. Gray concludes:

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.

Too bad they don't report stuff like this on the news.

Vincent Gray: Not drinking the Kool-Aid.

On a tip from Kevin.

Posted by Van Helsing at November 9, 2007 9:24 AM


Enviro-kook Rosie O'Donnell Demanded Daily Helicopter Rides from MSNBC. That must be why the deal fell apart. MSNBC didn't have any heavy-lift helicopters capable of complying.

Posted by: V the K at November 9, 2007 11:00 AM

Wow, this guy better have someone else start his car in the morning. No telling what the militant envirowackos like ELF will do to him.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 9, 2007 1:10 PM

It's not the fraud, it's the waste!

Look at the time and money wasted in just one city!

When it's not your money, I suppose the sky's the limit!

Posted by: OregonGuy at November 9, 2007 1:47 PM

Ever see those new-age "disaster movies" (Volcano, 10.5, ect)? Apparently, so have the "global warming" enthusists: the hero/heroine is always a "scientist" who disregards the evidence of his/her collegues and the machines that were designed for the work to go witn their "gut feeling".

Guess who is prooved right in the third reel? (Spit!)

Posted by: KHarn at November 9, 2007 3:42 PM

How can highly educated scientists feel right about their life pursuit spouting a hoax. Lacking integrity and accountability is no way to go through life.

Posted by: Mockinbird at November 10, 2007 7:57 AM

the hero/heroine is always a "scientist" who disregards the evidence of his/her collegues and the machines that were designed for the work to go witn their "gut feeling".

Yep, that's how we train scientists, to go with their gut feelings. Sheesh.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 10, 2007 10:58 AM