The Climategate cover-up continues. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the panels that are investigating the Climategate emails are avoiding investigating the actual science and the effect that activities revealed by Climategate had on the science. Many reasons, valid or not, can be given for this failure. But until the scientific issues are fully addressed, the cover-up remains.
The latest effort was by an “International Panel” carefully selected by University of East Anglia and headed by Lord Oxbourgh. The frailty of this investigation is discussed fully in the articles below.
In preparing the road to Cancun for next fall’s IPCC grand festival, last weekend the UN held a Climate and World Government Conference in Bonn, Germany. The delegates from the 175 countries spent most of their time scheming how to extort monies from Western nations to give to the governments of underdeveloped nations. No doubt many delegates were reminiscing about the glory days of Copenhagen not so long ago. The Conference ended with a scarcely noticed whimper.
Last week’s TWTW, contained an explanation of how the 2007 IPPC Assessment Report 4 (AR-4) covered-up the Holocene Climate Optimum. As this was being prepared, Steve McIntire was posting more detailed and technical explanations of this effort to disguise physical evidence. Steve’s postings are referenced below.
A number of independent researchers have discovered that about one-third of the “peer-reviewed’ references found in IPPC AR4 are not peer-reviewed. Many of the references are outright propaganda efforts by special-interest groups. For years, a Swiss based international special-interest conglomerate garnered in tens of millions of dollars by using the false claim that polar bears are threatened. This false claim was included in the IPCC report, and subsequently the US government declared it to be so. Using this technique, the activists successfully denied the development of American oil fields off Alaska.
It should be noted that in the independent review of references, the critical science section from Working Group I received high marks for its citations. However, many references contradicting the conclusions were not cited and the summary of this group’s effort greatly overstated the quality and certainty of the science.
Noises are being emitted from the US Senate that a new cap-and-tax bill by some any other name will be forthcoming shortly. In the great democratic spirit of opaqueness, the very nature of the proposed bill is being held secret not to mention the details. In the House, promoters of cap-and-tax are perplexed why the US coal industry is not supporting them as they promise great hand-outs. Perhaps some industries are beginning to realize that free hand-outs can come at a great cost.
The volcano that erupted in Iceland at the end of the week has already produced speculation as to the effects it will have on climate change. A study in the Scientific American suggests that global warming will cause many such eruptions by melting the ice above volcanoes. Could it be that global warming will cause the next ice age by causing volcanoes to erupt and blacken the skies?
Last week we posed the question as to the ability of government entities and entities receiving government support to investigate inappropriate behavior by government-funded scientists. The government entities trusted to rigorously maintain the global surface-air datasets failed to do so and did not disclose such failure to the public’ this is one such example. We have received a number of thoughtful comments and will endeavor to summarize them in an upcoming TWTW.
SCIENCE EDITORIAL #12-2010 (April 17, 2010)
By S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Due Diligence on the IPCC Assessment Report #4 
I know it’s a tough job – but let’s just check the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC 2007) iconic, widely-quoted conclusion and parse its meaning:
“Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GH gas concentrations.”
How should one interpret this ex cathedra declaration to the faithful?
IPCC helpfully defines ‘very likely’ as ’90-99% certain’, but they don’t tell us how they reached such well-defined certainty.
What remarkable unanimity! Just how many and whom did they poll? No word.
IPCC doesn’t define the word ‘most.’ We may assume it means anything between 51 and 99%. That’s quite a spread.
But a footnote informs us that solar forcing is less than 10% of anthropogenic [0.12/ 1.6 W/m2]; so ‘most’ must be closer to 99% than to 51%.
OK; let’s check out the data since 1958. But we don’t want to rely on contaminated surface data – which IPCC likely used (although they omitted to say so).
However, atmospheric data were readily available to the IPCC in the CCSP-SAP-1.1 report (Fig 3a, p.54; convening lead author John Lanzante, NOAA), with independent analyses by the Hadley Centre and NOAA that agree well. And further, according to GH models, atmospheric trends should be larger than surface temperature trends.
1958 – 2005: Shows a total warming of +0.5 C . But how much of that is anthropogenic? (The IPCC ascribes pre-1958 warming to natural forcings.)
So let’s break it down:
1958 – 1976: Cooling
1976 – 1977: Sudden jump of +0.5 C (Cannot be due to GH gases)
1979 – 1997: The satellite data show only a slightly positive trend
1998 – 1999: El Nino spike
2000 – 2001: No detectable warming trend
2001 – 2003: Sudden jump of +0.3 C (Cannot be due to GH gases)
2003 – present: No trend, maybe even slight cooling
In conclusion: The IPCC’s ‘most’ is not sustained by the best observations; the surface data (1979 to 1997) are suspect – until the raw data and algorithms of CRU are examined.
Therefore, the human contribution is very likely only 10% of observed warming –or even less.
ARTICLES: [For the numbered articles below please see the attached pdf.]
By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Apr 15, 2010
By Peter Foster, Financial Post, Apr 15, 2010
By Roger Helmer, MEP, Apr 16, 2010
IBD Editorial, Apr 13, 2010
By Gautam Naik, WSJ, Apr 16, 2010
By Mark Landsbaum, Orange County Register, Apr 12, 2010 [H/t Real Clear Politics]
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.” – James Madison
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
By Bishop Hill, Apr 7, 2010, [H/t Calvin Beisner]
“But wait! I hear you cry. There is an IPCC inquiry too isn’t there? Well, yes, except that the IPCC inquiry is looking at institutional design and not scientific matters, so once again, the allegation will be out of scope.
Bishop Hill, Apr 10, 2010 [H/t Francois Guillaumat]
“It is not that Jones has been found innocent; on many charges he just hasn’t been tried yet.”
‘Climategate’ scientists criticized for not using best statistical tools: Climate change scientists at the centre of an ongoing row over man-made global warming have been criticised for being “naive” and “disorganised“.
By Louise Gray, Telegraph, UK, Apr 14, 2010 [H/t Bob Kay]
By Myron Ebell, Global Warming.org, Apr 14, 2010
By Ben Webster, Times Online, Apr 14, 2010, [H/t Bob Kay]
IBD Editorial, Apr 15, 2010
By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Apr 14, 2010
“The Oxburgh report is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.”
By Kirk Myers, Seminole County Environmental News Examiner, Apr 16, 2010 [H/t ICECAP.US]
Climate Model Magic: Washington Post Today, Gerald North Yesterday (Part IV in a series)
By Robert Bradley, Master Resource, Apr 13, 2010
Defending the Orthodoxy
By Juliette Jowit, Guardian, UK, Apr 9, 2010 [H/t Climate Depot]
By Karla Adam and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, Apr 15, 2010 [H/t Conrad Potemra]
The Fine Art of Eliminating History
By Steve McIntyre, Apr 8, 2010 [H/t Francois Guillaumat]
By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Apr 8, 2010 [H/t Francois Guillaumat]
Climate treaty realities push leaders to trim priority lists
By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, Apr 13, 2010
UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F”s on Report Card
By Donna Laframboise, Noconsensus.org, Apr 14, 2010
By Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, SPPI Original Paper UPDATED Apr 13, 2010
By Marlo Lewis, Master Resource, Apr 15, 2010
By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Apr 13, 2010
Government on the March
By Jim Snyder, The Hill, Apr 14, 2010
[SEPP Comment: Rio Tinto is a London based international conglomerate supporting US cap and tax. US coal interests oppose it. Many in the US Congress cannot understand why. “The bill would give an estimated $60 billion in subsidies to the sector over the next two decades to develop cleaner technologies through a new fee on transmission lines and also from the sale of pollution allowances in a market the bill creates.”We don’t give $60 billion to al Qaeda,” [Rep.] Inslee said. “We don’t give $60 billion to industries we are at war with.” Perhaps the Congressman can explain the source of the $60 Billion he is so willing to spend to bribe the coal industry.]
And Where Does This Get Us?
By Andy Pasztor, WSJ Asian News, Apr 14, 2010
By David Whitehouse, The Observatory, Apr 5, 2010
By Stuart Clark, NewScientist, Apr 14, 2010 [H/t ICECAP.US]
[SEPP Comment: Measurement of irradiance, the only solar change the IPCC considers began in 1977. Although irradiance has been dropping since 1985, has it dropped below what it was during the cooling period between 1940 and 1975?]
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:
Climate change row over the mystery of the shrinking sheep: Scientists have questioned claims that global warming is causing sheep to change size and colour in the latest row to engulf climate change science.
By Louise Gray, Telegraph, UK, Apr 7, 2010
By Bishop Hill, Apr 13, 2010
[SEPP Comment: Given big subsidies for electricity from alternative sources, eventually someone would develop a way to generate solar power at night.]
By Alister Doyle, Reuters, Apr 16, 2010 [H/t Watts Up With That]
“A thaw of Iceland’s ice caps in coming decades caused by climate change may trigger more volcanic eruptions by removing a vast weight and freeing magma from deep below ground, scientists said on Friday.”
By Steven Goddard, Wattsupwiththat. Apr 16, 2010
Niels Bohr Institute, Apr 13, 2010, [H/t Watts Up With That]
[SEPP Comment: No matter how many models they run, no matter how many countries are involved, it the datasets are bad, the predictions are without value.]
By Tony Hake, Washington Examiner, Apr 9, 2010 [H/t Marc Morano]