The climate scam continues

Sixth Assessment Report cycle

The IPCC is currently in its Sixth Assessment cycle. During this cycle, the Panel will produce three Special Reports, a Methodology Report on national greenhouse gas inventories and the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

The 43rd Session of the IPCC held in April 2016 agreed that the AR6 Synthesis Report would be finalized in 2022 in time for the first UNFCCC global stocktake when countries will review progress towards their goal of keeping global warming to well below 2 °C while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C. The three Working Group contributions to AR6 will be finalized in 2021.

The meeting to draft the outlines of each of the three Working Group contributions to the AR6 was held on 1 – 5 May 2017 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The draft outlines were considered by the Panel at the 46th Session of the IPCC held on 6 – 10 September 2017 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Ref.: http://www.ipcc.ch/

……………………….

IPCC Report Igor Khmelinskii

Below is the full report of official IPCC Reviewer Igor Khmelinskii. Read it. You will have a lot of fun.
After reading it, to you this question:

What will they do with his official report?
1) Ignore it? That proves they are selecting opinions. Only pass those opinions that they like. So they are all fraudsters, creating a false consensus.
2) Include it in the final report? Then they admit that fraud has occurred, that such comments belong in the report.
3) Change the text? No, they can not. See his point 1.
4) Call him ‘crazy’? Although his text may give grounds for such an opinion (since it is ‘unconventional’ to say the least), calling people crazy is a political tool to remove dissidents from the stage, especially used in former East-block countries.

Follows the text of my expert review, as submitted to the IPCC (Reviewer file: 721; submission date: 2012-11-30; Reviewer ID: 1249).

  1. Legal Disclaimer. IPCC and/or any of its representatives/associates/affiliates/divisions/governing bodies/subsidiaries will not use my name in the IPCC documents and publications, unless they make the entire text of the dissenting minority opinions expressed in my review available to general public, the text of this Disclaimer included. In no case will they mention me as a person who had endorsed or otherwise approved the presently reviewed Draft, unless fraudulent content is removed in the final version of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
  2. This and the following Paragraphs, up to and including Paragraph 8, refer to the entire Chapter 9. Chapter 9 is the key part of the entire Report, as it is supposed to discuss the climate models, which allegedly provide (the only existing) material evidence that the warming observed in the second half of the 20th century is caused by greenhouse gases generated by humanity, which I will henceforth refer to as the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW) hypothesis. In fact, apart from models, there is no other way to establish cause-and-effect relation between greenhouse gases (most importantly, carbon dioxide) and climate, as we are unable to perform well-controlled experiments on our climate system. Interpretation of historic climate data does not provide any alternative demonstration of such relation, as any such interpretation is based on the same (wrong, as I shall demonstrate) climate models, and thus amounts to circular reasoning.
  3. The Scientific Method had been defined, for example, by Richard Feynman (Feynman, Richard (1965), The Character of Physical Law, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, ISBN 0-262-56003-8.; p. 156) as follows: “In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.” As a consequence of this definition, a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis, whereas no amount of corroborating evidence may prove or confirm a hypothesis – by stating otherwise one would commit a logical fallacy called “affirming the consequent/denying the antecedent” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy). The logical fallacy of this Chapter is in making the (implicit and ever present in the Report) statement that it is the anthropogenically produced carbon dioxide that is causing the global warming, based on the knowledge that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases affect climate to some extent. In other words, they accept the AGW hypothesis as final truth, without even trying to use the Scientific Method and test the hypothesis. By doing that, this key Chapter and the entire Report assume a non-scientific dogmatic approach, as all of the previous Reports uniformly do, which necessarily and inevitably produces non-scientific (and, as I shall demonstrate, fraudulent) conclusions.
  4. In effect, Chapter 9 failed to address two key questions, which must be addressed before one tries using the models for understanding present and future climate: (1) Do the models represent the physics of our terrestrial climate system correctly? (with the emphasis on “correctly”) (2) Have the predictions made by these same (or slightly modified) models five, ten or fifteen years ago become true? These should be the questions to ask before one tries making any climate predictions and/or policy recommendations based on the models. I shall address these questions in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, and 8, respectively.
  5. I will discuss only two of the publications that allow us to reject the AGW hypothesis, although, according to Paragraph 3, a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. The first one is the paper by Lindzen and Choi (“On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data”, R. Lindzen, Y.-S. Choi, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, 2009, pp. L16705. doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.). These authors demonstrate in their Fig. 2 and in the rest of the paper that the IPCC climate models distort the essential physics of the terrestrial climate system. Indeed, all of the climate models produce a reduction in the outgoing infra-red radiation upon an increase in surface temperature on Earth, whereas the experimental results, extracted from satellite data, evidence an increase in the outgoing infra-red radiation, in the same conditions. Therefore, our terrestrial climate system behaves as if it were in a stable state of equilibrium: indeed, its behaviour corresponds to the Le Chatelier’s principle (the system always reacts to any change in such a way that the externally imposed change is partially compensated; see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle), whereas the climate models behave like an unstable system, amplifying all and every temperature change. We therefore see that the models that reproduce the conditions and conclusions of the AGW hypothesis do so at the cost of distorting essential physics of the terrestrial climate system. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is wrong, as it has not been reproduced in models describing the climate physics correctly. Moreover, the AGW hypothesis can not be reproduced in models describing climate physics correctly, as it is impossible to attribute the warming of the 20th century to carbon dioxide based on correct models. The important conclusion that necessarily and inevitably follows from this paper is that the AGW hypothesis is wrong, as it is only viable in the virtual reality of the IPCC climate models, fundamentally different from the physical reality of the terrestrial climate system.
  6. The second publication I will discuss is the one by Khmelinskii and Stallinga (“Climate Change in the XXIst Century: Mechanisms and Predictions”, I. Khmelinskii and P. Stallinga, in Proceedings of the 6th IASME / WSEAS International Conference on ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT (EE ’11), Cambridge, UK, February 20-25, 2011, eds. Z. Bojkovic et al., RECENT RESEARCHES in ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, WSEAS Press, 2011, ISSN: 1792-8230; ISBN: 978-960-474-274-5, pp. 26-31. Available: http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2011/Cambridge/EE/EE-02.pdf). These authors in their Fig. 1 and in the text of the paper analyze the recent history of the global average Sea Surface Temperature (SST) and compare it to the recent history of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, in an attempt to find the signature of the AGW in the SST data. In fact, they could find no such signature, due to the fact that human carbon dioxide emissions started growing exponentially in the second half of the 20th century, whereas SST had two (virtually identical) growth periods, one of which in the first half of the 20th century, when little or no excess carbon dioxide had been liberated into the atmosphere by humanity. These authors therefore conclude that the AGW hypothesis has to be rejected, based on the recent SST history. Note that SST is a better indicator of the climate evolution than the global average temperature, being unaffected by interfering factors such as the Urban Heat Island effect. The latter distorts climate data gathered on the continents, with additional uncertainty introduced by the corrections made to compensate for it.
  7. In Paragraphs 5 and 6 I discussed two papers, each of the two providing sufficient grounds to reject the AGW hypothesis. I shall not discuss any further evidence against the AGW hypothesis, considering it rejected, according to Feynman’s definition presented in Paragraph 3. Additionally, I conclude that the IPCC climate models are wrong, as they obviously distort the essential climate physics, and therefore any and all of their results and conclusions should be expressly and unconditionally rejected and disregarded in their entirety.
  8. It is well known that there has been no global warming for the last 15 years, contrary to the IPCC predictions produced by IPCC climate models for the same period of time. Moreover, we have reasons to believe (see, for example, H. Abdussamatov, 2008, The Sun defines the Climate, http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf) that instead of the “global warming” we are in for a new Little Ice Age, already in progress, which will be similar to the Maunder minimum of solar activity as regards temperatures and other climate-related consequences. Therefore, the IPCC models have not (because they distort climate physics) and will not (for the same reason, and also because they neglect solar change) predict future climate, and thus should be rejected and disregarded, as I have obtained negative answers for the two key questions of Paragraph 4.
  9. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 2. Chapter 2 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Atmosphere and Surface”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
  10. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 3. Chapter 3 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Ocean”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
  11. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 4. Chapter 4 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Cryosphere”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
  12. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 5. Chapter 5 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Paleoclimate Archives”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in our my 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
  13. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 6. Chapter 6 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
  14. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 7. Chapter 7 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Clouds and Aerosols”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
  15. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 8. Chapter 8 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
  16. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 10. Chapter 10 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is exclusively done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
  17. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 11. Chapter 11 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability”. These projections and predictions are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.
  18. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 12. Chapter 12 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility”. The projections, predictions and scenarios discussed here are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.
  19. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 13. Chapter 13 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Sea Level Change”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, data interpretation and projections, predictions and scenarios are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.
  20. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 14. Chapter 14 reviews some of the published information on the topic “Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change”. However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that “more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis”. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the “general progress of science”, resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began – these conclusions being “AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it”. Additionally, data interpretation and projections, predictions and scenarios are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.
  21. This paragraph refers to the entire “Summary for the policy makers”. As detailed above, the Report is built from fraudulent pseudo-scientific constructs based on the AGW dogma, containing no science. Therefore, any conclusions and recommendations presented in this chapter have no scientific backing, and should be expressly ignored. The corrected Summary for policy makers should thus read “There is nothing wrong with our climate. We have no climate problem, and need no solutions for this climate problem. All of the currently implemented solutions to the alleged climate problem should be revoked, effective immediately. We are sorry for defrauding the general public in the previous Reports we have produced so far.”
  22. This paragraph refers to the entire Report. As amply demonstrated above, the current draft Report is a fraudulent pseudo-scientific construct based on the AGW dogma, adopted uncritically and never questioned. Its climate projections and predictions have no scientific backing and can’t be used as a justification for any type of public policies. Similarly, all of the public policies implemented as the result of previous Reports have no scientific backing and should be immediately and entirely revoked and discontinued.
  23. This paragraph refers to the entire Report. The body of the research that the Report pseudo-scientifically presents as “proof” of the AGW hypothesis is constituted by the primary and direct fraud of the IPCC climate models and general research approach, and by the secondary and indirect fraud of the most of the remaining research that uses these models in the interpretation of climate data, for climate predictions, and in discussing development scenarios for the humanity and for the natural systems. The only research that may be valid as regards to facts (but never as regards their interpretation, because the interpretation is based on fundamentally wrong models) is the research studying current consequences of the climate change. However, this research is non-scientific in its motivation, aiming to provide “proof” for the AGW hypothesis by presenting corroborating evidence (which is a logically impossible task – see Paragraph 3), and largely irrelevant. That because no action humanity might feasibly take could revert the natural phenomena that we are not the cause of in the first place. The Report and the body of research it reviews are therefore a waste of public funds and a scientific fraud.
  24. This paragraph refers to the entire report, containing final notes for the reader who is not well-versed in the philosophy of science, and should be read in conjunction with all of the previous paragraphs of my Review. Note that I did not need to read the entire draft Report, nor enter into details of each Chapter, in order to understand whether or not the Report is scientifically valid. This is because I am able to produce the judgement of the fraudulent character of this and other previous Climate Reports based on their failure to implement the Scientific Method and question the AGW hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is commonly implemented in the form of one or more climate models that are being used to interpret current and past experimental results and make predictions about future climate. In order to attribute the recent global warming to greenhouse gas emissions, and thus to human activities, these models have been specifically tuned, by introducing positive climate feedbacks. The draft Report discusses climate models in its Chapter 9, therefore Chapter 9 would be the logical place to implement the Scientific Method and question the validity of the climate models and thus the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Reading through Chapter 9 and its list of references, I find that no such questioning had been done, and no papers that question the validity of climate models have been discussed. By failing to implement the Scientific Method, the authors of Chapter 9 have confirmed their status of pseudo-scientists, having transformed their Chapter into an exercise in dogmatic propaganda. Its fraudulent character is evident from the ease with which these authors could have rejected the AGW hypothesis, same as I had in the present Review. Thus, based on the fraudulent science of Chapter 9, the entire Climate Report looses any connection to the objective reality, becoming a pseudo-scientific construct based on the AGW dogma. Indeed, there may be no Science if one chooses to ignore the Scientific Method, as the Report authors do. Without the Scientific Method, they are limited to the pseudo-scientific and logically faulty search of evidence that “confirms” their AGW hypothesis, stalling the scientific progress and insulting the general public in their expectations of obtaining scientifically valid climate predictions, instead of the climate fraud that over the years of its existence has been, and now once more is being, produced by the IPCC.
Ref.: http://www.stallinga.org/Climate/IgorIPCCReport.html

………………………….

50 former IPCC experts

1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”

Ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/50-former-ipcc-experts/

…………………….

UN Agenda 21 – Coming to a Neighborhood near You

By Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild

Most Americans are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program known as Agenda 21. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 as a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with anti-American, anti-capitalist overtones.

 

A detailed history on sustainable development, definitions, and critical actions can be found here. Section III of the Agenda 21 Plan addresses local community sustainable development.  The Preamble and Chapter 28 discuss how Agenda 21 should be implemented at a local level. The United Nations purposely recommends avoiding the term Agenda 21 and suggests a cleverly named alternative: “smart growth.” The United Nations Millennium Papers – Issue 2 (page 5) says this of Agenda 21 and smart growth:
Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth [emphasis added].
Undoubtedly, residents of any town, county, or city in the United States that treasure their freedom, liberty, and property rights couldn’t care less whether it’s called Agenda 21 or smart growth. A recent example of this can be found in Carroll County, Maryland, where a smart growth plan called Pathways was drafted by the County Planning Department. The plan, if enacted, proposed a breathtaking reshuffling of land rights:
  • Rezoning of thousands of acres of beautiful, low-density agricultural farmland and protected residential conservation land into office parks
  • Down-zoning of agriculture land to prevent future subdivision by farmers
  • Up-zoning of low-density residential land around small towns into higher density zoning to permit construction of hundreds or possibly thousands of inclusive housing units, including apartments and condominiums
  • Inclusive housing with placement of multi-family construction on in-fill lots within existing residential single family communities
  • Endorsement of government-sponsored housing initiatives (subsidies) to ensure healthier, balanced neighborhoods
Carroll County, Maryland is one of 1,168 cities, towns, and counties worldwide that are members of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – Local Governments for Sustainability, which is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development. The ICLEI mission statement closely resembles that of Agenda 21. In fact, the ICLEI has Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council and coordinates local government representation in the UN processes related to Agenda 21. 
Community leaders working together in Carroll County recently defended their county against overreaching smart growth initiatives. Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Commissioner, emphatically remarks, “Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government’s goal of social re-engineering. It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas. This has the effect of shifting the voting patterns of rural municipalities from Right to Left.”
Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a “smart code” zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums.
Finally, a healthy dose of federal- or state-sponsored housing initiatives is embraced to ensure communities are properly balanced. The net effect of these plans is to create highly urbanized population centers throughout otherwise-rural counties, while simultaneously limiting the availability of land for suburban and estate subdivisions, as these are considered an unsustainable waste of land by Agenda 21 disciples.
Clearly, smart growth plans will impact Americans’ future choices in where and how they live. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal and state agencies may attempt to deny grant funds to states and cities that do not adopt smart growth plans.
Most Americans will remain unaware of the implications of smart growth and Agenda 21 until after it is promulgated in their own backyards. Ironically, these plans are more insidious than the Eminent Domain ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v City of New London. Under Eminent Domain rulings, property owners usually receive compensation for their losses.
Conversely, smart growth municipal plans, required by statute, enable municipalities to change zoning laws and engage in other regulatory actions that devalue property, restrict off-conveyances, and otherwise erode property values without payment of any compensation to the property owner.    
Smart growth has another interesting unintended consequence: it can disrupt conventional alliances and lead to strange political bedfellows. Rural urbanization plans may raise the ire of environmental groups while simultaneously stirring the wrath of both conservative and liberal residents that want to maintain the rural fabric of their communities. Conversely, developers, sensing opportunity, may side with government smart growth bureaucrats in support of these plans. 
Regardless of political orientation, two indisputable facts remain. Agenda 21 is a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty, and it is coming to a neighborhood near you.
Ref.: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html