The inconvenient lies…of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[AEGeneral]

CFP: The inconvenient lies…of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Another great article by Dr Tim Ball.

[AEGeneral]

There is not a single case in history for any period of any duration where temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. All records show temperature increase precedes CO2 increase.

I have e-mailed CFP to clarify that statement. Either I'm missing something, or it's a typo.

[mcclane]

hey AE, about the IPCC, i've got to say that in bjorn lomborg's book, the skeptical environmentalist, most of the stuff he writes seems solid, but the chapter about global warming he obtains most if not all of his data from the IPCC, and from what i've learned about the IPCC here, they aren't as reliable as lomborg thinks they are.

[AEGeneral]

Originally Posted by mcclane

hey AE, about the IPCC, i've got to say that in bjorn lomborg's book, the skeptical environmentalist, most of the stuff he writes seems solid, but the chapter about global warming he obtains most if not all of his data from the IPCC, and from what i've learned about the IPCC here, they aren't as reliable as lomborg thinks they are.

That would certainly explain some of his positions that I disagree with. The IPCC assessments have a lot of holes in them, but a lot of the holes have come to light after that book was written.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by AEGeneral

I have e-mailed CFP to clarify that statement. Either I'm missing something, or it's a typo.

It's supposed to be there is not incident where CO2 increase precedes temperature increase.

[AEGeneral]

I received an e-mail from Dr Ball this afternoon:

Thanks Mike

You are correct it is conflicting. The first sentence should read, "There is not a single case for any period of any duration where CO2 increase precedes temperature increase." The correction which has been made on the web site.

Tim Ball

Glad I could help there. That being said, another important statement that has been brought up here in the past:

But the IPCC have ‘proved’ with computer models they are 90% certain that the current warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, namely CO2. This is pre-determined because the computer model is programmed to have an increase in temperature if CO2 increases.

For all of us bean-counters who use Excel day in & day out, this is essentially a circular reference.

Virtually every climate model predicting catastrophic consequences from global warming in the next few decades makes this assumption. Where is it disclosed?

As an accountant, I find the lack of full disclosure about this extremely disturbing. I am held to far greater standards than this, and for end users that are of far less importance compared to governments world-wide who will use these models as a template to enact legislation that affects virtually every segment of the population. It's such a double-standard.

I've said it before: we need a Sarbanes-Oxley-type standard for these climate models. There isn't enough disclosure for the governments who rely upon them to make sound decisions. And at some point when the poop hits the fan from all of this nonsense, people are going to start pointing fingers. Who's going to take the blame? The politicians aren't going to take the fall for it. They'll try to sweep it under the rug while the media acts as willing accomplices....until the public outcry demands somebody's head when they find out how many millions have died while the planet was supposedly warming.

And I'm right back to suing the scientists themselves again to get this thing rolling. Suing Gore won't do a damn thing. I want those damn codes from Mann. He escalated this crap.