• Home
  • Current News
  • Climate Alarmism? Of Course! IPCC Designed To Create & Promote It

Climate Alarmism? Of Course! IPCC Designed To Create & Promote It

Written by Dr Tim Ball, Climatologist

 

Richard Tol resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because their latest report was too alarmist. His action proves that the latest IPCC Report (AR5) raised the level of alarmism without justification. IPCC BUSTED  logoHe complained about the problem back in 2010 in a guest post for Roger Pielke’s Jr, but did nothing. Apparently they crossed some threshold of alarmism that scared adherents.

IPCC controllers realized the new level was required as polls showed little public concern for climate change, politicians were asking questions and, more alarming, cutting funding while global temperature continued its 17-year lack of increase. Failures of IPCC predictions (projections) indicate the failure of their science. Instead of re-examining the science they did what they’ve always done, increased the level of alarmism.

Tol as a member of IPCC since 1995 should have known the entire exercise was deliberately alarmist from the start. Apparently he did not know what was going on because he did not understand climatology. He simply accepted what the science people said in the IPCC Report The Physical Science Basis. Even those who knew the science accepted it without question as Klaus Eckert Puls courageously confessed.

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

 

Reasons for the blind faith include: an assumption that scientists are apolitical, the funding was attractive, it was a career opportunity, a desire to save the environment, an affinity for the political slant of offsetting inequality, an interest in punishing polluters, reining in profiteers, and a naive trust in government, among others. Some believed in all of them. Maurice Strong, who organized the entire political and scientific process of the IPCC, exploited all of these vulnerabilities as he has throughout his career.

IPCC Structure To Promote And Exploit Alarmism

The IPCC was created to predetermine a scientific result and amplify it through alarmism. This meant creating a controlled and directed political structure, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and a politically controlled scientific structure, the IPCC.

Sir John Houghton, formerly head of the UK Met Office (UKMO) and first Co-Chair of the IPCC denies saying “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.” A vigorous campaign was launched to claim he did not say it. Why? Because it was the standard established along with the transition of the 1995 Report to a purely political objective. In the forefront of that campaign was Bob Ward, former employee of the Royal Society. Yes, the same Ward who launched the recent shameful attack on Richard Tol for quitting the IPCC because of alarmism. Ward’s rigorous defence of Houghton smacked of protesting too much, especially since it happened four years after it was first cited.

But consider the alarmism in Houghton’s comment about why we need to deal with climate change.

A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15). Today the impacts of unsustainable use of resources, rapidly increasing human population and the threat of climate change almost certainly add up to the largest and most urgent challenge the world has ever had to face – all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.

You can’t appeal to a higher authority (Ad Verecundiam) than that.

The switch from the reasonable 1990 Report to the alarmist 1995 Report is critical and driven by what happened at Rio 1992. An illustration of the change was the urgency in counteracting the troubling 1990 Figure 7c with its Medieval Warm Period (MWP) because it contradicted their claim that temperatures were the warmest ever. Their concern was to show it was inaccurate. McIntyre exhaustively examined the origin and travails of this diagram.

Figure 7c

But Figure 7c triggered another form of raising alarmism, namely altering the record to make events more extreme than reality. Later it was McIntyre again who exposed the rewriting of history by the elimination of the MWP in the 2001 Report.

This pattern of rewriting records also appeared when modern instrumental records were adjusted to make earlier daily temperatures colder than actually measured. Every adjustment increased the rate of warming thus increasing alarmism; it’s more and faster than we thought.

IPCC Working Group Structure; Progressive Alarmism

Three IPCC Working Groups all build on alarmism. Working Group I (WG I), The Physical Science Basis was limited, by the UNFCCC definition, to only human causes of global warming/climate change; effectively only CO2. It also meant they did not have to put the possible human impact in the context of natural variability. As soon as that is done the alarmism is removed immediately. They produced climate models programmed to guarantee a temperature increase with CO2 increase. They produced annual measures of increasing CO2 thus raising alarmism every year.

WG I’s results became the sole starting assumption for Working Group II (WG II), Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability. They became the source of speculated alarmism that focussed only on negative impacts. Like the Stern Report it was a cost without the benefit study. There was no good news.

WG II’s amplified alarm becomes the basis of proposals from Working Group III (WG III), Mitigation. They provide policy with singular directives for politicians all involving more government.

To achieve the original predetermined objective of blaming human produced CO2 so governments would limit industry and development, they created the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). It raises the level of falsehoods and alarmism created by working Group I then takes them directly to the public. The SPM is released before the Science Report because the difference between the two is deliberately wide to ramp up alarmism.

An early example of SPM increased alarmism occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, graduate from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and shortly thereafter lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,

“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

to read,

“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

As planned the phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline. This was deliberate and carefully orchestrated alarmism. Professor Fred Singer and Dr Frederick Seitz identified what was going on, but the PR machine, such as the one run by Bob Ward, kicked in. The attacks were ferocious and nasty, which has become a measure of proximity to the truth.

Stanford University

It is fitting that those chosen to raise the recent IPCC alarmism to another level were identified by Rob Jordan’s WUWT article as a group from Stanford University led by Chris Field. Stephen Schneider of Stanford set the tone and justification for deception in his comment to Discover magazine in 1988.

And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

There is no decision. Schneider was involved from the start and remained involved, especially when the IPCC deception was failing. These comments parallel the argument of the end justifying means more formally justified because of peer-review in the recent article Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements.

Stanford was the birthplace of alarmism and deception about overpopulation, climate and human impacts. Central to the overpopulation claim was Stanford faculty member Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb and Dennis Meadows Limits to Growth. Co-author with Ehrlich on Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment was PhD Stanford graduate John Holdren. Now Obama’s Science Czar Holdren has used the White House to raise alarmism with new titles like Climate Disruptions or Climate Catastrophes and his recent laughable video on The Polar Vortex. The global warming scare evolved at Stanford University as a central issue framed by the Club of Rome (COR), whose ideas became the foundation of UN Agenda 21 and the UN Framework Committee on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In 1991 The First Global Revolution was published and identified “the threat of global warming”.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Another example of the end justifies the means was Peter Gleick’s actions as a protégé of Schneider at Stanford. He falsely obtained documents from the Heartland Institute (HI) and used them to vilify that organization. Presumably it was because HI dared to hold international conferences presenting the other side of the climate debate.

The IPCC was and remains about alarmism. Fortunately, the blindness of ‘the end justifies the means’ approach results in extremism. That makes people look more closely and they are finding, as did Klaus-Eckert Puls, that the IPCC claims and methods do not bear investigation. Unfortunately, they will not abandon the strategy because it has been effective, so the cost of lies, deceptions and alarmism will continue.

Read more at drtimball.com

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    I have only posted the above on two other climate blogs so far. If deleted here by the administrator I will post it on another 10 or so blogs.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/ssmi-global-ocean-product-update-increasing-clouds-with-a-chance-of-cooling/#comment-110273

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/12/open-thread-10/#comment-522884

    I will not tolerate such a travesty of physics being continually propagated by warmists and lukes like those here at PSI. There is no physics which supports the concept that radiation Is the primary determinant of planetary surface temperatures. I am stepping up my campaign against false physics, and, yes, I may use several names and ISP’s, so you have been warned PSI!

    [b]Excerpts from PSI articles which display false physics will be quoted and rubbished all over a dozen or more major climate blogs. Get it right, PSI, about the now-proven gravito-thermal effect, or pack up.
    [/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Tim[/b], [url=http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf]Dr Hans Jelbring[/url] (a PSI member) summed it up like this …

    [i]”The theoretically deducible influence of gravity on GE has rarely been acknowledged by climate change scientists for unknown reasons. Its numerical value can be calculated using familiar knowledge in physics.”[/i]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    The vortex tube works because of the gravito-thermal effect.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains how a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves and has maximum entropy within the constraints of an isolated system. In a gravitational field (such as in Earth’s troposphere) thermodynamic equilibrium is also hydrostatic equilibrium because of the fact that each is the state of maximum entropy. When molecules are in free path motion between collisions, kinetic energy (KE) is interchanged with gravitational potential energy (PE). Temperature is based on the mean KE per molecule, as explained in Kinetic Theory. This means that gravity sets up both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. (The pressure is then a corollary, being proportional to the product of density and temperature, and it also has a Pressure-gradient force at hydrostatic equilibrium which is the same state of maximum entropy that is thus also thermodynamic equilibrium.)

    Now, by equating KE gain with PE loss, we deduce that the thermal gradient is the quotient of the acceleration due to the gravitational force and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, as derived under lapse rate. For the vortex tube, the effective gravitational force is between about 10^6 and 10^7g, so let’s say 5 * 10^6. The approximate distance (internal radius) is about 5mm. The above quotient gives 9.8 * 5 * 10^6 degrees per kilometer, and that reduces to about 250 degrees in 5mm, as is observed according to the article. If a particular tube only generates 10^6g we would expect 50 degree temperature difference. So the hypothesis appears to be well supported by the data in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube]this article[/url].

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Tim

    The greenhouse conjecture would violate the laws of physics. It is totally wrong.

    My study showing water vapour cools is not hard to replicate. To prove me wrong you would have to produce a similar study proving water vapour warms by about 10 degrees for each 1%, as is in effect claimed by GH advocates.

    The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vortex_tube#how_it_works]Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube[/url] provides evidence of the gravito-thermal effect. You would need to provide contrary empirical evidence.

    You would also need to produce a valid (but different) explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into the Venus surface in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees during its sunlit hours.

    [url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/#comment-909809]BigWaveDave[/url] considers the gravito-thermal effect (seen in the vortex tube) worth your time thinking about …

    “Because the import of the consequence of the radial [b]temperature gradient created[/b] by pressurizing a spherical body of gas [b]by gravity[/b], from the inside only, is that it [b]obviates the need for concern over GHG’s.[/b] And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhD’s, [b]it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement[/b].”

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Dr Tim Ball, Climatologist,
    Please Dr Ball call yourself anything but a Climatologist, or a Climate Scientist! Both are giggled at by all that can discern Bull Shit.
    Your article is, well written, with obvious personal integrity. Please continue. We need many others, on horseback, with armor and lances before the Climate Clowns will crawl back under their rock, and hide!

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote] Written by Dr Tim Ball, Climatologist: “Richard Tol resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because their latest report was too alarmist. His action proves that the latest IPCC Report (AR5) raised the level of alarmism without justification.”[/quote]

    Which means that previous IPCC reports were OK and their “level of alarmism” was justified.

    No problem with the fact that they were built on the basis of the physically impossible “greenhouse effect”, Tim?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    I’m not sure that I totally agree with your interpretation: [i]”A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15)”[/i] What it says [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2:15]there[/url] is [i]”The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.”[/i] In that it is only referring to the one man (Adam) and one garden it may be stretching it a bit much to assume it relates to controlling the whole Earth’s climate, especially when we know the Sun has something to do with that. Some may well assume that God is in control of climate, and that He knew we would industrialise.

    Be that as it may, the real issue is that this whole analysis of what carbon dioxide can or cannot do in relation to warming or cooling is totally within the realm of the [b][i]physics[/i][/b] of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics.

    Yet arrogant “climatologists” who are not physicists have presumed to know more about it all that physicists, and they have well and truly bungled their physics due to complete misunderstandings of what radiation does and the [b][i]process[/i][/b] described in modern statements of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url].

    The nearest they get to the Second Law is to mix up entropy with enthalpy. They assume there are always compensating heat transfers each way which enable them to “excuse” obvious reductions in entropy, because they are really only thinking of enthalpy – in other words, conservation of energy.

    But the one single most compelling argument that knocks them out cold is the obvious fact that 70% of the effective “surface” (which determines the temperatures we measure as climate) is an almost completely transparent thin layer of water through which perhaps over 99% of incident solar radiation is transmitted out the other side. So how can they count all that solar radiation as supposedly heating the thin surface layer which we could consider to be perhaps just 1 centimetre in depth?

    Do you see them reducing the solar radiation by 99% before they bung the value of solar radiation (plus back radiation – LOL) into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to come up with their 33 degrees of warming? No, but nor do some of the PSI authors in papers published here.

    [b]Radiation striking a planet’s surface (if there is one) is not the primary determinant of planetary atmospheric, surface and sub-surface temperatures.
    [/b]

Comments are closed