Wednesday, December 19, 2012

IPCC climate report leaked - Alec Rawls et al. claim evidence of fraud


I want to share parts of a conversation at a climate discussion board I visit.  
It about Alec Rawls leaked IPCC draft of their upcoming report.  That part don't bug me near as much as the way Alec has cherry picked and manipulated what the report actually said, in order to manufacture a science fiction story.

He is trying to make a case that the IPCC is hiding information about solar impacts on Earth's climate and global warming.  But the boy is way off the mark as learning more about the story and the science makes clear.

It's sadly another example of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) denialist's tunnel vision attitude towards our life supporting biosphere. 

Alec Rawl has posted the IPCC report here

In any event, I feel like sharing the following thoughts. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 


CC wrote:  Now, for those interested in more than a contrarian's fabrication here's a little background on what the IPCC actually said.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html 
Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate changeA draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun's variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report says nothing of the kind.{please do link and read on}"

~ ~ ~ 
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/ipcc-draft-report-published-online-suggests-that-the-sun-is-not-behind-climate-change 
IPCC draft report published online - suggests that the sun is not behind climate change 
". . . What's more, this conclusion is stated in the leaked IPCC report, just a few paragraphs later:
". . . Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle  in any climatically significant way..." 
"When Sherwood was asked on ABC whether Rawls' argument was a "case of cherry-picking a sentence", he replied:
"Yeah, it's a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.""

~ ~ ~ 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report 
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

contrarian wrote:   I'm just going to go ahead and ignore this assessment just like I ignore all their other assessments.  I think the IPCC is incapable of coming to a correct conclusion.  It is science by politicians for politicians.

That the leaked assessment contradicts their other [ludicrous] reports is certainly amusing--and I do enjoy a red-faced politician--but it doesn't change my opinion of chicken-little's in general.

Funny: yes.
Serious Science: hardly.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SS quoting CC:  Why would questioning the reputability of "stopgreensuicide" mean that the documents are forgeries?

SS wrote:  It doesn't necessarily mean that, and it's why I asked if he was implying it. I think that if they were forgeries or had been altered, the fact that it was a forgery would already be made public by all those others who have official access (who by tacit admission tell us that it is real) 

SS quoting CC:  I would suggest it has much more to do with questioning "stopgreensuicide's" agenda.

SS wrote:  Right.I don't see where that gets you, though. If the release is real, then the are a good subject, regardless of your opinion about other people's agendas.

SS quoting CC:  SS, the problem comes in with the agenda driven misrepresentations based on selective cherry picking and ruthless manipulation of source materials with the intention of manufacturing political bludgeons.

SS wrote:  Well, you have a strong political drive which infects what you do and what you write. You bludgeon right wingers, Republicans, religious people, elderly people, if they get in your way by opposing any detail of your narrative. Even if they are not around you bludgeon them for good measure in passing..


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



CC wrote:  Yea, you wanna play coy.  wink, wink...

Besides, I'm not referring to anything specific you've written, I'm talking about the entire ilk of stories you bring to this board.  As for this particular thread...

WUWT pronounces:  "Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates ..."

It's become the grand meme du jour, desperately seeking to keep attention away from the more impactful consequences of the incredible amounts of greenhouse gases our society is injecting into our thin atmosphere.  The stuff that we have some control over.  But NO instead you {that is the collective echo-chamber you} want to continue wasting precious irretrievable time with such contemptible crap.   

Yes the sun and cosmic energy interactions with Earth's atmosphere, the science is an exciting area, but we know that these unknowns are dwarfed by the known impacts of greenhouse gases!

SS you continue to blithely play such games.  Like I said before I'm sure you're plenty smart enough to appreciate how disingenuous trying to overplay the sun's impact, while willfully ignoring greenhouse gases' impact is.  But still you give aid and comfort to those folks and that game.

Why do you ignore the further background information that puts all of this into perspective?

You say I have an agenda, well damn straight, that agenda is trying to get folks to start to seriously think and learn about their planet and biosphere!  Trying to understand that global heat distribution engine our society depends upon.  Along with appreciating how extreme our impacts have become.  To learn with honest curiosity.  That's my agenda, what's wrong with that? 

But, given your various posts and comments it seems like you couldn't care less about the health of the biosphere of this planet and maybe even can't comprehend that concept.  How does that thinking work?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Incidentally, here's a homework assignment:   
Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change   

A draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun's variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report says nothing of the kind.  
{please do link and read on}"

~ ~ ~ 

IPCC draft report published online - suggests that the sun is not behind climate change

". . . What's more, this conclusion is stated in the leaked IPCC report, just a few paragraphs later:

". . . Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle  in any climatically significant way..."

"When Sherwood was asked on ABC whether Rawls' argument was a "case of cherry-picking a sentence", he replied:

"Yeah, it's a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.""
~ ~ ~ 
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

No comments: