All Posts Tagged With: "misleading"

The IPCC and US politicians are engaging in a factual genocide.

The IPCC’s peer review process is a scam. Their whole argument of CO2 gas causing temp rises is only explicitly endorsed by 4 reviewers out of a whopping 23 TOTAL reviewers. This is the CORE of their argument. And they only get 4 of 23. (23 is an impressive number of experts to pool from, no?)

In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that “it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”. The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.

The IPCC falsifies and obscures data to fit it’s agenda.. Arguably the foremost expert on sea level in the world, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner illustrates how the IPCC has no qualms of adding “correction factors” to make their data match their claims.

I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set.

Dishonest political tampering

Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics An in depth look at the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report…

Line by line analysis of the SPM reveals that all of the science that cuts against the theory of human interference with climate has been systematically omitted. In some cases the leading arguments against human interference are actually touched on, but without being revealed or discussed. In other cases the evidence against human interference is simply ignored. Because of these strategic omissions, the SPM voices a degree of certainty that is entirely false.

US Senate report debunks consensus. Scientists, many are past and present members of the IPCC review board, demand the IPCC stop including them in the consensus of GW. Many scientists contribute a small portion, or review a chapter or two, and then are forever linked as part of a consensus they don’t believe in.

Land based temp readings in the US are biased. 43% of land based temperature stations in the US have been surveyed. Would you believe that nearly a quarter of those surveyed have man-made heat sources close enough to skew results upwards? I’m talking about a thermometer sitting beside a parking lot, an a/c condensor, gas grills, right beside brick buildings, on the roof, under shade trees. The linked site examines each station’s history, and compares it to known construction around the site. It is obvious that the heat-islands are driving temps up at that local station, but the data is being used to indicate temperature rise across the world.

“Antarctic Penisula is warming up” - Massive Ice sheet breaks loose due to man-made global warming….typical one sided comments from alarmists. They, like the IPCC, always fail to mention that as a whole, Antarctica is cooling. In fact, a record was set in 2007 for the most ice extent since recording began in 1979. In addition, the south pole has shown a DROP in temperature by one full degree F since 1957…the coldest year being 2004. That surely doesn’t fit the GW mold being pushed on us all.

Being a “denier” can be harmful for your career. One skeptic was threatened with having his career destroyed if he continued posting anti-global warming news.

Oregon’s State Climatologist threatened by governor because he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

New peer-reviewed scientific studies chill global warming fears. 2007 was a great year for the climate realist. At the bottom of the post, you’ll find links to 21 peer-reviewed studies that completely debunk Al Gore and the IPCC.

Tom V. Segalstad is head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and an expert formerly with the IPCC.

“The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,” he says. “Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.”

NASA’s James Hansen received a $250,000 grant from Theresa Heinz’s foundation in 2004, then proceeded to endorse her husband, John Kerry, in the presidential election.

In a 2003 Natural Science article, James Hansen said:

Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration.

So, James thinks it’s ok to KNOWINGLY deceive people to bring attention to the subject. No wonder he and Al Gore get along so well. In the U.K. any school that wants to show his film must first present a disclaimer that there are known inaccuracies. The judge didn’t want to review all of them, so he was presented with 9, and he found all 9 to be false, misleading facts, AND this author found 35 errors.

Hypocrisy per se is not the issue here. It is pretty well established that Al Gore is to energy conservation what Eliot Spitzer is to “Mr. Clean.”

There’s a lot of reading here, 14. I feel this gives a decent spectrum of the IPCC’s failure at reporting true science.