IPCC organisation
This page is for discussion of the IPCC and its organisational aspects.
Climate Conversation Group
Taking the heat out of global warming
For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.
Latest climate models v. reality
As the models continue to leave actual temperature readings in their dust, sizeable warming halted about 1995 — although it might resume at any time. It must hasten to have any hope of catching up with the predictions.
If you claim warming continues, we want evidence of continued warming — eminently reasonable. Making us wait for 17 years for that evidence invites us to doubt you.
Claiming that warming hasn't stopped is the same as claiming it has — and both are ridiculous, for nobody knows the future. The best you can do is describe the past.
Click graph for larger version.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm
val majkus says:
October 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Nice article by John McLean in Quadrant Online https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/glaciergate
John is a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the article is about IPCC procedures
WWF and the IPCC
Now comes the million dollar question: What is a VP of the WWF doing serving as a Review Editor for Working Group 2, Chapter 15 of the latest edition of the climate bible – the one that is being written as we speak?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-wwf-vice-president-the-new-ipcc-report/
WWF Influence at the Highest Levels of the IPCC
“…the draft document [AR4 Synthesis Report.] from which those people [political negotiation] based their discussions was authored by a select group of 40 IPCC personnel known as the “core writing team.”
[...]
* 6 of them were IPCC employees at the time – Peter Bosch, Renate Christ, Jian Liu, Martin Manning, Jean Palutikof and Andy Reisinger
* 1 was an American lawyer (Lenny Bernstein) and another was a medical doctor with a thin publication record who is employed by the World Health Organization (Bettina Menne)
That leaves us with 32 people who might be considered world-class scientists. But among those are:
* 9 other people with documented links to the World Wildlife Fund. These nine individuals belong to the Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel about which I have been reporting recently. Their names are Osvaldo Canziani, Saleemul Huq, David Karoly, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Monirul Mirza, Leonard Nurse, Nijavalli Ravindranath, the late Stephen Schneider, and Gary Yohe.
So of the 32 members of the IPCC’s core writing team that we might have expected to be world-class scientists, 11 of them (34%) are publicly affiliated with environmental NGOs.”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/04/wwf-influence-at-the-highest-levels-of-the-ipcc/
Where WWF fits in to The Climate Change Scare Machine
See – Green Groups
*******************************************************************************************************
Map: The Climate Change Scare Machine — the perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarm
Climate Change Scare Machine Cycle: see how your tax dollars are converted into alarming messages
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/
The Corruption of Climate Science: The World Wildlife Federation (WWF) Process To Influence The IPCC
Read here. The Worldwide Wildlife Federation (WWF) is a major green, anti-growth and anti-prosperity entity that appears to have unleashed an effective means to corrupt (ruin?) the IPCC process, its climate scientists and even a concerned public.
Step 1: Bribe the public with domestic and international travel reimbursement to report their own perceptions/reality of climate change – e.g. “I believe it now rains more in York”.
Step 2: Bribe climate scientists with travel, leading conferences and hob-knobing amongst the wealthy and government elites by joining the WWF’s “Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel”.
Step 3: Then have these same pliable IPCC “climate scientists” take the publics reported perceptions and re-package them as supposed empirical evidence from actual scientific endeavors, with a persona of scientific gravitas.
Step 4: The WWF then sponsors or produces “scientific” reports using the results of steps 1 through 3 as the basis for the reports.
Step 5: The WWF compromised IPCC climate scientists then accept these WWF contrived-science reports as scientific gospel, positioning them as peer reviewed papers, when in fact they’re the worst form of grey literature.
Literally, the strong stink of corrupted science is hard to ignore or dismiss with these new revelations.
No one, therefore, lied to these “leading climate scientists.” No one soft-peddled what was really going on. The WWF explicitly told them it wanted their help in frightening the public so that the WWF could build a movement.”
Because the UN and governing elites did not fix the IPCC’s Pachauri-problem, this type of climate science debasement by global warming alarmism proponents will also robustly taint the IPCC’s 2013 report, as it destroyed the credibility of the 2007 report.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/09/the-corruption-of-climate-science-the-world-wildlife-federation-wwf-process-to-influence-the-ipcc.html
More on WWF’s NZ push in this thread:-
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/09/only-threat-to-christchurch-is-salingers-alarmism/#comment-67742
Pure Advantage joins the global climate action campaign
“……….the organisation championing a green growth paradigm shift for New Zealand – is joining former US Vice President, Al Gore, and others in a worldwide 24-hour event to mobilise people from around the globe to help solve climate change.
The campaign kicks off with 24 Hours of Reality
“Other aligned New Zealand organisations making presentations include Sustainable Business Network, Oxfam, Sustainable Food, Greenpeace, Generation Zero and WWF”
WWF in denial over Donna Laframboise’s new book
Posted on October 24, 2011 by Anthony Watts
So upset they issued a press release. That’ll show ‘em. Funny how they couldn’t delineate the title of the book in the text.
>>>>>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/wwf-in-denial-over-donna-laframboises-new-book/
press release
Oct. 23, 2011, 10:31 a.m. EDT
WWF Refutes “Ludicrous” Allegation It Infiltrated IPCC
GLAND, SWITZERLAND, Oct 23, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) — WWF has refuted as “ludicrous” claims in a new climate change denial book that it had “infiltrated” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the respected international body charged with advancing knowledge on climate change and its impacts.
The sole evidence offered for the claim in the book The delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert is some overlap between some of the thousands of scientists who have worked for the IPCC and members of a Scientific Advisory Panel to WWF’s climate witness scheme.
“It is ludicrous to suggest that in seeking ensure that the observations of climate witnesses are consistent with the best scientific knowledge WWF is seeking to influence the IPCC,” said WWF’s International Climate and Energy initiative leader Samantha Smith.
>>>>>>>>
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wwf-refutes-ludicrous-allegation-it-infiltrated-ipcc-2011-10-23
More on this at Bishop Hill
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/10/23/wwf-denies-it-has-infiltrated-ipcc.html
and on Donna’s blog
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/24/wwf-issues-press-release-about-my-book/
The climate witness program from WWF is pure propaganda. Check out hro001 comments (link to WWF pdf) in B Hill link above.
Followed the hro001 link to The Climate Witness Programme [Manager in Sydney] – Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) Guidelines , saw this:-
Then followed the link to Climate Witness, “Stories of climate change & climate action” to see how WWF are “making it real” with stories from “real people” “feeling actual things”:-
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/witness_stories/
Pak Mat, Malaysia (Posted on 02 March 2010) experienced some rapid sea level rise that the SAP “Scientific review” avoids specifically but reviewer Faizal Parish, Malaysia states: “The observations of Pak Mat for Terengannu are generally consistent with the predictions for changes in weather patterns and increased climate variability as a result of global climate change”:-
Pak Mat seems to have shared the shortfall in the wisdom of his house site selection process but he’s not the first to fall victim of beach erosion in similar circumstances, it’s been happening around NZ for yonks. He’s a weather and climate witness, but he’s a long way from being a man-made climate change witness. I also had a look at Pak Azhar, Indonesia and both are about weather that seems to have become unpredictable in recent years but was formerly predictable but how is that man-made climate change?
From WWF pdf: “SAP is made up of leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who are familiar with the latest climate change-related, peer-reviewed literature in specific regions of the world”. Faizal Parish must be the WWF (and possibly IPCC) “leading climate scientist” familiar with Malaysia. His single (minimum) citation abstract reads:-
I don’t know how monsoon velocity decline over the entire 20th century is consistent with AOGCM monsoon response to increasing temperatures in 21st century simulations (20th is hindcast) but the rest seems to indicate that the citation supports natural climate variability more than it does man-made climate change (and that’s tenuous at best).
WWF builds a big case with IPCC ring-ins to give the impression of scientific credibility, but a case for what? Bad weather, natural phenomena and misfortune that have changing climate in common but where’s the anthropogenic fingerprint? This is elaborate propaganda in the truest sense:-
prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/ Noun:
1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.
Spin a lot of anecdotes that can be explained by natural variability but maintain that (according to WWF):-
Because:-
And,
So WWF’s propaganda is not only biased or misleading in nature but it’s fallacious as well i.e. lies. If the UNIPCC continues to be joined at the hip with this bunch of crooks then they deserve to be tarred with the same brush.
Can’t find Faizal Parish on the list of SAP “leading climate scientists” but I did find:-
Dr Jim Salinger specialises in past and current climate trends; Principal Scientist, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/about_cw/cwscientists/
How long ago was he sacked?
Responding to Richard C’s comment re Jim Salinger, I see his name is linked through to “Phase 2″ a “Strong Sustainability Think Tank”
http://nz.phase2.org/
Never heard of them, but certainly worth keeping an eye on.
The crucial changes required for sustainability are a shift to a new set of societal ethics, values and ‘world views’, as well as a major overhaul of economics and approaches to population growth. All of this has to be considered in the context of unprecedented global changes which, in themselves, will be highly challenging for society and people. It is time for these matters to be raised and debated with urgency.
http://nz.phase2.org/strong-sustainability-for-new-zealand
More on “Phase 2″
http://nz.phase2.org/recommended-web-sites
Recommended web sites:
“An Inconvenient Truth”
“The Guardian Environment”
Hang on guys, you left out Skeptical Science! Way behind the eight ball.
Faizal Parish is an interesting bloke turns out from a bit of Googling – busy too:-
Workshop on Lessons Learned from Relevant Funds and Institutions for the Design of the Green Climate Fund, July 12, 2011, Tokyo, Japan
Establishing the Green Climate Fund ‐ Perspectives from Civil Society
Faizal Parish, Central Focal Point, GEF NGO Network
http://unfccc.int/files/cancun_agreements/green_climate_fund/application/pdf/key_points_cso_views_cfp_gef_ngo_network.pdf
Civil society are key Potential partners in the work of the Green Climate Fund
Long History of CSO engagement in UNFCCC
Civil society is directly impacted by climate change
Civil Society can provide major contributions to addressing climate change ‐
Mitigation and adaptation
Mobilising global support for low carbon society
Supporting and ensuring sustainability of GGF programmes
Long history and good track record in programme development and implementation
Civil Society – United Nations Global Compact
Civil society organizations — also known as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — are critical actors in the advancement of universal values around human rights, the environment, labour standards and anti-corruption. As global market integration has advanced, their role has gained particular importance in aligning economic activities with social and environmental priorities.
Civil society organizations have been an integral part of the Global Compact since its creation. Their perspectives, expertise and partnership-building capabilities are indispensable in the evolution and impact of the Global Compact.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ParticipantsAndStakeholders/civil_society.html
UN and Civil Society
“Our times demand a new definition of leadership – global leadership. They demand a new constellation of international cooperation – governments, civil society and the private sector, working together for a collective global good.”
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
Speech at World Economic Forum
Davos, Switzerland (29 January 2009)
The United Nations is both a participant in and a witness to an increasingly global civil society. More and more, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society organizations (CSOs) are UN system partners and valuable UN links to civil society. CSOs play a key role at major United Nations Conferences and are indispensable partners for UN efforts at the country level. NGOs are consulted on UN policy and programme matters. The UN organizes and hosts, on a regular basis, briefings, meetings and conferences for NGO representatives who are accredited to UN offices, programmes and agencies.
http://www.un.org/en/civilsociety/index.shtml
Civil Society in New Zealand
e.g. The New Zealand Resilience Trust is a grass-roots model of community development and sustainability.
http://www.civilsociety.org.nz/
civil society – Funds for NGOs, Grants and Resources for Sustainability
This website is wholly owned by FUNDSFORNGOS, LLC located at 866 United Nations Plaza,
http://www.fundsforngos.org/tag/civil-society/
Donna is interviewed on SunTV: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-ipcc-delinquent-teenager-gets-air-time/
Very good. I’m glad to see this book getting some legs.
More legs – let’s hope it’s a millipede:-
IPCC warming assessments attract the activists and snub the sceptics
* by: Matt Ridley
* From: The Australian
* October 31, 2011 12:00AM
A LITTLE-KNOWN Canadian freelancer who writes a short book dense with data and argument, and self-publishes a kindle version on Amazon, can hardly expect fame and fortune.
Yet this seems to be what is happening to Donna Laframboise, the author of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate Expert.
Her book has garnered nearly 90 reviews on amazon.com in just two weeks, about four-fifths of them giving it five stars.
The web is alive with discussion of this remarkable little book. The World Wildlife Fund has put out a press release denouncing it.
What is all the fuss about?
>>>>>>>>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ipcc-warming-assessments-attract-the-activists-and-snub-the-sceptics/story-e6frg6zo-1226180881974
An IPCC Exposé
Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé
In this book, Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise exposes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a fraud. LaFramboise (see author profile here) spent two years investigating the IPCC. She says it acts like a spoiled teenager, hence the title of the book.
The IPCC has long been touted as the preeminent authority on climate science. But LaFramboise shows that the participants were picked by governments, not for their scientific expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” Many of the scientists are in fact, very young graduate students. Many of the bureaucrats in the IPCC are from radical environmental groups. Real experts are often ignored. She says the IPCC is a purely political organization, not a scientific one, and she backs up her charges with copious references.
The IPCC has always claimed that its reports are based exclusively on published peer-reviewed research. But LaFramboise found, after a meticulous review of the cited references, that about 28% of sources were from magazine articles, press releases, and unpublished papers. In fact, the major conclusions of one chapter in the latest IPCC report were based on two papers that had not been published. When an IPCC expert reviewer asked the IPCC and the papers’ authors for supporting data, they all refused to produce the data. Yet, the IPCC claims it is completely transparent.
LaFramboise points out that the IPCC does not check sources. And, “Peer review does not prove that a piece of research is true.” “A couple reviewers, of course, are a poor substitute for mass scrutiny. Sometimes reviewers are chosen poorly; other times they’re lazy.”
>>>>>>>>>>
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/10/17/book-review-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert-an-ipcc-expose/
*****************************************************************************************************
Have questioned the MftE CC accordingly (Cc’d to PMSAC)
I downloaded this book onto Kindle and am about half way through. It is a good read and all politicians should read it.
As of Sunday Noon, US EST. Oct 16th, 2011
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #193 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Science > Environment > Conservation
#1 in Books > Outdoors & Nature > Conservation
#2 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Politics & Current Events > International > Relations
Also Ranked #13 OVERALL in Amazon Kindle Movers & Shakers
http://www.amazon.com/gp/movers-and-shakers/digital-text
Judith Curry’s thoughts on “Teenager” are well worth the read
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/#more-5396
Note that Mike Jowsey and myself are mentioned in the credits for the “citizen audit” part
(* shameless plug *)
Well, I just *had* to buy a copy, seeing as my name is in there somewhere
I had already perused the first 7 chapters on Amazon, and was a little put off by the Kindle proprietary format, but then I found that it was available at the same price as a PDF download: link here.
Kindle is proprietary but you can get free readers for PC, Mac and iPad/iPhone
I haven’t seen my cheque from Big Oil or the Koch Brothers yet. How about you Mike?
The article on WUWT on Peter Gleick’s “review” of this book is quite entertaining
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/donna-laframboises-new-book-causing-reviews-in-absentia-amongst-some-agw-advocates/
Conspiracy of silence
Donna Laframboise, Financial Post · Oct. 22, 2011
Next month, thousands of bureaucrats, politicians, media, activists and scientists will travel to Durban, South Africa, for the latest round of UN climate talks. We’ll be advised that the world must slash its carbon dioxide emissions because a United Nations report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has concluded that humans are changing the climate in dangerous ways.
>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/Conspiracy+silence/5591088/story.html
Next week Large numbers of so-called objective scientists on the IPCC roster are activists with Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and other groups.
This is the first of two excerpts from The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert
IPCC’s activist ‘experts’
This is the second of two excerpts from The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, by Donna Laframboise,
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/24/book-excerpt-ipccs-activist-experts/
BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.
CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
By Christopher Horner, CEI.org for WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/breaking-an-ipcc-backchannel-cloud-was-apparently-established-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/
Ross McKitrick’s new report “What is Wrong With the IPCC? Proposals for Radical Reform.” 45 pages, published by Global Warming Policy Foundation.
http://sppiblog.org/news/what-is-wrong-with-the-ipcc
Section 5, Recommendations for reform, is a good read.
With 194 countries represented at Durban Climate Change Conference, including 250 union representatives from around the World, and 10 youth delegates from New Zealand, the first and likely the only agreement has been reached.
The Conference has decided that the 2012 conference will be Qatar.
IPCC Reports: Then and Now
Third Assessment Report: 2003
“Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.
Fourth Assessment Report: 2007
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Fifth Assessment Report: 2012 (draft)
“Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”
It seems that the 95% confidence interval associated with the IPCC definition of “very likely” is now worth no more than a toss of the coin. How much have we been paying these people to produce “Well crafted figures and punchy take home messages“?
Still, look on the bright side, the overpaid and underclued IPCC numpties are starting to wander in the right direction.
Roger Pielke Sr also notes that the definition of climate change itself has changed:
It is interesting to note that the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (IPCC, 2012) has recently redefined climate change as
“A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use”.
This is different from the previous definition. IPCC states
“This definition differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability.”
This is a sneaky move. In effect they are making a post hoc rationalisation to make their previous position more tenable, or a least less untenable…
>>>>>>>>>
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/ipcc-reports-then-and-now/
TallBloke and Roger Pielke Sr are either too keen to see what they want to see or dishonest.
[quote] It is interesting to note that the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (IPCC, 2012) has recently redefined climate change as
“A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use”.[/quote]
And yet from the 4th Assessment Report (2007):
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from
that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to
human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
And in the third Assessment report:
“Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”
So the “IPCC Reports: Then and Now” claim is rubbish, Tallbloke is just using the standard IPCC definition of climate change and portraying it as the 2012 IPCC explanation for observed climate change when it’s no such thing.