## Sunday, April 29, 2007

### IPCC AR4 WG1: full text

The climate panel's working group I has just published the full report:

A preliminary version of the same document has been available via JunkScience and the structure of the final document seems almost identical. You may read the first reactions of Steve McIntyre.

Officially, we have had the summary for policymakers (SPM) only - until now. You may see that the long document contains a lot of serious albeit boring science and data. Concerned members of the IPCC have however (mis)interpreted the results in catchy ways in their summary. Journalists are even more concerned and their presentation is much closer to nutcases like Al Gore than the boring content of the IPCC report. This multi-level hysterization and cherry-picking is a primary mechanism fuelling this whole global idiocy.

Comments about the IPCC working group II summary for policymakers, originally posted on April 6th

Recall that the U.N. climate panel (IPCC) has three parts:
• WG1: physical processes
• WG2: impact on life and societies
• WG3: how to cool down Earth :-) ... next week, they will recommend nuclear power and GM crops
(Thanks to the creator written in the corner of the ad.)

WG1 is composed of scientists led by government bureaucrats and political activists: these three subgroups are far from disjoint. Their list includes every scientist who has been in contact with them but hasn't yet threatened them with a lawsuit - which is what e.g. Prof Paul Reiter had to do before he was removed from the list of the corrupt scientists. Their pre-determined task is to "prove" that most of the recent climate change is man-made, despite any scientific evidence that shows the opposite. Their fourth report, IPCC AR4, will be released on April 29th (officially May).

It is necessary for WG1 to prove what they're asked to prove, otherwise it would become clear that the very existence of the groups WG2, WG3 is a gigantic fraud - much like the existence of a large WG1, after all.

In the same way, it is necessary for WG2 to prove that the exaggerated yet modest warming "predicted" by WG1 will have extremely bad consequences. If they failed to prove it, it would become clear that the very existence of WG3 - and to a large extent WG2 - is a huge fraud. The political framework is given and scientists are only expected to make it look convincing by inserting scientific jargon and cherry-picked data into the big gaps in the whole orthodoxy. That's a classic example of intellectual prostitution.

WG2 doesn't even pretend to be based on natural science. Just like WG1 that provided us with a demo (summary for policymakers) although many people apparently think that WG1 has already released a report, WG2 only offers us the table of contents, press conferences, and their

You can also see a webcast of this conference: a black window together with a screenshot that allows you to safely remove zero types of hardware.

Some of their statements

Even though the full document is rumored to have 1572 pages (what else it can be than just a worthless conglomerate of myths that hundreds of random people add to it?), we must rely on the summary and press conferences as reported by the media e.g. Bloomberg. The working group is informing us that species will go extinct even though it is pretty much known that higher temperatures have been historically increasing the diversity of species, especially mammals.

They feel certain that all infectious diseases will become extremely widespread although the correlations between the temperature and diseases are questionable, to say the least, while millions of people are dying today as opposed to a result of a hypothetical change in the future.

They are telling us that there will be many more storms even though rudimentary atmospheric physics implies that storminess should decrease because it is driven by the temperature difference between the equator and the poles and this difference is predicted to shrink because the polar warming should be faster.

They are also convinced that the droughts will spread although some of the newest scientific results indicate that rainfall in Saharan Africa could increase substantially within a few decades in the case that the warming trend continues and undo the natural devastation of that region.

They are telling us that the poor people may be the hardest hit ones. That's almost certainly the case but what they're not saying is that 99+ percent of their ability to cope not only with a hypothetical climate change but also with the status quo depends on their future wealth and on their access to technology - something that these comrades want to prevent.

To summarize, what WG2 is saying is mostly a shameful piece of crap but it is a politically correct piece of crap, and that's what really matters these days. The Whacko Gang #3 will release their "findings" how to cool down Earth later. A leading contaminator of science, Stephen Schneider who is known for his Schneider doctrine about the necessary compromise between the scientific integrity and fraud that every scientist must adopt in order to be effective, claims that the Bush administration was helping this bureaucratic tumor of professional parasites and liars to grow in 85% of cases. President Bush should be ashamed.

And that was the memo on April 6th.

1. The IPCC has the official backing of the media high priests. That means that IPCC reports will be treated as the irrefutable truth, regardless of how unsubstantiated and poorly reasoned.

Did you ever feel that you were set loose in a Franz Kafka novel?

2. Actually, not really. I don't think that the analysis why the GW orthodoxy doesn't hold water is too difficult. It will be understood by too many people by the end of 2008 - because it is discussed at all possible levels - and the virago may likely collapse within a few years.

In 1989, I couldn't imagine how communism could ever collapse because they were in charge of everything and there seemed to be almost no opposing voices except for a tiny minority of 1000 or so dissidents. It collapsed trivially and within weeks.

The GW orthodoxy is based on too many obvious lies and if there is any flow of information, it is impossible to keep all these secrets hidden from all impartial people.

I would be much less optimistic about the idea that most people will understand why the crackpots in high-energy physics such as Smolin, Woit, and others are fundamentally wrong - simply because it's much more difficult for most people to understand how physics actually works and what kind of arguments can have any impact and what kind of arguments can't. Climate is much easier conceptually.

3. dear lubos,

thank you for your interesting post. perhaps you could clarify certain thoughts and disclose some sources that support your claims.

- when you say "their [the IPCC's] task is to 'prove' that most of the recent climate change is man-made, despite any scientific evidence that shows the opposite" do you mean that there is evidence that the recent climate change is non-anthropogenic or are you saying that there is no scientific evidence that human global carbon emission of the last 200 years (currently at approx. 6'500 million metric tons per annum) has any measurable impact on the climate?

- what do you mean by "the exaggerated yet modest warming 'predicted' by WG1"; what is a modest exaggeration, i.e., doesn't something cease to be exaggerated if it is modest? which standards quantify 'modest' or 'exaggerated'?

- "correlations between the temperature and diseases are questionable, to say the least"; could you give references please?

- when you say "while millions of people are dying today as opposed to a result of a hypothetical change in the future." do you imply that because millions of people are dying today, this sets an upper boundary on how many people can die in the future?

- do you believe "rudimentary atmospheric physics" suffices to describe and explain the highly complex, adaptive global climate system with all its regulatory feedback mechanisms and dependencies?

- you mention one study by dutch scientists who's models predict increasing rainfall in the Sahara region; what is the reason for you to find this study based on climate modeling more convincing than other studies based on climate modeling?

- you are accusing the IPPC of being a bunch of corrupt, lying, alarmists, parasitic, bureaucratic, unscientific, fanatic people who want to prevent the poor of the world from accessing technology and improving their status; i take it that this is a founded objective observation you make about topics you are competent to asses and about people you have at least partly interacted with, and not just an arbitrary albeit vicious ad hominem attack lashing out at scientists not prescribing to your political idees fixes and the conspiracy theory you appear to be conjuring up around them?

tia,

james