Aerm.. I know what a “fraud” is..

But could you please tell me from a to z what this particular fraud is all about?
I would like to understand 100% and i got the idea that you could answer.
I use this information to pass on i other blogs concearning the fraud of IPCC, and i would like to know exactly what this one is all about before using it.

This is just one of many examples. Others involve:
· False claims on sea level rise
· False claims on Antarctic ice sheet mass loss
· False claims on Greenland ice sheet mass loss
· False claims on Northern Hemisphere snow cover
· False claims on surface vs. troposphere record
· False claims denying a distortion of the surface record due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect

These are some of the outright unruths in the latest set of IPCC reports. In addition there are doubtful claims:
· Questionable claims denying past warm periods
· Questionable claims on solar forcing
· Questionable claims on water vapor feedback
· Questionable claims on cloud feedback
· Questionable claims on tropical cyclones, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events

All of these false and questionable claims are used to “project” future changes, which are, by definition, also false or exaggerated.

IPCC has made no effort to provide an unbiased scientific view of our climate, but has concentrated its efforts on “selling” its own views and opinions on AGW and feeding the “policymakers” to whom its reports are directed a false and one-sided view of what it really going on.

In academia and science, fraud can refer to academic fraud – the falsifying of research findings which is a form of scientific misconduct – and in common use intellectual fraud signifies falsification of a position taken or implied by an author or speaker, within a book, controversy or debate, or an idea deceptively presented to hide known logical weaknesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

the special about this case is that there is no way to justify or debate the difference between the report and the quoted references.

the problem here is – whom at IPCC can anybody write, call, email or sue to correct this report and make the correction public ?

K.R. Frank

Global water stress has been the main AGW scare for this century.
(war for water, millions of people fleeing due to draughts, etc.)

And now we have to learn that the IPCC told the world and the policy-makers the exact opposite of the content of their own scientific references.

This is a case that climate sceptics, people without a scientific degree, even politicians and sincere AGW supportive scientists should easily agree.

The facts are just too simple and quite impossible to dispute. It may technically not be a full lie, but it is simple and plain fraud.

This could be used as a lackmus-test for the IPCC processes (and maybe the condition of democratic pressand institutions):

- this error should be corrected and a press conference held
- the authors of this chapter should be sanctioned
- Review processes have to be changed.
- responsibilities have to be assigned
- the closed IPCC circles have to be opened to external input.

The use of Forbush data to draw such a conclusion is disputed here.

Best Regards
ClimateSanity

UAF professor continues to question sources of global warming : http://newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/19/uaf-professor-continues-question-sources-global-wa/

The retired geophysics professor also questioned the accuracy of readings from weather stations where no one is there to regularly monitor the equipment.

“A friend of mine found one station where the temperature gauge was just outside the air conditioner,” he said.

Meacham: 1948, 1962, 2008 – 84 degrees F
Pendleton Airport: 1934, 1984, 2008 – 90 degrees F

Wow!!! and Wow BACKWARDS! Now that’s a trend! Looks like a…..uh……mmmm….a…CYCLE!

These data are preliminary and have not undergone final quality control by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Therefore, these data are subject to revision. Final and certified climate data can be accessed at the NCDC – http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov.
Record Event Report

000
SXUS76 KPDT 190012
RERPDT

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PENDLETON OR
511 PM PDT THU SEP 18 2008

…NEW DAILY RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES FOR SEPTEMBER 18TH…

NOTE: STATIONS MARKED WITH * INDICATE THAT THE STATION REPORTS ONCE
PER DAY. FOR CONSISTENCY…THESE VALUES ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE
OCCURRED ON THE DAY THE OBSERVATION WAS TAKEN BUT MAY HAVE ACTUALLY
OCCURRED (ESPECIALLY FOR MAX TEMPERATURE) ON THE PREVIOUS DAY.

STATION PREVIOUS NEW RECORDS
RECORD/YEAR RECORD BEGAN

MEACHAM, OR 84 / 1962 84 (TIED) 1948 :SINCE MID
PENDLETON(ARPT), OR 90 / 1984 90 (TIED) 1934 :SINCE MID

In economics, we make a formal distinction between “risk” and “uncertainty.” I’m not sure this distinction is common in other disciplines, so I’m not sure what the term means in the IPCC’s mission, or how it is understood by scientists working in disciplines relating to climate change. Usually, outside of economics, we see the distinction between “risk” and “uncertainty” blurred, and the two to refer to the “probability of uncertain events.” Usually the focus is on the “probability of uncertain adverse events.” Who worries about uncertain, but fortuitous events? So there’s a sense in which I see, and acknowledge, your point.

But not if I apply the rigorous distinction we draw between risk and uncertainty in economics. “Risk” refers to events with measurable probability. “Uncertainty” refers to the prospect of events whose likelihood is indefinite or incalculable. Given all the hoopla in IPCC about how they use confidence interval data to assess likelihood — such as >66% is “likely” and >90% is “very likely” and so on — they would appear to be using “risk” in the formal sense as we use it in economics. And that doesn’t justify leaving out the positive impacts.

The IPCC assessment reports are classic examples of “confirmation bias.” Wikipedia has a good article on the subject, including the following Tolstoy quote:

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

In the end, I guess I come out in the same place. The IPCC assessment reports are agenda-driven. They are the product of a group of intellectuals who are firmly persuaded that they already know, without a shadow of doubt, that climate change is bad, and especially anthropogenic induced climate change. All that remains is to prepare reports to influence policy makers of these foregone conclusions. There is absolutely nothing scientific about this process, and scientists who appeal to the IPCC’s assessment reports as evidence of scientific consensus are traitors to their profession. We expect such behavior in politicians. We should cringe in horror when we see it in those who call themselves scientists.

No mention of assessing benefits. No cost/benefit analysis. Right from the start, the IPCC was created to publicise ONLY the possible downside of AGW.