Dr. Roger Pielke jr. writes:
IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress
The politicization of climate science is so complete that the lead author of the IPCC’s Working Group II on climate impacts feels comfortable presenting testimony to the US Congress that fundamentally misrepresents what the IPCC has concluded. I am referring to testimony given today by Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford, to the US Senate.
This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field’s testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate. Field’s testimony is here in PDF.
Full story here, well worth a read
Have the Peoples’ Representatives really so little sense of reality, become so completely divorced from original sources that contradict this testimony in toto, that no-one rises to correct this shill or even flip a page to a relevant IPCC passage? If this is Congress’s idea of “fact finding,” what next– can anyone at this so-called “hearing” prove the world is NOT governed by invisible flying rabbits? Well, then– here they come.
Unreal !! He can give his own opinions about the state of research, but such blatant misrepresentations of what the IPCC actually said are outrageous.
Of course with a committee chaired by the pitiful Babs Boxer this is simply playing to the “majority”…. Still incredible since the claims could be so quickly and clearly refuted.
Dr. Roger Pielke jr shows clearly that IPCC Lead Author Field didn’t simply mislead the Senate he outright lied. You have to call a spade a spade and a lie a lie, a suit and tie does not make you a honest man!
Read for yourself:
1. On the economic costs of disasters:
Field: “As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear.”
What the IPCC actually said: “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
2. On US droughts:
Field: “The report identified some areas where droughts have become longer and more intense (including southern Europe and West Africa), but others where droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter.”
What the IPCC actually said: “… in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America …”
3. On NOAA’s billion dollar disasters:
Field: “The US experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 2011, a record that far surpasses the previous maximum of 9.”
What NOAA actually says about its series of “billion dollar” disasters: “Caution should be used in interpreting any trends based on this [data] for a variety of reasons”
4. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of hurricanes and tornadoes:
Field: “For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known. Specifically, the IPCC (IPCC 2012) did not identify a trend or express confidence in projections concerning tornadoes and other small-area events. The evidence on hurricanes is mixed.”
What the IPCC actually said (p. 269 PDF): “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
5. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of floods and droughts:
Field: “For other categories of climate and weather extremes, the pattern is increasingly clear. Climate change is shifting the risk of hitting an extreme. The IPCC (IPCC 2012) concludes that climate change increases the risk of heat waves (90% or greater probability), heavy precipitation (66% or greater probability), and droughts (medium confidence) for most land areas.”
What the IPCC actually says (p. 269 PDF): “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
_____________________________________________________________________
Field is certainly entitled to his (wrong) opinion on the science of climate change and disasters However, it utterly irresponsible to fundamentally misrepresent the conclusions of the IPCC before the US Congress. He might have explained why he thought the IPCC was wrong in its conclusions, but it is foolish to pretend that the body said something other than what it actually reported. Just like the inconvenient fact that people are influencing the climate and carbon dioxide is a main culprit, the science says what the science says.
Field can present such nonsense before Congress because the politics of climate change are so poisonous that he will be applauded for his misrepresentations by many, including some scientists. Undoubtedly, I will be attacked for pointing out his obvious misrepresentations. Neither response changes the basic facts here. Such is the sorry state of climate science today.
Knowledge and understanding are not qualities abundantly available in any political forum I have encountered. Most of them will accept any information that suits their ideological agenda and automatically reject or discount anything which counters it.
Sadly, the knowledge/understanding of ‘peoples representatives’ on any given complex subject is inversely proportional to the amount of money available for the lobbyists and their supporters.
This is great stuff.
About three-four months ago (times of failed Scafetta flourish on WUWT) I finally got proof that the real natural variability is easily calculated from already known solar and geophysical variability.
Fiercer the AGW-sceptics warfare the more value in understanding natural variability.
The AGW camp has no clue, the ‘BEST’ is a contradiction of terminology, Scafetta and planetarists have failed to make an impact.
Hey, doing science with obscure correlations is lot of fun especially if you can get what no one else has.
I recommend to read the comments by A on RPJr’s post. Or even better, take the transcript and the SREX and compare them yourself. Field could have done better, but he neither lies (Re: DaveG) nor “unambiguously misrepresent”s.
Field’s graph appears to show that NOAA has been above the 95% confidence limit (presumably based on Berkeley) fairly consistently since about 1983. Should I have confidence in the confidence limit or in the NOAA records?
Now’s the time for our well-organized, well-funded denial machine to roll out a pre-packaged TV-ready episode consisting of extracts from Field’s testimony interspersed with video’d responses from Pielke. At least Fox should run it, and hopefully some local stations too.
But it won’t happen, because there is no such organization in operation. (See my article, “Notes from Skull Island,” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/17/climate-debate-rages-in-the-australian/#comment-556455 )
Now if only the Senate sub-committee members would read Pielke Jr.’s blog. The problem is these misrepresentations were *said* to the Senate subcommittee and no one *there*, at the meeting, stood up and pointed out the these misrepresentations. Nothing is going to change from Roger’s great insight unless there is some other way to loudly point out to each and every member that they just, basically, got lied to, and here is the proof.
Is it a crime to mislead Congress?
Field has obviously trained at the Gleick School of Ethics.
John Blake says:
August 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Have the Peoples’ Representatives really so little sense of reality, become so completely divorced from original sources that contradict this testimony in toto, that no-one rises to correct this shill or even flip a page to a relevant IPCC passage? If this is Congress’s idea of “fact finding,” what next– can anyone at this so-called “hearing” prove the world is NOT governed by invisible flying rabbits? Well, then– here they come.
________________________________
Pardon me, John- not rabbits, but 12 foot lizards…
You make great points about fact finding at this hearing, but would it make any difference to them? Does the majority not have and support their true agenda of additional taxation and control, regardless of how they get there?
It’s Pielke Jr. taking the testimony (and the state of climate science) to task, which speaks volumes in and of itself.
They indicted Roger Clemens on similar charges, but those charges did not stick. Will they at least follow thru and pursue indictment of this clown on the same basis? Probably not.
Climate ‘science’ is rapidly approaching the single digit approval rating of Congress and the propaganda media. The EPW Minority must demand a public retraction of false testimony by Field, then strike all testimony by any discredited witness. Finally, Field must be barred from any future testimony or evidence. Big lies begin with half-truths. Removing one bad apple from the Faux Science barrel will not end the rot….but will be an ominous warning….some Earthlings are serious about Truth.
So, is anyone sending this stuff to the Senators? Anyone slipping the truth in along with their morning coffee? It’s no good all this being said out here. It needs to reach Congress. There must be some Senators willing to listen – and hopefully pull Field in for further (tighter) questioning.
Hasn’t this gone on long enough? Field has been caught lying to Congress, isn’t that a crime in the USA? There must be a procedure to raise this issue and make a formal compliant to Congress and get the authorities looking into it. This is a serious matter.
Let me see if I’ve got this right. . . .
The lead author of the IPCC report. . . . .lies about his own report?
Why in the world would they put him on the stand to do something like that. . . . .something that’s so obviously and quickly impeachable?
Wow. . . . . its sort of like this is never never land. . . . . . .
It’s just another UNFCCC conform social scientist?
Lies, damn lies and statistics (to be clear I am not accusing anyone of telling lies). Storm or disatster costs are subject to many things even if the frequency of disasters increase or decrease year over year. Population increase, urban planning, storm water management, inflation, etc. Without taking all of these things plus more into account conclusions are just conjecture.
My take on the hearing: Babs ran it like a kangaroo court. She asked “gotcha” questions and didn’t allow time for the scientists (esp. Christy) to explain their answers. And in science, there are no quick yes or no answers to any important question.
Babs and Christy were in effect speaking different languages: Babs asks, “WHO was taking biased measurements?” and Christy thinks she’s talking about bias in the data caused by structural factors surrounding the weather stations. They never did get it together.
I could never stand to sit there in that hearing room and let complete ignoramuses plot together to suppress the truth!
The damage is done. The media will run with the quotes. The only thing that might get the media to backtrack is if Fields is charged with Contempt of Congress.
Field was doing his job , what you need to release is that job is not science .
“A trolling we will go, a trolling we will go…”
Yes, please read the nearly incomprehensible “A” and Dr. Pielke’s replies. “A’s” comment on point 1 is particularly tortured, trying to suggest Field is talking about climate changes and extreme weather, not losses. I wonder what the phrase “14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters” refers to if not economic losses. Dr. Pielke’s response is directly on point. “A” doesn’t fair much better on the subsequent issues.
Babs Boxer, during one of the committee witch hunts looking into possible “collusion” after one of the gasoline price spikes a decade or so ago (to the assembled eminent economists who were saying no evidence of collusion was found): “Well, I’m all FOR supply and demand and all, but … ” [your findings don’t fit my anti-Big Oil narrative, so yada yada …] It was comical but also sad to witness the unabashed politicization of science even then.
ob says:
August 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm
I recommend to read the comments by A on RPJr’s post……….
I agree. Excellent lesson in smackdown without being offensive by RPJr. I do have to give ‘A’ kudos for engaging in a civil debate though.
Outrageous. But we don’t indict banksters so don’t expect anything to happen to him. Now going after a guy like Roger Clemons, now that is important, so he needs to be indicted.
” I wonder what the phrase “14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters” refers to if not economic losses.”
Reading tea leaves with coffee grounds.