The IPCC fraud case (but not the planet) hots up
Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Two weeks ago I reported the central error in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to its secretariat. After the contributing scientists had submitted their final draft report, the bureaucrats and politicians had tampered with the HadCRUt3 graph of global instrumental temperatures since 1850 by adding four trend-lines to the anomaly curve and drawing from their relative slopes the unjustifiable and statistically indefensible conclusion, stated twice in the published report, that global warming was “accelerating” and that the “acceleration” was our fault.
Global warming is not accelerating. The planet is not hotting up. There has been no warming for 17 years on any measure, as the IPCC’s climate-science chairman now admits. That includes the Hadley/CRU data. There has been no warming for 23 years according to RSS satellite dataset.
The IPCC’s central projection of warming since 2005 (bright red), taken from the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, is visibly at odds with the linear-regression trend (bright blue) on the latest version (HadCRUt4) of the monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly curve (dark blue):
I received no reply to my report of the IPCC’s erroneous conclusion that global warming was “accelerating”. So today I wrote to the IPCC again:
“I am an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I wrote to you two weeks ago to report a serious error in the Fourth Assessment Report. I have had no reply. My letter of two weeks ago is attached, together with a copy of a letter I have sent to the Inter-Academy Council asking it to use its good offices to persuade you to reply. I have also sent a letter, for information only at this stage, to the police in Geneva, since it appears that a fraud may have been committed by the IPCC.”
In my letter to the police in Geneva, which I also copied to the Serious Fraud Office in London and the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I wrote:
“The attached correspondence evidences a fraud at the IPCC. Its secretariat has not responded to my report of an error in its Fourth Assessment Report (2007). The error is serious. I can prove it is deliberate. It is designed to demonstrate by deception that the world is warming ever faster and that we are to blame. It is one of a series of ingenious, connected frauds that have profited a few at great expense to many.
“The frauds are wilful deceptions calculated to cause loss to taxpayers by tampering with scientific data and results so as to exaggerate the rate and supposed adverse consequences of global warming. Scientific debate is legitimate: subjective distortion of objective science for profit is not.
“This letter is for information. If after a further week the IPCC (to which I am copying this letter) fails to acknowledge my report of its error as its own procedures require, I shall invite you to investigate this and other connected frauds, which involve larger sums than any previous fraud.”
The IPCC has not delayed in replying this time:
“We acknowledge receipt of your message copied below and of your letter dated 4 May 2013, received earlier today as an attachment to that message. Your email with attachments of today is the first communication received at the IPCC Secretariat from you on this matter.
“We would like to inform you that the error claim that you have submitted is now being taken care of as per the IPCC Protocol for Addressing Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports, available on the IPCC website. Steps 1 and 2 of the protocol are now completed; the IPCC Working Group I will deal with next steps as appropriate. As per the protocol, the IPCC Secretariat will inform you of the conclusions of the process.”
I have thanked the IPCC for passing on my report of its error in the Fourth Assessment Report and have told the police the IPCC have now replied. It is clear from the IPCC Secretariat’s reply that Dr. Pachauri, to whom I had reported the error in writing and in person as long ago as 2009, had not passed my report of the error to the Secretariat as he should have done. No doubt there will now be an internal enquiry to discover why he did not pass it on.
When the error has been investigated and the IPCC has reported back to me, I shall let you – and the prosecuting authorities of three nations – know the outcome.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
henry@lord monckton
finally
perhaps some justice?
I don’t hold my breath
but, I know it is, indeed cooling,
However, we are accelerating into cooling,
so it will be more than 0.1 per century, soon
by ca. 2039 we will be back to where we were in 1950
more or less
when cooling changes back to warming
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Mario Lento says: May 20, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Perhaps a typo’ “The planet is not “hotting” up” should be The planet is not heating up.
_______________________________________
I think you will find this is a deliberate infantalisation. If one wishes to emphasise that your opposition is being infantile, you reply with in monosylables or with childish grammar.
.
Reply To: Joseph A Olson
Have you actually read the BBC article that you link to?
The content is the usual ” impacts of rising temperature are being felt particularly keenly in the polar regions” boiler plate.
The BBC have had to change the headlines to something closer to reality to avoid the accusation of bias, unfortunately they have not extended the same neutrality to the content.
TheInquirer says:
May 20, 2013 at 10:26 pm
Your chosen moniker is a misnomer.
Arctic sea ice loss is SST and weather related. NASA.
Sea level rates(rise and accelleration of rise) are normal (as normal as the last 200 years is/can be) U of Boulder, Colorado.
Ocean temps? SST: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997
Flat.
If you can deliver a metric that shows dangerous warming of the deep oceans do so. It has been shown that even if the energy of “4 Hiroshima bombs per second” is entering the deep oceans, without measurably affecting the surface, this, if it continues, will raise ocean temperatures by about 1 degree C every 200,000 years.
Go away you wilfully ignorant, insulting troll.
I await the outcome with interest.
Christopher Monckton sir, you now have their attention.
They wanted the spotlight for years and I believe they will now scramble to get out of it. Keep the lights shining and their feet to the fire for they are now really feeling the heat.
Viscount Monckton, thank you for your efforts. They are appreciated.
Read the BBC report as well. “nothing here move along”. The world media is in the tank. Thank god for the internet.
This will go no where. The AGW scam is too big to fail, well maybe a war will sort it out.
Henry Galt says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/monckton-challenges-the-ipcc-suggests-fraud-and-gets-a-response/#comment-1311602
HenryP says
actually, I think 1997 is a wrong pick because it represents ca. 1.5 solar cycle.
You can see it is far worse here (from 2002 = 1 whole solar cycle):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/to:2014
.We already dropped about 0.1 since 2002 and the worst is still to come.
(Lord Monckton’s -0.1 degree per century is most probably wrong)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
I can only echo the plaudits for Lord Monckton The Brave..
As identified by Mario Lento above, the IPCC, by definition, is NOT neutral – it is called the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate CHANGE. If it was neutral and truly interested in the outcome, it would be called the IPCR – Intergovernmental Panel for Climate RESEARCH…
Sadly the bbc are no less warmist than before, if you read the whole article it ends with;
“Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
“None. No comfort whatsoever,” he said”
****************************************
if at first you don’t succeed keep on sucking until you do suck seed.
Henry said
(Lord Monckton’s -0.1 degree per century is most probably wrong)
Henry says
I am so sorry. I do apologize. I see now that Lord Monckton did see we are currently cooling at -0.9 degree/century which is fairly close to what I get.
It`s a mighty rough road from Lynchburg to Danville and a line on a 3 mile grade…it`s on that grade that he lost his airbrakes you see what a jump he made…they were going down that grade makin 90 miles an hour when his whistle broke into a scream…he was found in the wreck with his hand on the throttle and he was scalded to death by the steam.
My mother sang that little piece from the “Wreck of the Old 97” to me a hundred times.
BTW…BLESS THE LORD!!!
Saying “global warming” is not real? Who says that? The earth has warmed over the last 250 years. That last line of the BBC article is a strawman.
Christopher Monckton,
Nice play.
I suggest the following scenario. The UN bureaucracy (which the IPCC is) will start pointing fingers at the scientists who served as authors saying the scientists were unclear in their science assessments. The bureaucracy will say that is why they had to revise what the scientists said. The scientists are going to be shafted by the UN bureaucracy to protect themselves.
John
While on one hand it seems absurd to report an error in a graph to the police, on the other hand stunts like this seem necessary when the IPCC can’t be bothered to follow through on obvious errors for reasons of intellectual honesty alone.
So it begs the question of are these errors deliberate. Monckton’s claim that they are seems, unfortunately, far removed from far-fetched.
Possible IPCC replies:
But if you filter out the decelerating, then it is still accelerating.
If you look at the period when temperature was going up, and compare this to the period when it wasn’t, in comparison it is accelerating.
We appreciate such contributions in making the acceleration more easily understood.
We fully expect the acceleration to resume, once the current pause in acceleration ends, in line with climate models.
The climate models successfully reproduce the acceleration in the past, so we expect they will successfully reproduce the acceleration in the future.
The fact that temperature increases are decelerating is projected to be temporary. Overall climate change is still occurring and we must make every possible measure to combat it. The sooner we act, the less the acceleration will be in the future.
Other factors not previously known such as aerosols are causing the deceleration, but the underlying acceleration is still there.
You get my drift. It will likely be a whitewash.
————————————-
hahaha that’s what its like when I contact my congressman about….well, anything.
This should forever settle the quarrel about what Lords are really good for these days.
Well done, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, Sir – from a Lordship-free Germany!
Taking a modern science institute to court for fraud just so it tells the truth welcome to the modern world or should that read post modern science world.
mogamboguru says:
May 21, 2013 at 7:47 am
Well you may be Lordship-free but you have plenty of Grafs and perhaps even some Vizegrafs.
The IPCC has only to make a transparency of the temperature trends for the last 16 to 23 years, flip it over, say temperatures are rising (erroneously of course, but nobody accepts the blame and nobody can remember who flipped the chart), and publish it anyway.
That’s how some “administrations” claim to be “transparent”. You just wonder who do they think they’re kidding?
(BTW, kudos, Lord Monckton, for your brilliant manoeuvre. They’ve been put on notice now.)
Thank you David: I find it incredulous that the IPCC exists at all. As it can only be paid to deliver fear based on their certainty of a predetermined outcome, regardless of facts.
The IPCC is not open for debate. The IPCC is not in any way based on scientific principles.
It’s a gang out to tell us that a hypothesis is a fact (skipping the idea that theory is the next step), and based on that fact, The IPCC’s stated goal is to be paid to tell us what to do.
WUWT?
Another brick in the wall has come down. This is a thrilling time for windwarriors. Not so much for windpushers.