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.
Of course this will be immediately reported by the BBC & other media outlets in the interest of public awareness……. [Sarc off]
Well done, Three cheers for Lord Monckton, Anthony Watts and Christopher Booker. Three more cheers for all the honest people and especially scientists who attempt to force Pachauri and the IPCC to admit that they are dissemblers. People are watching this struggle.
Monckton, the tip of the whip.
Perhaps the self serving at IPCC are now sitting a bit “higher’ in their chairs. There is a distinctly unpleasant odor there 🙂
Is 20114 too early to celebrate the end of the IPCC?
Correction is 2014 (not 20114) too early to celebrate the end of the IPCC?
Nice one your Lordship
Lord Monckton,
You are treading on the liveliehood and reputation of some very powerful people in a very public way. It’s my prayer that you are taking approrpriate personal safety measures. One of those measures is of course to act in the open and publicly. There are other, more discreet measures, that you may want to consider.
Andy Wehrle
“…the IPCC Secretariat…” I should swoon. No personal or persons responsible by name, just an unaccountable nameless body. Weber’s “Iron Cage” perfectly described in that response from the Secretariat.
jorgekafkazar says:
May 20, 2013 at 10:21 pm
Werner, is some adjustment necessary to the significance test because of autocorrelation in the dataset?
I am not an expert on statistics, but a more pertinent question for me would be what would Phil Jones and possibly the IPCC regard as official? For instance, would they regard the SkS numbers as valid or would they say we need “some adjustment necessary to the significance test because of autocorrelation in the dataset”? If the latter is the case, would you know of a site that gives this information?
I bet sales of voodoo books, pictures of Lord Monkton, mannequins and needles in Geneva just went through the roof.
On second thoughts I figure the IPCC were probably well stocked already with books on voodoo science.
What’s the betting there are now feverish emails flying backwards and forwards between Pachauri and Mann.
I presume that means that Lord Monkton’s communications, any relevant emails, documents and records have now all been deleted, and the hard drives smashed and deposited down a bore-hole in Antarctica and have been sealed with radioactive waste. Working Group I is now circling the wagons and preparing their cover stories, and the Secretariat is busy transferring as much lucre as possible into their numbered Swiss bank accounts as possible while their is still time. /sarc
Actually, I presume business as usual until the Antarctic ice sheet melts or the fallbeil is reinstituted for aristocrats and bureaucrats.
I just with that it didn’t require a ploy that is essentially childish and stupid to get the attention of the would-be aristocrats, and nit wit bureaucrats in the UN. Can’t we send all of these people on a vital scientific mission to some distant planet? – first class of course! – other wise they would never get on the spaceship. Gawd, leave the rest of us in peace.
W^3
Monckton again huh?
When are you guys going to learn? Your continual reliance on this serial Walter Mitty just keeps demonstrating your lack of credibility.
But then, we all knew that already.
It is not correct, as Monckton says, that has not been any warming in the RSS data set for 23 years (it’s actually 17 years or so)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2013/trend
mandas,
When you are incapable of providing a scientifically compelling argument — which is always the case in your case — you attack the man.
Grow up.
For the first time in my life I can finally say: “Praise the Lord”
My Lord
I understand the necessity of the case, but I really wish that this argument over data and interpretation could be had without ringing the Police… As I applaud the progress you have made, I am saddened that you have been obliged to take the steps that you have in order to make it.
Yours in sorrow
Way to go, it’s good to see that mad dogs and englishmen still go out in the midday sun. I don’t think your criminal fraud complaint is going anywhere given the UN’s sovereign immunity though. Too bad, they’re all a bunch of windmill tilters.
Ivan says:
May 21, 2013 at 4:41 pm
It is not correct, as Monckton says, that has not been any warming in the RSS data set for 23 years (it’s actually 17 years or so)
There are two different things being discussed here. The 17 years (actually 16 years and 5 months) is NO warming at all with a slope that is essentially 0. The 23 years refers to the fact that we cannot be 95% certain that warming is occurring for this period of time based on RSS numbers.
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
Note that 0.131 is larger than 0.123. If my math is correct, there is a statistically significant chance of 5.6% that there has actually been cooling in the last 23 years.
Jolly gud show, Lord Monckton. But watch your back? If our coalition get in on Sept 14, Tim Flannery will be sacked. And so he should. I remember studying one of his papers in late 1980s doing my degree in archaeology and palaeoanthropology. It was the mass deaths of African elephants somewhere in Africa. He compared their fate with the extinction world wide of the mega fauna. Being browsers not grazers, the big marsupials eventually suffered a similar fate that faced these elephants. With a drought present, the elephants collected around the only water hole for 50 miles. They ate themselves out, fearing to leave as they usually do, walking from one water hole to another. He changed his tune years later, saying humans caused their demise. (There is evidence that the giant buffalo and mammoths were trapped or driven over a cliff by native indians and large mammals do not breed every year) Although no evidence other than one skeleton bore a spear point around an empty water hole in Australia. Too small to kill the huge beast. Recently it was announced that in Australia, megafauna died from extreme drought and climate change, and humans had little impact on their demise. Others adapted, like the red kangaroo that is a grazer and not a browser. Gud bye Tim and find another job, if they will have you?
I am most grateful to Anthony and to the many commenters here who have been kind enough to support my attempt to restore reason and truth to the IPCC by seeking correction of a notorious and influential error in its Fourth Assessment Report.
It is sad that I have had to let the prosecuting authorities know of the IPCC’s profitable dishonesty. I am not sure whether any such authority has jurisdiction over the IPCC. But my highlighting the IPCC’s grave, influential, and damaging error – and not one of the few trolls who have commented here has dared to suggest that it is not an error – will also highlight the danger of handing power to a global body with authority over all and accountability to none.
One revealing fact has already come to light. Dr. Pachauri, to whom I reported the error in person and in writing more than three years ago, did not pass on my manifestly serious and well-founded complaint to the IPCC Secretariat: for the Secretariat denies it knew anything of the error until my recent letter.
Pachauri is answerable at Indian law not merely for misprision of a felony but also as an accessory to this uniquely costly fraud. I shall notify the Indian prosecuting authorities of the facts and invite them to investigate.
A charity that Pachauri directs in the United Kingdom has already found itself in trouble with the Charities Commission because I had proved that it had flagrantly under-declared its income to the Commission in a manner calculated to conceal the very considerable funding it had received from British taxpayers.
My report of the IPCC’s error will put Pachauri and other powerful global-warming profiteers and racketeers worldwide on notice that the worm has turned. Those of us whom he and they have so cruelly and senselessly vilified merely because we have quietly insisted upon restoration of the primacy of the scientific method in weather forecasting will no longer tolerate lies or frauds.
In 11th-century Iraq Alhazen, the founder of the scientific method, beautifully described the scientist as “the seeker after truth”. Philosophers of science from Aristotle. Lucretius, and Alhazen to Descartes, Huxley, and Popper have repeatedly indicated that the truth is the end and object of science, as it is of religion, of logic, of mathematics, and – as some of the climate fraudsters may now discover to their cost – of the law.
Ooops, did anyone think that Pachauri and the IPCC could clean up their act?? Here is an article on Pachauri speaking just yesterday in Istanbul (h/t Tom Nelson):
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/nobel-laureate-warns-against-sea-level-rise-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=47288&NewsCatID=359
Precise, professional and to the point. The silence is deafening!!!
Skiphil good one. Look atolls do sink, they also rise. Erosion is one problem, particularly if land has been removed for building purposes from the ocean or sea fronts. Bangladesh regularly floods and they like it. If ice increases like in a major glacial period, seas will drop alarmingly. It will give more land but those who depend on fishing will have to travel miles. We should fear another ice age or even mini ice age. We can adapt, and the Southern hemisphere will not be so affected as the Northern hemisphere.
I wouldn’t hold my breath, India is one of most corrupt countries in the world. He’ll slip out of this one, like the worm he his.