Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Buying “a pig in a poke” refers to buying an unseen piglet in a sack. The piglet was actually a cat, so when you opened the sack after purchase “the cat was out of the bag.”
Governments bought the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘pig’ ‘that human CO2 was causing global warming wrapped in the ‘poke’ of their Reports. IPCC assured buyers it was a pig with 90+ percent certainty.
They fooled governments and media four times now they offer a new poke in Assessment Report 5 (AR5), but with 95 percent certainty it’s a pig. This is despite the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. Their predictions have failed. For 17 years global temperatures have declined while CO2 levels continue to increase. Arctic summer ice, supposedly all gone by 2013 has recovered by 60 percent in one year. Severe weather has not increased. Damage done by policies already implemented, such as green jobs and alternate energies, is already evident. Newspaper coverage declined dramatically as people sense problems even if they don’t understand (Figure 1). Decline followed the peak created by Gore’s false fantasy An Inconvenient Truth.
Figure 1
Instead of acknowledging error, the IPCC [tries] to defend the indefensible. This alone warrants disbanding of the agency.
They’re in a corner of their own design. They manufactured the poke through an organization, process, and computer models designed to prove their claim. Now we know it contains a cat. More frightening for them, people, including governments, are asking questions. A report by German scientists showing 65 climate models failed to predict the current no temperature increase period caused EU and US governments to ask questions.
“U.S. and European Union envoys are seeking more clarity from the United Nations on a slowdown in global warming that climate skeptics have cited as a reason not to “panic” about environmental changes, leaked documents show.”
To admit this the IPCC would expose their fraud. This includes ignoring the scientific method, changing terminology by switching from global warming to climate change and flooding the media with misleading stories about connections between natural events and their claims. AR5 indicates the has IPCC decided not to admit their deceit. Consider the problem for governments and people as a investment decision.
Would you invest time, money, and political capital in responding to a demand for total global action based on 23 years of failed predictions?
Would you take action when the few countries and regions who pursued the proposed remedial action of green jobs and alternate energy already prove it doesn’t work.
Would you even listen if you learned that:
• Their research of global warming/climate change was deliberately narrowed by definition to only studying human causes.
• You cannot determine human causes if you don’t know or understand natural causes.
• The demand for political action was based on an untested hypothesis.
• The standard scientific methods and tests of the hypothesis were ignored.
• Computer models were created to produce the predetermined outcome.
• All predictions made for 23 years were wrong.
• After five years they abandoned calling them predictions and opted for the term projections.
• Projections were created with low, medium and high potential scenarios.
• Even the low projections were greater than what actually occurred.
• Their claims of increased severe weather events proved wrong.
• Their claims of sea level rise were incorrect.
• The actual record since 1998 shows temperatures leveling and declining while CO2 increased.
• Instead of admitting their hypothesis was wrong and amending or rejecting it, as science requires, they changed the hypothesis from global warming to climate change.
• Instead of admitting their claim of 90+ percent certainty that human CO2 was the cause was wrong, they raised the claim to 95 percent certainty.
Would you invest in a plan promoted using a Report deliberately created to exaggerate and distort actual results. Their Science Report acknowledges all the severe limitations of their knowledge about climate and climate change. It itemizes the severe limitations of their climate models. However, they know most won’t read or understand what it says. Just in case they do they deliberately release a doctored report called the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) months before they release the Science Report.
As David Wojick, UN IPCC expert reviewer, explained
…What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
The IPCC already sold four pigs in pokes in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 Reports. Distortions, deceptions and deliberately falsified data was used. The most infamous was the “hockey stick”, which literally rewrote climate history, in the 2001 Report. Corruption was exposed in leaked emails of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose members dominated the IPCC.
AR5 SPM is scheduled for approval in Stockholm at the end of September for release shortly thereafter. If you’re tempted to buy consider German physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus comments about the IPCC pig in a poke.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
It is time for global outrage and accountability.
Related articles
- A new book on the IPCC and Pachauri from Donna Laframboise (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Can The IPCC Do Revolutionary Science? (wattsupwiththat.com)
- A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Terrifying Flat Global Temperature Crisis Threatens To Disrupt U.N. Climate Conference Agenda (climatism.wordpress.com)
- This Week’s Climate Embarrassment (powerlineblog.com)
They certainly seem to have backed themselves into a credibility chasm!
For those who might be interested, my view of the writing on the IPCC/UNFCCC desperation wall:
Hiding the decline (of the IPCC/UNFCCC)?
Excellent work Mr. Ball, many thanks.
I always enjoy a well written article backed by facts and applied basic logic. Thank you mister Ball. But remember the IPCC is a United Nations organization and it is accountable to no one.
Several key warmists should be held accountable if it turns out they were totally wrong. This should be especially true in places where a carbon tax was enacted.
I love the “pig in a poke” line, but it would be more accurate to say that the IPCC is putting lipstick on a pig. The lipstick will very quickly wear off. Due to the Internet and efforts of WUWT and others, plus the relentless flow of climate info, the general public, like Herr Plus, IS rapidly becoming aware of just how fraudulent the IPCC process is. I think you’re gonna be surprised at how much of a dud the new SPM will be.
By the way, there’s too much focus on “the pause” in global warming and not enough on the failure of the glblwrmsts’ predictions. Going back to J. Hansen in 1988, they said global avg. temps would be ACCELERATING upward. It’s the absence of this acceleration that marks the core failure of their forecasting, not “the pause,” although, of course, they’re related. Hey, it’s been 25 years, guys; the jig is up.
Maybe I am way out in left field, but what if the Russians dig their heels in at Copenhagen on Sep 23rd? The last COP meeting in Dakar (?) ended in discord, when the Russians objected, strongly, to the killing of Kyoto. They stand to lose a lot of lovely virtual money they could claim as carbon credits when they destroyed the old coal fired generating plants built in the Communist era. They refused to agree even the agenda at the latest UNFCCC meeting in Bonn.
What if the Russians claim linkage, and refuse to cooperate with the IPCC in Copenhagen?
Yet they just can’t help hinting ever so slightly that they do.
Tell me where to sign up!
More like a “ManBearPig” in a poke! I agree, the jig is up.
Excellent summary, Dr. Ball. I’m afraid that so many politicians, media, NGO’s and other rent seekers are so heavily invested in the narrative that the narrative will continue. For instance, does the USEPA retreat on its GHG rules because we know the process is a fraud? Not very likely.
Bring it [AR5] on.
A detailed dissection of the claims complete with scientifically sound rebuttals is the best way to correct the injustice already created by the IPCC.
IPCC still win the arguments despite their bogus reports. A professor of paeleantology in Bristol University explains mass extinctions following the Siberian traps by rising CO2 causing climate change or global warming. The belief is that if CO2 rises indefinitely temperatures will also rise indefinitely.
Last week it was glibly stated that climate change or global warming was responsible for the extinction of woolly mammoths. In the UK and Europe, climate change/global warming is routinely cited for most unexplained phenomena in the natural world – there is no longer any debate about it the in media; the false science pedalled by IPCC has been fully accepted. All that remains now is to decide how much money, what proportion of GDP should be spent on emissions reduction to combat climate change/anthopromorphic global warming.
Governments don’t buy what the IPCC is selling. The IPCC reports what politicians order it to in order to advance the their political agendas and everybody involved gets rich at our expense.
The disconnect between models and reality has been acknowledged by the establishment science community which is now busy suggesting various epicycle like theories as to where the “missing” heat went.Some say its in the oceans (Trenberth) some say its due to Chinese aerosols (Hansen) but the all main actors still persist in the view that it will appear Lazarus like at some unspecified future time.This is like the Jehovah’s witnesses recalculating the end of the world each time a specified doomsday passes.
In Britain , the gulf between the Met Office expectations for the last several years and the actual string of cold and snowy winters and wet summers which has occurred has made the Met Office a laughing stock-to the point of recently holding a meeting of 25 “experts” to try to figure out where they went wrong.The answer is simple.Their climate models are incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First that CO2 is the main climate driver ,second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks cannot be positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it .
Temperature drives both CO2 and water vapour independently,. The whole CAGW – GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.
Furthermore the modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. There is no way of knowing whether the outputs after the parameterisation of the multiple inputs merely hide compensating errors in the system as a whole. The IPCC AR4 WG1 science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway.
In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models.They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless
For further discussion and a forecast of the coming cooling see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
The arguments are getting very weak boys, weak as piss on a hot rock. I have spent some time in the Alarmosphere just recently and I have to say hey exhibit exhaustion and an aimlessness. The pig-in-a-poke that is AR5 doesn’t look to be able to offer them much real hope.
When the IR5 poke is opened and the cat leaps out, the cat will be covered in lip stick. Immediately the IPCC will proclaim that the cat is in fact a silk purse.
I got a laugh when someone said that you cannot polish a turd, but you can throw glitter on it. The IPCC is busy throwing glitter about.
We hear so much about a 97% consensus that is entirely bogus, but how about us pointing out that the IPCC is 97% wrong 100% of the time, to counter it. That seems to be a figure that we should be harping upon all of the time, and it is much more accurate than theirs. They might balance out to a ZERO problem.
John K. Sutherland,
The Mythbusters proved that it is in fact possible to polish a turd.
“It is time for global outrage and accountability.”
YES!
It is part of the psychological dynamics of a doomsday cult that as the predictions are invalidated the people on the edges fall away, but the core of the group experiences strengthened conviction, and redoubles the effort to recruit new followers. Many people experience the theory of impending man-made climate catastrophe, the beliefs that surround that prediction, and the rituals prescribed for its mitigation, with a cult-like response, because it fills a psychological need. This is especially true for people who are in the first or second generation of their family to reject traditional religious practices and dogma. The doomsday cult of climatism rushes in to fill the psychological vacuum left behind, to provide meaning, certainty, and a feeling of belonging.
Not everyone has a cult response to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. There are honest scientific seekers of truth who are willing to follow the data, (or the models), wherever they lead. When the data goes against man-made climate catastrophe, they will follow it. Those left behind will find an interpretation of events that makes them even more right, and more certain that their prescription to avoid catastrophe must be implemented.
“The louder the rhetoric became, the clearer it was that their credibility was approaching zero”
Anonymous comment on Baghdad Bobs peer -reviewed propaganda about ultimate victory when the USMC at the airport were evident by peering over his shoulder and viewing them.
It’s behind you Pachauri; the game is up!
MattS says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:35 pm
somehow – I imagine the folks at IPCC doing just that! No wonder [their] work always smells of ……
their ! (sorry)
What’s the chance that the Climategate III emails get cleaned up and on-line for everyones inspection / review at about the same time as AR5? The C-gate I & II kind of proved they knew it was a ‘cat in the bag’.
Be under no illusions here. This is an intergovernmental body. The governments, particularly the EU and American, saw a chance to introduce a whole new class of taxation, be “lobbied” by a completely new set of rent seekers, introduce a largely un-elected world government on the model of the EU, to which they could retire to when their own people dumped them, and bring on a control mechanism that even the most ardent communist could only dream about.
That the EU and USA government are now “questioning” the process is purely because they see the writing on the wall and are covering their own backsides. The IPCC was always and ever just a bunch of very expensive bought and paid for Useful Idiots.