IPCC AR5 Renews Demands For Governments Buy Their Climate Change Pig In A Poke

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.

2000-2013_climate_coverage

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
70 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 13, 2013 9:32 pm

The arithmetical reality brought about by electoral politics driven by fractional reserve lending, is the concentration of power – i.e. government becomes the single largest actor in the economy/society. This dynamic is driven by the diminishing marginal utility of debt.
The point at which the diminishing marginal utility of debt drops below 1, that is the point where the majority of society is dependent on government. This is also the point at which, inherently, the electoral process can no longer serve the purpose of substituting one set of politicians for another in the hope of achieving a government that is either moral or driven by reality.
The logic of AGW inscribes itself within this dynamic as one of the myriad possible dynamics aimed at not only maintaining but expanding the power and the reach of government.
When the debt dynamic is allowed to go beyond 1:1 parity, the only way a political/monetary change can be brought about is through violent dislocation. Violent dislocations would happen spontaneously in the locale of the entities driving monetary policy. In an attempt to prevent the natural social conflagration at home however, the monetary authority will induce macro instability (monetary instability) overseas. Macro instability (rise in prices for example) will induce micro fractures that take the form of religious, ethnic and territorial disputes that will eventually degenerate in all out war.
Keep your eyes peeled for what we are about to precipitate in the East particularly in India, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Japan. Time frame is a bit difficult to pin point but I suspect the next five years will do it.

u.k.(us)
September 13, 2013 9:33 pm

“In Greek mythology, the Sirens (Greek singular: Σειρήν Seirēn; Greek plural: Σειρῆνες Seirēnes) were dangerous and beautiful creatures, portrayed as femme fatales who lured nearby sailors with their enchanting music and voices to shipwreck on the rocky coast of their island.”
============
Hard to deny the premise, and warning.

September 13, 2013 10:03 pm

While many people are venting, can I add a small one? I’ve just seen, in Melbourne Australia, a replay of an interview between some called DoctorOz (who is American by sound) and the EPA’s Lisa P Jackson.
America, I feel sorry for you. Here is a person prescribing changes for other Americans when she appears unable to prescribe a correct weight loss diet for herself.
The summing up of the talk by this duo was something like this – “Americans now have a greater personal empowerment than before to produce a better future for new generations” …. “Yes, and that is why the EPA is so important to help them.” A personal empowerment is not compatible with a dictatorial EPA, is it?
Jackson was head over heels in puppy love with the GHG theory. At that level, Administrators ought to be impartial about personal belief mechanisms & stick to known data.

Gary Kendall
September 13, 2013 10:20 pm

If I recall correctly, clause 8 of the Rules for the IPCC as handed down by the UN General Assembly states that reports shall be agreed by the Governments before publication. Surely this automatically makes the IPCC a political group, NOT the scientific group that they pretend to be { with regrettable success.}

goldminor
September 13, 2013 10:35 pm

Bill Kruse says:
September 13, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Going back to J. Hansen in 1988,
———————————————-
In 1988, the warming was only into it,s 11th year, yet they were able to state without a doubt that co2 was the ‘all and everything’ of climate change. Now that there has been at least 16 years of no further warming, with 7 of those years cooling to boot, the IPCC should be ashamed for maintaining their warmimg stance.

September 13, 2013 11:07 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html?mod=fox_australian
Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change
“The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.”

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 12:52 am

cartoonmick:
re the advert for your ridiculous propaganda web site which you posted at September 13, 2013 at 5:45 pm.
YESTERDAY YOU POSTED THE SAME UNTRUE ADVERT FOR YOUR PROPAGANDA BLOG ON ANOTHER WUWT THREAD WHERE IT WAS PANNED BY SEVERAL POSTERS.
Your falsehoods are not funny. They waste space on WUWT. Leave them on your blog.
Richard

Nik
September 14, 2013 1:13 am

Nineteen pages of confusing prose in the SPM to tell us we have been taken for a ride.
Gotta to hand it to Al Gore though. He rode the wave profitably, got out just before the blow out, selling to Al Jazeera, and got a Nobel prize.

Peter Carroll
September 14, 2013 4:14 am

Nice article. But I thought the expression “the cat is out of the bag” came from the Royal Navy of Nelson’s era when the so-called cat o’ nine tails was used to mete out punishment aboard ship. Kept in a baize bag, the “cat” was only taken out so that the bosun or one of his mates could lash the unfortunate miscreant. The expression therefore means that a situation has gone so far that it cannot be recalled – – punishment has been decided upon by the captain and is about to be administered.

O2bnaz
September 14, 2013 5:05 am

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer:” But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Gail Combs
September 14, 2013 6:13 am

Mark says: September 13, 2013 at 12:54 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes that is EXACTLY what happened. CAGW has ALWAYS been political and not science and we neglect the politics at our peril.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H. L. Mencken
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
The question then become WHAT do political leaders want and WHY they have intentionally promoted this universal fraud?
The general run of the mill person may not understand ‘The Science’ but they do understand robbery, fraud and the loss of jobs and freedom so that is a link we all need to understand too.
So here is the connection to the POLITICS:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.
Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO):

Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?
The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters…..
All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty….
In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared…..
Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? These may be complex questions, but they demand answers.

“Global governance requires localising global issues” — Lamy
…Over the past 70 years we have constructed the legal and institutional framework to manage closer economic integration at the regional and global level. And, of course, the WTO is one part of this scheme with responsibility for the governance of international trade relations….
I see four main challenges for global governance today….
The first one is leadership…
The second one is efficiency….
The third one is coherence….
The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy — for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”. By togetherness, I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community….

This last, ‘Legitmacy’ is the KEY needed to get those to be governed to ‘Buy-in’ to a change in governance from local and national governance to an unaccountable global bureaucracy.
Finding a universal ‘Enemy’ to lend ‘Legitmacy’ to Global Governance is what the think tank called ‘The Club of Rome’ did.

WIKI
“The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself – when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing.”[Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider. The First Global Revolution (The Club of Rome), 1993. p. 70]
“Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised.”[Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider. The First Global Revolution (The Club of Rome), 1993. p. 70]
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” [p. 115]

What is the actual goal? Agenda 21 and move us into ‘Low energy’ Transit Villages. Private ownership of land does not fit into the UN’s Plans. “Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….” ~ 1976 Report of Habitat I: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements
This is the latest gambit in the move toward ‘Globalization of which CAGW is just a part. From a Freedom of Infromation Act request by Judicial Watch
Excerpt from the 133 page FOIA document obtained from the Department of Defence entiled: AFSS 0910 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT
INCIDENTS (EOTI) – LESSON PLAN

……
LESSON EMPHASIS
This lesson will focus on awareness and current issues… It will also provide information that describes sources of extremism information, definitions, recruitment of DoD personnel, common themes in extremist ideologies, common characteristics of extremist organizations, DoD policies, and command functions regarding extremist activities….
D. Extremist Ideologies
1. Introduction
• As noted, an ideology is a set of political beliefs about the nature of people and society. People who are committed to an ideology seek not only to persuade but to recruit others to their belief. In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule….
2. Ideologies
a. Nationalism – The policy of asserting that the interests of one’s own nation are
separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations.
Many nationalist groups take it a step further and believe that their national culture
and interests are superior to any other national group…..
b. Supremacy –
c. Separatism –
d. Anarchism – A political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,
or undesirable ……protesters wreaking havoc at political conventions and anti-globalization rallies.……

So NATIONALISM now heads the top of the Department of Defense list of EXTREMISM???
You just can’t make this stuff up.

tony nordberg
September 14, 2013 10:59 am

With regard to the consequences of their blatant advocacy, the past four Chief Scientific Advisors to HM Goverment are making an appeal for the public to go easy on personal chastisement they are receiving as a result of their bringing science into disrepute;
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article3868896.ece

Bill Parsons
September 14, 2013 1:33 pm

Note from the year 2020: In retrospect, politicians handled the situation pretty well after they discovered their mistake. Once that cat was out of the bag, they did what our leaders do best: They passed even higher taxes, and helped the rest of us adapt to even bigger government. Now, roast suckling cat is on every restaurant’s menu, along with cat chop smothered in (of course) green salsa. And everyone in America can enjoy their favorite cat barbecue joint, within easy walking distance. Now, pass me some of that Obamasauce. Who says fairy tales don’t come true? Everyone can live happily ever after.
Yes we can!

September 14, 2013 3:22 pm

Dr. Tim Ball said: “For 17 years global temperatures have declined…”
Smoothed HadCRUT3 and UAH if similar smoothing is applied suggest to me that the lack of warming started in 2001.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2013_v5.6.png
Also, 17 years seems to sound like a statement that it started cooling in 1997. The world is warmer so far in 2013 than it was in 1997 and every previous year covered by any of the major global temperature indices.

Gail Combs
September 14, 2013 6:17 pm

Jeff Alberts says:
September 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm
“Now we know it contains a cat.”
Actually it contains a very poor computer model of a cat…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I thought it was Schrödinger’s cat.

Chris
September 15, 2013 8:33 am

Dr. Tim Ball said:
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.
How was the 60% figure determined? According to NSIDC, the extent on 21 Aug 2012 was 5.83M km2, and on the same date last year it was 4.34M km2. That’s an increase of 34%, not 60% – and 2013 will still come in near the low end of the 1981-2010 average. I’d refer you to the web site, but it is down due to the massive, unusual rainfall Colorado has been receiving the last few days. A bit of irony there. And of course, the figure that is most important, sea ice volume, continues to decline.
And as to the “damage” done due to green jobs and alternate energies – some clarification would be helpful on what you mean by that.

Matt
September 15, 2013 9:18 pm

author:
“Arctic summer ice, supposedly all gone by 2013 has recovered by 60 percent in one year.”
Look, somebody has made a video just for you. Well, for you and the Daily Mail:

Gail Combs.
September 18, 2013 5:01 pm

Chris says: September 15, 2013 at 8:33 am
….And as to the “damage” done due to green jobs and alternate energies – some clarification would be helpful on what you mean by that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, you can start with the birds and bats and endangered raptors chopped up by the useless wind turbines.
Then you can look at it two ways. The short answer is The most recent analysis shows that his administration has created only 2,298 permanent green jobs, according to the Institute for Energy Research, which used data from the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office to reach this conclusion. And that scattering of jobs has cost dearly. IER says Washington has spent $26.32 billion to create those few positions. That means each job has cost taxpayers $11.45 million.
Or you can start counting the cost to people like the people of Antelope Valley, CA who were forced out of their homes by underhanded means to clear the land for the Biggest Solar Project in the World which just this year was sold to Warren Buffett.
Or the people starving in third world countries thanks to the BIOFUEL RIP-OFF:
ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve
Cornell ecologist’s study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
ADM is the largest donor to both political parties:
Mother Jones:…whether the issue is possible price-fixing in Bulgaria or influence-peddling in Washington… no other U.S. company is so reliant on politicians and governments to butter its bread. From the postwar food-aid programs that opened new markets in the Third World to the subsidies for corn, sugar, and ethanol that are now under attack as “corporate welfare,” ADM’s bottom line has always been interwoven with public policy…
Then there is THE OTHER TAX PAYER RIP-OFF we will pay for the rest of our lives and so will our children.
As Obama Promised: Energy Prices to Soon Skyrocket hitting everyone in the pocket and causing what jobs are left to flee to China and India.

Obama’s war on coal hits your electric bill
The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt…. These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.

That doesn’t include the original taxpayers rip-off by bankrupting companies. This is the amounts of direct taxpayer funding each received from the Obama Administration. The 19 asterisked companies have already filed for bankruptcy. The others are near bankruptcy. It would be interesting to see the before and after net worth of the principles of each of these companies. An IMF report says … the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012)
This is what American taxpayers lost with no show of benefits in return.
1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10.Amonix ($5.9 million)
11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23.Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25.Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26.GreenVolts ($500,000)
27.Vestas ($50 million)
28.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30.Navistar ($39 million)
31.Satcon ($3 million)*
32.Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33.Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

Brian H
September 19, 2013 5:54 am

The poke (bag) is coming apart, and the pig is about to bust out of it.

Brian H
September 19, 2013 6:17 am

JimS says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:52 am
I always enjoy a well written article backed by facts and applied basic logic. Thank you mister Ball.

FYI; Dr. Ball may well be the first person to obtain a doctorate in the field which subsequently dubbed itself Climate Science. I doubt there have been very many others since.