How Bout That IPCC Consensus?

Consensus my ass! (Canada Free Press and Icecap)

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’. But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation. (snip)

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change–in other words the key parts of WG I? An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9 “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.  Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. 

So much for consensus.

And, of course, the Sun can’t have anything to do with climate, or so the climahysterics say.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “How Bout That IPCC Consensus?”

  1. Silke says:

    Teach said: And, of course, the Sun can’t have anything to do with climate, or so the climahysterics say.

    Teach, according to the graph in the NASA link you provided we are at the end of Solar Cycle 23 which means sun spot activity has been steadily declining since 2002 and is at its lowest point. Yet global temperatures have been rising during that time. Where is the correlation? If the sun is the primary cause then wouldn’t lower sun spot activity mean lower temperatures over the last four years? How do you explain this?

    Do you even read this stuff?

  2. John Ryan says:

    Silke please do not try to confuse the issue with “facts”
    These “climathystericals” are mostly the same people who refuse to believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.

Pirate's Cove