Stop Green Suicide Exposes IPCC Lies

Climate research whistle blower Alec Rawls has published damning evidence of the IPCC’s continuing lies and deception regarding the causes of climate change.  As a participant in the review process for the forthcoming IPCC report, to be published next year, Alec decided, in the public interest, to take the preemptive action of publishing the preliminary report on his website to prevent the certain coverup by that group of conclusive scientific evidence that mankind’s activities play absolutely no part in climate change.

Such evidence is of course totally at odds with the IPCC’s agenda and raison d’être which is to present the case for the de-industrialization and zero growth policies that the British Empire want to impose on the world.  Just take a moment to think what these policies really mean.  Think what they would mean in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, quality of life and so on, not just for us in the developed world but for those unfortunate billions of souls in underdeveloped countries.  The answer is clear, it would mean genocide on a massive scale.  Given that the IPCC and their widespread network of kindred spirits continue to forcefully push such an agenda, we must ask: where is the International Criminal Court?  Aren’t they supposed to prosecute crimes against humanity and conspiracies to commit them?

We commend Alec Rawls for his integrity and courage in exposing the IPCC’s wicked lies and we hope that his example will stiffen the spines of the many scientists and political leaders who have remained silent, or worse acquiesced with this British promoted scheme to hold back civilization from its rightful course of progress through economic development.

Here are some key excerpts from what Alec has published on his website and we recommend you read the full text there:
As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.

Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.

The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 “further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change” (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.

The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.

The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.

This entry was posted in Economy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Stop Green Suicide Exposes IPCC Lies

  1. He broke his word and got his science wrong – the best own goal of the year!

    • Well, John, thank you for your “opinion.” You know, the telling thing about your comment is your use of the term “his science.” With those two words you have indicted yourself as a member of the school of British liberalism to whom there are no fundamental truths or universal principles, neither in science nor in anything else, just this or that opinion. How convenient it must be for you greenies that you are able to push your insane agenda free from such old fashioned constraints.

      The green movement’s devotion to, and duplicitous use of, statistical methods to promote their case, a methodology which is inherently flawed, should in itself be enough to alert thinking people to the corrupt nature of the entire operation. And isn’t it interesting to note that that other claw of the British Empire, the financial sector, also relies exclusively on statistical methods. What a fine example that is to follow!

      So the question is: are you greenies dumb enough to follow your financial brethren right over the cliff – fiscal or otherwise? From your comment it appears the answer is “yes!”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.