Tim Ball's 2008 Canada Free Press article on AR4. The Free Press article seems to have succumbed to link rot, so I am posting my own copy:
The inconvenient lies of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, August 18, 2008
My grandmother used to say, “Your sins will find you out.” It’s a variation on Sir Walter Scott’s comment, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” but far more direct to an impressionable grandson. World leaders consistently cite the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the basis for their policies on energy and environment. In response to my email on the subject John Baird, Canadian Minister of the Environment stated in part, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007, presents compelling scientific proof that the world’s climate has changed because of human action and industrial growth. With respect to the role of carbon dioxide in causing climate change, the Panel finds that carbon dioxide is “the most important” humanproduced greenhouse gas. The Government of Canada accepts the Panel’s findings, and is moving forward to address climate change.” Most other governments take the same position, which is unfortunate because the IPCC position is based on an unproven theory tested with a computer model designed to prove the theory, but which consistently produces results that don’t match reality. Ironically, it is their definitive positions and statements that provide the evidence for their tangled web.
A headline from the UN reads, “Evidence is now ‘unequivocal’ that humans are causing global warming – UN report.
They are talking about the Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but unfortunately open with false information. In a subtle exploitation of the consensus argument they incorrectly write,
“The IPCC, which brings together the world’s leading climate scientists and experts.” Dr John McLean, a climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia, disabuses this argument. “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. An analysis of the reviewers’ comments for the scientific assessment report by Working Group I show a very different and very worrying story.”
Or as MIT professor Richard Lindzen, former member of the IPCC said, “It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.” - Madhav Khandekar A former employee of Environment Canada and expert IPCC reviewer in 2007 in a letter to the Ottawa Hill Times.
Brant Boucher, in his letter “Scientific consensus” (The Hill Times, Aug. 6, 2007), seems to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC documents represents “scientific consensus.” Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters (The Hill Times, May 28, 2007).
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) released by the IPCC in April 2007 says, “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” They define “very likely “ as greater than a 90% probability. (Table 4 “Likelihood Scale”)
IPCC’s claim is there is little doubt that human CO2 has caused the warming of the last approximately 60 years. They point to the increase of CO2 from 6.5 GtC (gigatons of carbon) human sources in their 2001 Report to 7.5 GtC in the 2007 report. The difficulty is the IPCC are the source of these numbers. In a segment titled, “Source of National Inventories” they write, “Utilizing IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC.” (Link)
So they define the rules determine who the “nominated experts “ are and have the final say in the numbers used. This is in keeping with their process of control and determination to prove their dictated goal of finding a human source of global warming. But how reliable is the data of the nominated experts. We already have cases of countries doctoring their numbers in order to gain greater benefits from the carbon credit fiasco. (See here and here)
As one person said, The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) system used to determine credits for projects is “set up for people to cheat, because everyone involved in the process wants these credits”. (Link)
The IPCC attributes most of the global temperature increase since about 1950 to human CO2. They claim human production of CO2 continues to increase, they also say the level of atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. Two problems with this: the human portion is within the error factor of the estimates of total CO2 from three major natural sources; and annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is greater than the net human contribution. If most of the warming is due to human CO2 then global temperatures should continue to increase, but that is not happening. CO2 levels continue to rise, but temperatures have leveled and declined slightly from 2000 as illustrated here from Anthony Watts’ website...
“There is not a single case for any period of any duration where CO2 increase precedes temperature increase. All records show temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. But the IPCC have ‘proved’ with computer models they are 90% certain that the current warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, namely CO2. This is pre-determined because the computer model is programmed to have an increase in temperature if CO2 increases. By their own definitive statements, temperatures cannot go down as long as CO2 increases. Trouble is CO2 has continued to increase but temperatures have declined and many scientists expect them to go lower until at least 2030.
It didn’t take long for nature to show the IPCC was wrong. Excuses were equally quick to appear. For example, they said it was El Nino but that turned out to be a non-event. Of course, the IPCC couldn’t get the right answer for the cooling trend because it was not programmed in the computer. While they include solar activity they only consider one aspect - the electromagnetic spectrum. Meanwhile they studiously avoided any discussion of the clear relationship between sunspot activity and temperature. They claimed there was no mechanism to explain the correlation so it could not be included, but that is incorrect. A very valid mechanism known as the Cosmic Theory (Svensmark and Calder, “The Chilling Stars”) has been in the literature with increasing detail since 1991. The date is important because IPCC claimed it was excluded because it was not published in time to meet their cut off date for consideration. Solar activity has declined since a peak at the end of the 20th century. There have been virtually no sunspots for over 400 days.
The simple relationship is more sunspots higher temperatures, fewer sunspots colder temperatures. The Cosmic Theory provides the mechanism.
The IPCC mandate is to examine human causes of climate change. However, you cannot determine the human effect if you do not know the cause and extent of natural climate change. You cannot determine the effect if you leave out major components of the climate system and make assumptions that contradict natural evidence. As a result they have publicly determined with a 90% certainty that human CO2 is the cause of temperature change. Now events have caught up with them - their sins have found them out. My Grandmother wouldn’t be surprised nor should the public once they understand what is going on behind the so—called science.