John Penhallurick’s Blog 3: How the IPCC has corrupted science


How the IPCC has corrupted science

The Government’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, has recently stated that anyone who disagrees with the government’s proposal is ignorant of the findings of “real science”.  Other climate alarmists have trumpeted the importance of “peer-reviewed science” and “the scientific consensus”. Both of these statements betray appalling ignorance of the true nature of science. I will show below that so-called “climate scientists” have abandoned any claim to the title of “scientist” They are merely propagandists, and the academics among them have been seduced by the grants and public admiration they receive.

As Robert Carter (2010: 192) has stated: Regrettably…the global warming discussions in the public domain ceased to be about science many years ago, ever since the coining of the silly mantras that ‘science is settled’ and ‘there is a consensus’. As the December 2009, Copenhagen Conference confirmed…, the climate change issue is now primarily about very big politics and very big business.

Given their political aims, therefore, it is no surprise that most of today’s commentators on global warming stress the authority of the climate pronouncements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its supporting organizations. As far as I can recall, movements appealing to qualifications as the basis for accepting their arguments usually fall back on this tired chestnut when they have run out of substantive arguments.  Of course, the Gillard Government, in the person of  minister Greg Combet, have repeated this rubbish, neglecting to reflect that if they really believed that only persons with the requisite formal qualifications should be listened to, the government would have to sack their two chief “Climate Change Advisers”, who possess a total lack of relevant qualifications: Ross Garnaut, who is an economist and statistician; and Tim Flannery who is a mammologist and palaentologist.

Often added to this is the vacuous claim that a consensus of scientists agrees with the IPCC views, as if that were scientifically relevant, even if it were true.  At the same time, continual unsolicited ad hominem attacks are made on qualified persons who espouse different views, and who are often disparaged as ‘sceptics’, ‘deniers’, or worse.

Appeals to “scientific consensus” have nothing to do with real science.  At the time of Galileo, the scientific consensus was that the Sun moved around the Earth. During the nineteenth century, the scientific consensus was that the universe was permeated by a substance named “aether”, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. And although Alfred Wegener postulated the theory of continental drift in 1912, it was not until 1960 that it was accepted.  In the meantime, the scientific consensus remained that the continents were fixed in place.

It is often claimed that the authority of the IPCC’s policy advice rests on the fact that its scientists use only information which has been published in reputable, refereed journals, and that their science summaries are also subjected to high standards of peer review.  Yet the 2007 4th Assessment Report contains at least 20 references to reports and papers commissioned by environmental advocacy groups.

John McLean (2008), a climate data analyst from Melbourne, has pointed out that whereas the IPCC claims that more than 2500 scientists have participated in or approved the recommendations in the 2007 4th Assessment Report, in actuality, just 51 persons participated in the final approval of the policymakers’ summary for the Working Group 1 report. And out of the 62 expert reviewers of the critical Chapter 9 of the 2007 4th Assessment Report, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, 55 had a conflicting or vested interest.  The chapter itself was written by a small, interlinked group of authors, many of whom were employed at only three climate change institutions from among hundreds of such institutions worldwide.

A further fact that reveals that the IPCC has no claim to be respected as an institution devoted to the search for scientific truth is the fact that it sought the help of advertising in furthering its case. In 2009, M. Cohen, writing in the Times Educational Supplement of December 10, stated that the IPCC had sought the advice of several of the world’s top advertising agencies to help the IPCC fashion the most effective climate alarmist messages possible. One of the pieces of advice furnished by the agencies was to reverse the null hypothesis. In a complete perversion of normal scientific method, the onus of proof is now claimed to fall upon those who disagree with the IPCC’s case. It is this that lies behind Greg Combet’s remarks quoted above.

The Government’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, has recently stated that anyone who disagrees with the government’s proposal is ignorant of the findings of “real science”. On the contrary, the IPCC and its minions have committed major scientific fraud. To understand how the process has become controlled by activists, rather than scientists, it needs to be understood that any document in a IPCC report comes in three forms: the report proper, written by scientists; an executive summary; and a summary for policymakers.  The summary for policymakers is written by activists. IPCC procedure requires that the chapters  and executive summary have to be made consistent with the summary for policy-makers, rather than vice versa. This is because the ultimate authors of the ‘intergovernmental reports’ are the governments. But they get to read and approve only the summary for policy-makers. So if the summary says something different from the chapter it supposedly summarises, then it is the chapter that has to be changed.” (Pearce F.(2010)

A notorious example of this was the handling of a key chapter in its 1995 Second Assessment Report. It allowed a single activist, Ben Santer, who also figured in the Climategate scandal, to rewrite parts of Chapter 8 (Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes). This was to make the summary of the chapter agree with a politically contrived statement in the Summary for Policymakers: namely “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” See http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm .

This statement was precisely the opposite of the conclusion drawn in the original Chapter 8 text by the scientists who were its authors. The two versions of Chapter 8 can be examined at Sceptical Real Climate Science http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-95-Ch8.htm.

R. Pielke Snr concluded: “The IPCC is actually a relatively small group of individuals who are using the IPCC process to control what policymakers and the public learn about climate on multi-decadal time scales. This NRC planning process further demonstrates the intent of the IPCC members to manipulate the science, so that their viewpoints are the only ones that reach the policymakers.”  (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/protecting-the-ipcc-turf-%E2%80%93-there-are-no-independent-climate-assessments-of-the-ipcc-wg1-report-funded-and-sanctioned-by-the-nsf-nasa-or-the-nrc-a-repost-of-and-comment-on-a-january-13-2009/ )

The Climategate scandal also revealed the coterie of climate modellers acted to prevent the publication of papers that questioned their methods and results. They have also repeatedly denied access to other researchers who have sought their data, and information on their methods. There is a reference below to the climate modellers “tweaking” their results to get them to match (to some degree) current climates.

The origins of the IPCC

It is natural to wonder where all this propaganda started from. And the answer, as revealed in an article published in Quadrant magazine of January 31, 2010, is a shady character named Maurice Strong, who believed in world government, and who despised  western governments. His first proposal to achieve world government was a proposal for the United Nations to levy a a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion, which was about equal then to the income of theUSA. When this was blocked, he hit on the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running. The article from Quadrant follows.

Discovering Maurice Strong

by John Izzard

January 31, 2010

TheYellow Brick Roadto Climate Change

January has certainly been a defining month in the quest for truth about climate change, and the custodians of that “truth” aren’t looking that flash at the moment. Indeed in the month of January some of the major doomsday prophecies unravelled and the prophets themselves seemed to undergo vows of silence. Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, Tim Flannery — who are never lost for words — seemed, well… totally lost for words!

Like Dorothy, Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, we’ve all been dancing down the Yellow Brick Road of “settled science” in search of answers from the Emerald City, only to find that what we suspected all along — the Wizard has been telling us fibs.

But who exactly is the Wizard? And where did this seeming-madness all begin?

Undoubtedly there are many “wizards”, but the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.

Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, was the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN secretaries general from U Thant to Kofi Annan. His reign of influence in world affairs lasted from 1962 to 2005. Strong has been variously called “the international man of mystery”, the “new guy in your future” and “a very dangerous ideologue”.

Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, theColoradoLandand Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few. His private interests always seemed to be in conflict with his public persona and his work on the world stage. Strong’s extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world was exceptional. One admirer christened him “the Michelangelo of networking”.

Maurice Strong described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology”. In 1972 he organised for U Thant the first Earth Summit, The Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. This led to the formation of UN Environment Program with Maurice Strong at its head. Later, as the UNEP boss he organised the first international expert group meeting on climate change.

This led to exotic UN sponsored organizations such at Earth Council and Earth Charter, The World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and later The Commission for World Governance and the UN’s University for Peace. Strong was the driving force behind the idea of world governance by the United Nations when he dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given theUN an annual income of $1.5 trillion. About equal then to the income of the USA. The stumbling block was the Security Council, and their power of veto. He devised a plan to get rid of the Security Council but failed to get it implemented. Then came along the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running.

In 1989 Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit and in 1992, addressing Earth Summit II inRio, he told the thousands of climate change delegates:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburbanhousing — are not sustainable.”

There goes the Sunday roast, a house to live in, the car, the occasional hamburger and generally, life on earth as we know it. But what Strong didn’t tell the delegates was that he was involved in the purchase of the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, which he bought from Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer who had strong connections with the Bin Laden family.

This 200,000 acre cattle property, called the Baca had two hidden secrets. One was that it sat above vast underground water systems, which Strong wanted to remove. He formed the American Water Development Corporation to exploit the water by pumping it out for commercial intent but was stopped by the locals as they feared it would destroy the delicate environment.

The second secret was that Maurice Strong had been told by a mystic that: The Baca would become the centre for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.

As a result of these revelations Strong created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age institution located at the Baca ranch — above the sacred waters that Strong had been denied permission to pump out. This hocus-pocus continued with the foundation of The Conservation Fund (with financial help of Laurance Rockefeller) to study the mystical properties of the ManitouMountain. At the Baca ranch there is a circular temple devoted to the world’s mystical and religious movements.

The valley in which the Baca establishment is located is also traditional home for various Navajo tribes. They believe that their ancestors were led underground here by “Ant People” and according to Navajo tradition they were warned of a coming cataclysm by “sky katchinas” (sky spirits). No wonder Strong wanted to buy the Baca.

Meanwhile Maurice was also busy founding the Earth Council Institute in 1992 and recruiting world luminaries such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Al Gore and David Rockefeller. In 2000 Earth Charter was formed as a further push by Strong to create a world governing body.

Unfortunately, in 2005, the most powerful man in the push to save of humanity — by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases — was caught with his hand in the till.

Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to Chinawhere he has been living ever since.

Strong is believed to have sanctuary in China because of his cousin, Anne Louise Strong, a Marxist who lived with Mao Tse Tung for two years, and when she died in 1970, her funeral was arranged by Premier Chou En-Lai. Anne Louise Strong was a Comintern member — an organization formed in 1919 as the Third International, with one of its aims to use “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie…”

Maurice Strong, as an 18-year-old Canadian fromManitoba, started work at the United Nations in 1947 as a junior officer in the UN Security Section, living with the UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honours he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman.

The exposure and downfall of climate change’s most powerful wizard? Dorothy and Toto would have loved it!

So make no mistake about what the ultimate purpose of the campaign against human emissions of CO2 is: it is to promote world government.  And is it is the second greatest fraud or hoax in the history of mankind.

You can either go back to the initial blog to access all of the pages:

1. Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud.

or you can go to the next page:

4. Flaws in Climate Models.

Advertisements

About jpenhall

I am a keen birder and have devoted my life especially since retirement to a study of the world's birds. But I was also a professor, with thirty years experience of both carrying out and evaluating research.But I detest shoddy research. Thus I reject almost wholly the propaganda of the IPCC and its minions
This entry was posted in Climate Change. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to John Penhallurick’s Blog 3: How the IPCC has corrupted science

  1. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 1:Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud | jpenhall

  2. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 1:Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud | jpenhall

  3. Robert Gunning says:

    Yes that’s right

  4. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 2 Evidence from past climate change | jpenhall

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s