Henry R. Savage: IPCC corrupt

Advertisement

Bill Wallace wrote to the Pilot & Today urging people to "Believe in Global Warming" based on IPCC publications.

He presented the IPCC results as well reviewed and authenticated scientific results. This is not true. The IPCC organization and process are corrupt. I know some good work is done, but the press releases are deceptive many times in important ways. One of my friends and ex-colleagues, in fact, is one of the lead authors in the current Assessment Report.

The literature is vast, which calls into question the conclusions of the IPCC. It is far from true that most of the world's scientists agree on the conclusions. Most of the scientists working on the IPCC projects are invited by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and are selected for their willingness to carry the water for the advocates in the organization (in my view).

The best current example of corruption is seen in the sad case of Chris Landsea's resignation. He is one of the world's most prominent and capable scientists in the field of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). He was invited to research the impact of global warming on the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and write that section of the Assessment Report. The lead author immediately participated in a news conference in which he stated that the 2004 hurricanes were profoundly affected by global warming.

The scientific work had not yet been done, much less analyzed and written up. This was the answer the lead author and administrators of the program desired. It is a scandal. In fact, research has continued to show that global warming has no significant affect on hurricane intensity of frequency. The earlier assessment reports had explicitly stated that conclusion.

The science of climate change is dauntingly complex, and many answers are yet to be discovered. I urge the readers to avail themselves of many sources of study on this subject if they are interested in understanding the present state of understanding. It is still pretty primitive, and conclusions are at best tentative. In any case, the IPCC is not a good source of authority.

Henry R. Savage

Steamboat Springs

Comments

another_local 6 years, 10 months ago

Good grief. The energy business agenda speaks.... and smoking is not bad for you (the studies lie) and teenage pregnancy is best addressed through ignorance.

0

bluntman 6 years, 10 months ago

sbhor- mr. cut & paste himself. he who shouts loudest and longest persuades everyone that he is correct. without a doubt, i am now convinced that global warming is nothing more than a vast liberal conspiracy to deprive fat, lazy, & stupid Americans of their suv's and force them to ride bicycles and public transportation.

0

another_local 6 years, 10 months ago

At the risk of tempting folks to write ever more long diatribes...

A DECADE OF CO2 1993: 357.04 ppm 1994: 358.88 ppm 1995: 360.88 ppm 1996: 362.64 ppm 1997: 363.76 ppm 1998: 366.63 ppm 1999: 368.31 ppm 2000: 369.48 ppm 2001: 371.02 ppm 2002: 373.10 ppm 2003: 375.64 ppm Mean annual carbon dioxide concentrations recorded at Mauna Loa in Hawaii

"The overall trend is toward higher mean Arctic temperatures. This is already manifesting itself into faster Arctic melt rates and an increase in fresh water content in the North Atlantic. Many scientists are concerned that this will cause dramatic changes in ocean currents and sea levels all over the world."

"Mankind's activities are releasing more CO2 every day while deforestation is reducing the amount of carbon sink available to absorb and sequester the increased CO2 content of the atmosphere. Whatever you think of Al Gore as a person or as a politician will make no difference in those processes."

0

corduroy 6 years, 10 months ago

what does IPCC stand for? Pardon me for being ignorant.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 10 months ago

Oh my heck!!! See? I knew this would happen. SBhor (Pilotwatch, Average Joe, Average_Joe, among others- heh, it's so nice when you actually know someone who thinks they are still hiding behind an anonymous handle!) has a follower! The Church of Extremism has reared it's fugly head. Stop drinking the black Kool-aid!

0

JustAsking 6 years, 10 months ago

What is the deal with Al Gore? You would think that an Ivy League education would have taught him to research the facts of an issue:.or maybe what it taught him is that facts don't matter only what you can get people to believe matters!

The SCIENCE that SBVOR repeatedly references CONTRADICTS WHAT AL AND THE MEDIA BOMBARD US WITH.

The media does it because it sells their product which sells advertising which is how they make money.. They decide what headline will sell the most papers or get the most viewers and then selectively fuel the article with whatever suits the purpose. The motto: NEVER LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY apparently is not too far off the mark.

If you take the time to review the articles and the research referenced by Sbvor of the scientists who have studied the cause and effects of climate change you will see that the message Al is sending is absolutely false.

Don't misunderstand . The climate IS CHANGING but the science shows that the CAUSE is HUGE changes in the activity on the SUN and changes in the Earth's axis. The science shows that CO2 change historically FOLLOWS the event rather than causing the event. The SCIENTIFIC evidence says that THE EARTH'S CLIMATE WILL CHANGE DRAMATICALLY AS THE RESULT OF FACTORS BEYOND OUR CONTROL. No amount of reducing CO2 will make any difference. It IS NOT even a minor cause. We can't stop the change. Shouldn't we be focusing on how we are going to deal with it?

Isn't is curious that the top scientists and climatologists offer up studies that contradict what AL is saying are ignored by AL and the Nightly News? Surely they realize that funding to support what AL wants them to support will be almost unlimited while any scientist that refutes the view , regardless of credentials, will find little financial support. Kind of rings like the hired gun testimony of the expert witness doesn't it?

Let me ask: What's in it for the scientists who say Al's "reasoning" is all wrong? Apparently little if any financial reward. Their research is buried in academic publications. Certainly Al is not making movies based on what they have discovered. No National Geographic specials on the conclusions reached based on years and years of study. WHY?

I'll ask again: What is the deal with AL Gore? Does he need the money that talking on the rubber chicken circuit brings him? (apparently been hitting it hard by the looks of things!) Does he miss the limelight? Has he grabbed for a chance to attempt to resurrect a failed political career? Just what is the deal with AL Gore?

0

another_local 6 years, 10 months ago

"Isn't is curious that the top scientists and climatologists offer up studies....... Kind of rings like the hired gun testimony of the expert witness doesn't it?"

Your position is right in there with the tobacco industry hired guns. Whether you like Al Gore or not, the facts are on his side and the overwhelming majority of qualified experts agree on it. There is no media conspiracy and your cynacism about what the mainstream media chooses for headlines or coverage is misplaced.

0

JustAsking 6 years, 10 months ago

Whoa! There "another-local."

You have the money trail backwards. The money is behind saying the CAUSE of climate change is rising CO2 caused by people. The SCIENCE contradicts this. See the sites referenced by sbvor.

There is no argument that the climate is changing. At least AL has that part right. In fact the major portion of his "presentation" is about this, but what he has backwards is that the sole cause of climate change is CO2 from people. The SCIENCE says the causes are solar activity and changes in the Earth's axis.

I didn't suggest a vast media conspiracy but rather a tunnel vision and a tendency to discard any information that doesn't fit "the direction of the story."

Do you really think the mainstream media isn't about choosing the most attention grabbing headline of the day? You accuse me of cynicism (by the way, you misspelled it). Have you watched TV or read a major newspaper lately? Now there's cynicism for you! How much "good" news do you see reported vs crime, disaster, misfortune.

Face it Pollyanna, bad news sells product and if the main stream media doesn't deliver it they will be out of business. Why do you think people slow to a crawl to see an accident on the other side of the freeway?

I apologize in advance for the personal attack, (he did it first Mom!) but do us all a favor. Reference some SCIENCE, not just some hack politician or Hollywood head, to back up your position of the CAUSE of the inevitable climate changes we are facing.

Sbvor referenced some pretty heavy hitters with a great deal of scientific research which contradicts what movie maker AL says is the cause. You really should read what these guys have to say before you engage in more personal attacks.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.