MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘IPCC’

Global Warming: A Scheme to Redistribute Wealth

Posted by M. C. on December 5, 2019

https://panamazonsynodwatch.info/articles/commented-news/global-warming-a-scheme-to-redistribute-wealth/

Ottmar Edenhofer

As the “science” behind man-made global warming has been increasingly discredited, the story has changed. Now it’s not about saving the environment but about redistributing wealth, says a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 (its latest), recently said, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

Edenhofer told a German news outlet (NZZ AM Sonntag): “Basically, it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” said Edenhofer. Thus the developers of coal and oil should pay reparations in the form of global carbon emission rights and taxes. Investors Business Daily commented “U.N. Warm-mongers are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping, to fuel and financial transactions.”

The Cancun agreement set up a “Green Climate Fund” to administer assistance to poor nations suffering from floods and drought due to global warming. The European Union, Japan and the United States have led pledges of $100 billion per year for poor nations up to 2020, plus $30 billion in immediate assistance.

The agreement says it “recognizes that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science” and calls for “urgent action” to cap temperature rises. But this chart gives lie to such claims. You can clearly see that on a multimillion-year scale global temperatures have been confined to a steady band unrelated to even huge changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Does this graph reveal any need for “urgent action” “according to science?” Yet at the Cancun conference, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned, “Nature will not wait….Science warns that the window of opportunity to prevent uncontrolled climate change will soon close.”

The window of opportunity that is going to close is not a scientific one but a political one—because more and more people are realizing that global warming alarmism is based on phony science and outright lies.

Dr. Fred Singer

Foremost in the struggle to bring essential scientific truths to light on this issue is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) founded and directed by the distinguished atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer. With assistance from climate experts in 16 countries—who donated their time and efforts—the NIPCC produced a massive, extensively-illustrated 880-page report “out of concern that the IPCC was provoking irrational fear of anthropogenic global warming,” in the words of Dr. Singer. The report references 4,000 (!) research papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals that contradict IPCC conclusions but were not used by the IPCC though it claims to be the definitive source of climate research. The entire report can be downloaded free from the Heartland Institute website.

I shall discuss only one item from the NIPCC report, but it is fundamental to the whole carbon dioxide/greenhouse hypothesis of global warming. Worldwide, there are 20-some GCMs (General Circulation Models) for computer modeling of global climate change. They all agree—for sound theoretical reasons—that greenhouse gases cannot warm the earth directly. They must first warm the atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface of the earth. So the atmosphere must be warmer than the earth’s surface. The NIPCC Summary Report explains: “Climate models all predict that, if GH gases are driving climate change, there will be a unique fingerprint in the form of a warming trend increasing with altitude in the tropical troposphere, the region of the atmosphere up to about 15 kilometers. Climate changes due to solar variability or other known natural factors will not yield this characteristic pattern; only sustained greenhouse warming will do so.” The models show this “hot spot” perfectly—but it is missing in actual observations, which show instead this area to be cooler than the earth’s surface. The Summary Report states—in boldface type: “This mismatch of observed and calculated fingerprints clearly falsifies the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

 

The rest here

Be seeing you

TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The man who invented ‘climate change’ – Ice Age Now

Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2019

https://www.iceagenow.info/the-man-who-invented-climate-change/

“It was never about climate change but about setting up a one world socialist government run by the UN!”
– Don Brown

Here are snips and pieces from an article by Christopher Booker, who describes Canadian socialist multimillionaire Maurice Strong’s “absolutely central role” in the whole story.

In 1972, Strong, a superb political operator, set up a UN “Environment Conference” to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind and should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries at the expense of poorer countries.

In 1988, he helped set up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In 1992, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he helped stage and presided over the colossal “Earth Summit” in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.

And ever since, it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process.

Had it not been for this man, says Booker, we would not have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference.

The UN in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris.

To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by Strong’s Agenda 21, as was highlighted when Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist now head of the UNFCCC and organiser of the Paris conference, urged that the West should give “$1 trillion a year” to the “developing” world.

Lest you think that Strong’s motives were pure, Booker includes this amazing tidbit:

“In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao.”

Funny, isn’t it, how our self-declared ‘saviours’ so often benefit while supposedly rescuing us?

Or maybe that’s not so funny after all.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12035401/Farewell-to-the-man-who-invented-climate-change.html

Thanks to Don Brown for this link

Be seeing you

Al Gore’s Global Warming and Climate Change Game ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The UN’s Climate Change Agenda is So Extreme Its Own Analysts Can’t Defend It | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/uns-climate-change-agenda-so-extreme-its-own-analysts-cant-defend-it

Advocates of aggressive government intervention in the name of fighting climate change have posed as the defenders of “consensus science,” labeling any who dissent from their agenda as “deniers” with all of the baggage that term entails. And yet, as I’ve been pointing out for years, the peer-reviewed economics literature does not support the popular United Nations’ policy goals, of limiting global warming to either 2.0°C or the even more stringent ceiling of 1.5°C. Back in 2014, I used the latest issue of the UN’s own authoritative report—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—to make my case, and last fall I explained that the new Nobel laureate, William Nordhaus, had a career in climate modeling that did not come anywhere close to supporting the aggressive UN goals.

In the present post I’ll make my point with yet another striking example. I will show that one of the lead authors from the UN’s “Special Report” on the 1.5°C target is a co-author of a 2018 paper that admits the goal is difficult to justify. This should be shocking to naïve citizens and those who assumed that “the science” must all support the UN’s temperature goals. Yet as this example demonstrates, the UN’s new goal is so extreme that it’s difficult for even sympathizers to come up with a way to try justifying it using conventional economic analysis.

Rachel Warren’s Credentials

To set the context: Last fall, the United Nation’s IPCC released a Special Report telling policymakers various ways to (attempt to) hit the goal of limiting cumulative global warming to 1.5°C. The third chapter of the report summarized the recent economic research that had been published since the previous IPCC report (the Fifth Assessment Report or AR5). Rachel Warren of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (located at the University of East Anglia in the UK) is one of the lead authors of the chapter. Furthermore, Warren was author or co-author on at least four of the publications cited in the chapter. Here is an excerpt from her bio:

Rachel Warren is Professor of Global Change and Environmental Biology at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, UK.  Her research focuses on the production of policy relevant science related to climate change and sustainability.  A particular recent focus has been the quantification of the climate change impacts that can be avoided by timely mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, in particular in relation to risks to biodiversity. She was a coordinating lead author of the 5th (2014) assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and lead author of the 4th assessment which was awarded the Nobel Peace prize on 2007.   Presently she is a lead author of the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5°C warming.  She has produced over 70 peer reviewed publications and over 40 scientific reports to government departments.

Her academic background and training is in physics and the natural sciences at Cambridge University.  After completion of her PhD she pursued an interest in atmospheric sciences and rapidly became involved in policy relevant research, a purpose to which she remains committed today.  She has assisted in national, European and international policy development relating to combating stratospheric ozone depletion, acid deposition, eutrophication, and (since 2002) climate change. In particular, her former work at the NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories provided evidence on the environmental acceptability of CFC substitutes, leading to inclusion of fluorocarbons in the Kyoto Protocol, winning the NOAA Aeronomy Laboratories Outstanding Scientific Paper Award.

As the above description makes clear, we are not dealing with a “denier” or a “stooge for Big Oil” here. Warren is a leader among scientists who are advising governments on various policies through which they can intervene in the market to reduce emissions from businesses.

Rachel Warren’s (Co-Authored) Paper on the Economics of the UN Climate Goal

Given her background, it is extremely revealing to see that Warren (and co-authors) have a 2018 paper entitled, “The Economics of 1.5°C Climate Change.” Now because I know just how ludicrous (given standard modeling assumptions) this latest UN target is, I was curious to see how Warren and her co-authors could possibly try to justify it.

The reader can hopefully appreciate my shock when I read the first two sentences from the Abstract of their paper: “The economic case for limiting warming to 1.5°C is unclear, due to manifold uncertainties. However, it cannot be ruled out that the 1.5°C target passes a cost-benefit test.

The skeptical reader should go ahead and click through to read the quote in context; I’m being completely fair. Believe it or not, the authors—including a Lead Author on the UN Special Report which advises governments on how to hit the 1.5°C limit—are arguing that because we understand this area so poorlyfor all we know the UN target makes economic sense.

Is that the slam-dunk “consensus science” that citizens have been assured undergirds the suggested power grabs? Hardly. As I have been warning readers for years, the case for a carbon tax is far weaker than they’ve been led to believe.

Conclusion

One of the standard talking points among progressives is that the right-wing obfuscation machine will hide behind “uncertainty” in order to stall necessary action on climate change. And yet in this latest episode, the tables have turned. As Rachel Warren—a Lead Author on several important IPCC reports—and her co-authors argued in a 2018 paper, the uncertainty in our understanding keeps alive the possibility that the latest UN climate goal might pass a cost/benefit test after all.

Originally published at the Institute for Energy Research

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

BREAKING – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay | Watts Up With That?

Posted by M. C. on August 24, 2019

IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/

Readers surely recall that the easily offended Dr. Michael Mann launched a court case for defamation against climate skeptic Dr. Tim Ball of Canada.

In Feburary 2018 there was a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against Dr. Ball by Andrew Weaver of Canada, also for “defamation”.

The Weaver defamation case involved an article Ball wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. Ball referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. Ball made some comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit.

That case was completely dismissed, you can read more here.

Now in the Mann case, which goes back to 2011, there’s also a complete dismissal. Ball wrote to me less than an hour ago, asking me to announce it here.

He writes:

Hi Anthony

Michael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs.

Tim Ball

This is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more.

Be seeing you

The RoanokeSlant: Man-made Global Warming AGW-Skepticism ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Antarctica Warmer 1,000 Years Ago… Now, *That’s* An Inconvenient Truth! | Watts Up With That?

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2019

Not fake news, just old news. Old as Vikings settling Greenland.

According to the leaked IPCC emails from a few years ago…

This is one of the things the IPCC and Michael Mann can’t explain with their models. The same models they use to ‘prove’ man made climate change.

Climate change is about 4.5 billion years old.

Like I am fond of saying – Greenland was named Greenland for a reason.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/21/antarctica-warmer-1000-years-ago-now-thats-an-inconvenient-truth/

Guest re-blogging by David Middleton

From No Tricks Zone:

No Tricks Zone

The paper:

Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2019.109251

The full paper can be downloaded here: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica.

Figure 4 from Lüning, et al 2019
Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Unsettled science: Scientists find hard evidence that cosmic rays influence climate

Posted by M. C. on July 11, 2019

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/07/unsettled_science_scientists_find_hard_evidence_that_cosmic_rays_influence_climate.html

By Thomas Lifson

The absurdity of the claim that global warming is “settled science” is obvious to anyone who understands what actual science is.  And now, thanks to a group of scientists at Kobe University in Japan, we have an example of why climate science is so primitive as to be a faulty basis for policy.  They have hard evidence of the effect cosmic rays have on Earth’s climate.

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.

The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth’s climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.

In the Chinese Loess Plateau, just south of the Gobi Desert near the border of Mongolia, dust has been transported for 2.6 million years to form loess layers — sediment created by the accumulation of wind-blown silt — that can reach up to 200 meters in thickness. If the wind gets stronger, the coarse particles are carried further, and larger amounts are transported. Focusing on this phenomenon, the research team proposed that winter monsoons became stronger under the umbrella effect of increased cloud cover during the geomagnetic reversal. They investigated changes in particle size and accumulation speed of loess layer dust in two Loess Plateau locations.

In both locations, for about 5000 years during the geomagnetic reversal 780,000 years ago, they discovered evidence of stronger winter monsoons: particles became coarser, and accumulation speeds were up to > 3 times faster. These strong winter monsoons coincide with the period during the geomagnetic reversal when the Earth’s magnetic strength fell to less than ¼, and galactic cosmic rays increased by over 50%. This suggests that the increase in cosmic rays was accompanied by an increase in low-cloud cover, the umbrella effect of the clouds cooled the continent, and Siberian high atmospheric pressure became stronger.

Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal — evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius, and an increase in annual temperature ranges from the sediment in Osaka Bay — this new discovery about winter monsoons provides further proof that the climate changes are caused by the cloud umbrella effect.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” comments Professor Hyodo. (emphasis added)

“This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”

Be seeing you
stuck in ice

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Economists Have Been “Useful Idiots” for the Green Socialists | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 1, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/economists-have-been-useful-idiots-green-socialists

In the old Soviet Union, the Communists allegedly used1 the term “useful idiot” to describe Westerners whose naïve political views furthered the Soviet agenda, even though these Westerners didn’t realize that they were being exploited in such fashion. It is in this context that I confidently declare that American economists have been useful idiotsfor the green socialists pushing extreme climate change policies. The radical environmentalists were quite happy to embrace the economic concepts of “Pigovian negative externalities” and a carbon tax in the past, but now that it is impossible for economic science to endorse their desired agenda, the activists have discarded the entire field as hopelessly out of touch. Economists who still support a carbon tax and other climate “mitigation policies” should be aware of the bigger picture.

Using the UN’s Own Document to Defeat the Climate Change Agenda

I have been making this case for years. For example, back in 2014 I used the latest (and still most recent) UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to show that the then-popular climate change target of 2 degrees Celsius of warming could not be justified by the research summarized in the report. In other words, I used the UN’s own report to show that the popular climate change “cures” would be worse than the disease.

Yet even though they had spent years berating the critics of government action as “climate deniers” who rejected the “consensus science,” in this case — once they realized that the economic models of climate change wouldn’t support aggressive intervention—the environmental activists all of a sudden began pointing out all the things that the UN-endorsed studies left out. Rather than summarizing the cutting edge knowledge on climate science and mitigation policies, the IPCC document turned into a bunch of misleading nonsense that would give ammunition to deniers.

Nobel Laureate Inconveniently Blows Up the Paris Agreement

Last fall, we had another demonstration of the chasm between the actual research and the media/political treatment: William Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on climate change, on the same weekend that the UN released a “special report” advising governments on how to try to limit global warming to as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius.

There was just one little problem: Nordhaus’ Nobel-winning work clearly showed that the UN’s goal was insane. According to his model, it would literally be better for governments around the world to do nothing about climate change, rather than enact policies limiting warming to 1.5°C. Rather than aiming for a 1.5°C target, Nordhaus’ most recent model runs indicated that the “optimal” amount of warming to allow was closer to 3.5°C. (To an outsider this might not seem like a huge discrepancy, but it is absolutely gigantic in the context of the climate change policy debate. Many activists would confidently predict that even 2.5°C of warming would spell disaster for our grandchildren.)

The Guardian’s Slam Dunk

Ah, but I got the best confirmation of my quixotic position just this month, when the Guardian ran an editorial with this subtitle (my highlighting):

guardian-gnd-again-768x765.png

Does everybody see that? The people at the Guardian already know what the policy answers are, without needing any help from the economists.

Conclusion

My economist colleagues who continue to urge for a “carbon tax swap deal” in order to get rid of “onerous top-down regulations” and enact a simple “price on carbon” are fooling themselves. Whether it’s in a ballot initiative in Washington State—literally designed by an environmental economist, or in the wonky columns of Vox’s climate expert, in the political calculus of Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, or in the FAQ on the Green New Deal itself, the environmental activists in US politics are making it quite clear that they will not settle for such half-measures.

Market-friendly economists chiming in on the American political scene should stop being useful idiots for the green socialists. Whatever the possible merits of a theoretical carbon tax package—in which a regressive hike in energy prices is matched dollar-for-dollar with corporate income tax cuts, and decades of special-interest favoring regulations are thrown out the window in the zeal for efficiency—this is all a moot point. If market-friendly economists succeed in getting their readers to hold their noses and support a carbon tax, they will all learn quite quickly that the deal has been altered.

Originally published at the Institute for Energy Research

Be seeing you

'Welcome to 'All Sides of the Issues.' Here's our panel of commentators -- a communist, a socialist, a liberal, and a progressive....'

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

RECORD TEMPERATURE READINGS THROUGHOUT LOS ANGELES CAUSED BY ‘FAULTY WEATHER STATIONS,’ METEOROLOGIST SAYS

Posted by M. C. on July 9, 2018

As for the Burbank Airport, Watts wrote that “the weather station is virtually surrounded by asphalt runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking ramps,” which means the “likelihood for the station to get in the middle of a [400-degree] jetwash is almost a certainty, being so close to taxiways with turns.”

Not news unless you are talking lamestream news. Weather stations and heat island effect have been a hot topic in “skeptic” circles for a long time. Why haven’t UN/IPCC climate change grant recipient$ told u$/done $omething before?

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/09/record-temperature-los-angeles-compromised/

Michael Bastasch

“In my opinion, the data from these stations is worthless,” California-based meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote on his blog Watts Up With That.

That’s not to say Los Angeles wasn’t scorching hot. Temperatures in much of greater Los Angeles were in the triple digits, according to the National Weather Service.

On the contrary, what Watts claims is that artificial heat sources and sinks produce localized heat around weather stations, adding the few degrees necessary to qualify as records. In general, cities are warmer than surrounding countryside owing to the urban heat island effect. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bill Nye: Taxing Cow Farts a ‘Fantastic Thing for the World’

Posted by M. C. on May 22, 2018

This shouldn’t be a surprise, population control is the plan.

People are the problem.

Last year, for example, the Bill Nye Saves the World star charmingly hinted that the best thing older people can do to save the planet is die:

Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It’s generational. So we’re just going to have to wait for those people to “age out,” as they say. “Age out” is a euphemism for “die.” But it’ll happen, I guarantee you — that’ll happen.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/05/21/bill-nye-taxing-cow-farts-a-fantastic-thing-for-the-world/

James Delingpole

Netflix host “Science Guy” Bill Nye has a new solution for the world’s environmental problems: taxing cow farts.

“Well, this is what we can do and it’s a win-win: to have a fee on carbon. So if you are raising livestock and producing a lot of carbon dioxide with your farm equipment and the exhaust from the animals, then you would pay a fee on that and it would be reflected in the price of meat, reflected in the price of fish, reflected in the price of peanuts,” Bill Nye saidin a recent interview with the Daily Beast. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Incestuous Nature of the IPCC Reports | Watts Up With That?

Posted by M. C. on October 9, 2017

Flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth were settled science.  There were entities that would have a credibility crisis if the truth were known. That sounds familiar.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/07/the-incestuous-nature-of-the-ipcc-reports/

Another interesting finding is seen in their examination of who each organization was citing. In-text analysis of the IPCC’s AR5 report revealed that 19 out of the 20 most frequently cited authors in that report were directly involved in the compilation of it. And though the remaining person, J. Hansen, was not officially involved in producing AR5, he participated in the production of at least one prior IPCC report (Third Assessment) as a Contributing Author. Similar analysis of the AR4 report revealed that 14 out of the 16 most frequently cited IPCC authors were involved with the writing of that report. Yet, here again, the remaining two individuals were directly involved in the production of the IPCC’s preceding Third Assessment Report. Such findings indicate the IPCC report authors are most intent on citing their own work, thereby promoting their own interests and findings above the work of others. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »