Bishop Hill IPCC declares itself above the law
Dec 14, 2011 Climate: IPCC FOI Richard Tol reports from the IPCC WGII lead author meeting in San Francisco:
...the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false. FoI is national legislation. These laws can only be interpreted by the relevant courts. These laws can only be changed by the relevant parliaments. The civil servants that speak on behalf of their countries have no right to usurp FoI legislation, and the IPCC has no say in this matter.
This of course is a continuation of this story.
George Monbiot was winning considerable plaudits on the Dark Matter thread for his strong stand on freedom of information. He is also, of course, a fan of the IPCC. It would be interesting to see what he makes of this.
Reader Comments (107)
Intrepid, perhaps you wil answer my questions in the post above yours. I will not be bored with the answers.
This 'ruling' should be interpreted in the context of the IPCC 'science' being fraudulent.
1. High CO2 climate sensitivity [positive feedback by atmospheric processes] was the logical outcome of data showing CO2 rose with T at the end of ice ages but when in 1997 it was found that CO2 rose after T, insiders switched to calibrating that sensitivity against modern warming. This is why we had the hockey stick and the falsification of past temperatures - blatant scientific fraud.
Few realise it but there was also a search for the missing ice age amplification - it came up in 2005 when Hansen claimed it is the difference between the albedo of wet and dry ice: this explanation is lacking in credibility because in 2007 it was shown that end of the last ice age, warming of the Southern ocean deeps started 2000 years before any significant CO2 rise. That heat input was by regional warming over much of the Southern hemisphere. The same process explains why we've had recent Arctic warming now reversing.
2. Aarhenius was wrong: there is no such beast as 'back radiation'. Any process engineer knows this.. Climate science is unique amongst physics-based disciplines in teaching it and imagining it exists.
3. The cooling by polluted clouds supposed to hide (2) is only true for thin clouds: as they get thicker it switches to substantial heating, the real GW/AGW.
4. The claim of 33K present GHG warming is outrageous deception because it includes lapse rate warming. It's really ~10K, easily proved.
What the IPCC did was the opposite of science. That it intends to hide its processes from independent checks confirms that the organisation is political and anti-science. In reality the maximum possible CO2-AGW is ~15% of the level it claims. There is no problem and when you correct the IR science, which is also very bad, it is probably slightly negative.
No IPCC climate model can predict climate. Journalists who support this fraud should examine their credentials as objective reporters. There should be independent assessment of undergraduate teaching at institutions like UEA to prevent students being indoctrinated by this new Lysenkoism.
Additional to the above, organisations like the Royal Society which do not use their position of authority to correct this abuse of science cease to have that authority.
Richard Tol kindly responded to my comment at WUWT, which was similar to my comment here...Dec 15, 2011 at 6:04 AM | David
Richard Tol says:
December 15, 2011 at 12:22 am
@David
“It appears that the IPCC’s confidentiality guidance document covers itself and cannot be disclosed. The IPCC intends to publish the first- and second-order drafts that are sent for expert and government review, the comments on those drafts, and the responses to those comments.
There is a lot more material, including the selection and allocation of authors, the outline of the report, and the zeroth-order draft and comments, that the IPCC will try to keep off limits.”
Thank you Richard, and you are quite helpfull. Your comment on what is not on “the list” is very cogent, but the operative word hear is it “appears’, and both you and Richard B have a very difficult time being percise, but apparently there is a percise list which we, the people of the world world who are or may be affected by every policy recommendation this unelected group of Blackbeards make, cannot see what this list consists of !! Yet some private tallbloke in Britain was certainly not allowed to make a list for the police on what to provide them when they stormed into his private home and took his personal property, despite the fact that he recieves zero Govt funds and makes zero recommendations to change how governments around the world operate. And some posters here think this is fine and a boring matter, nothing to see here, just move along.
I would be interested to know who attended the "Justice and Adaptation Meeting - 7th-9th September 2003" at UEA as mentioned in 4687.txt. At least one member of the IPCC was invited and the agenda does not appear to be scientific so much as aimed at policy. In fact, it is all about "let's make a difference in what we can do to promote justice and equity."
I believe that is the beginning of "Climate Justice" that is now all the buzz among the NGOs.
If you dig into the email a bit through all the back-and-forth there is this nugget:
"The other reason for asking for a confirmed title is that a publisher already expressed an interest in a resulting book from the conference."
...
"The conference will have about 30 invited participants and will be run in plenary throughout. We are inviting key philosophers, economists, climate scientists and geographers to explore theoretical and applied areas of these justice questions through the two full days of discussions. We will also present our own work being undertaken by CSERGE, FIELD and IIED on international to local dimensions of the problem. As a starting point I attach a copy of a Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23 which outlines our framework."
So I would also be interested in TCWP 23 nevermind, found it here http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp23.pdf
So I am wondering if this is the genesis of "climate change" becoming less of an issue about climate and more of an issue about "social justice" using the fear of climate change as a lever to redistribute wealth.
Sure is a lot of talk in that paper about "distributive justice". Then in
2. Justice in Adaptation to Climate Change
we find this:
Well, my goodness. TCWP23 reads almost like a blueprint for COP17! Looks like Tyndall Centre is nothing more than a global socialist think tank to me ... one with its hands on the levers of the workings of the UN.
To allocate to each country equal per capita emissions
• To allocate to each country emission rights according to their historical responsibility
• To allocate emission rights according to the countries’ ability and willingness to pay
• To use a mixture of above described rules
Inane rule the world would be Blackbeards. What hubris, thinking they have the right to allocate anything. Stunning beyond words or parody. "Those who prefer equality to liberty will get neither."
Bishop
Hengist does not seem to like this post very much
http://muchachoverde.blogspot.com/2011/12/another-completely-unsupportable-claim.html#comment-form