Skip to content

Chinese Whispers & The IPCC

October 19, 2022

By Paul Homewood

 

London, 19 October — A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals how sober factual information in official climate reports is steadily distorted in moving from the original text (written by scientists), to the Summary for Policymakers (written by political hacks), to the official press releases (written by public relations officials), and then to the media coverage (written by journalists).
The paper, by physicist Dr Ralph Alexander, looks at two specific areas of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report: reconstructions of global temperatures over the last two millennia, and the coverage of marine heatwaves.
Dr Alexander explains:
"Take the global temperature reconstructions. The political hacks introduced Michael Mann’s famous Hockey Stick graph into the Summary for Policymakers, even though this was not even mentioned by the scientists in the report itself. This graph is then used by the press officers to claim that current temperatures are ‘unprecedented’, but the scientists who wrote the original report said nothing of the sort, and indeed reported data that would contradict such a claim".
GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said:
"Ralph Alexander’s paper is a revelation, demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that the public are being failed by IPCC officials and the news media. The message is clear. You can’t trust the habitual hype and exaggeration the green establishment would like you to believe on climate."
Ralph B. Alexander: Chinese Whispers: How climate science gets distorted in translation (pdf)

30 Comments
  1. GeoffB permalink
    October 19, 2022 3:29 pm

    It is OK. But it is going to be tough for a layman to follow. Interesting that mann’s hockey stick has been resurrected. Anything with that in is fake.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      October 19, 2022 5:33 pm

      “Hide the Decline!”

    • Stuart Hamish permalink
      October 19, 2022 7:14 pm

      GeoffB the resurrected hockeystick’s 40 year smoothed temperature reconstruction depicts 1900- 1910 and the 15th century Sporer minimum as colder than the 17th C Maunder Minimum ….Its fraudulent alright

  2. Broadlands permalink
    October 19, 2022 4:13 pm

    Prior to 1979 (the beginning of satellite coverage) there were very few sea surface temperature measurements that would allow NOAA or NASA to calculate global temperatures with two decimal place precision…. example:

    “The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F),”

    In other words 70% of the Earth’s surface temperatures are guesswork.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 19, 2022 6:41 pm

      As a systems analyst in another life I could write the odd program. In the 90’s, as an exercise, I wrote one to calculate potential lottery numbers based on a year’s worth of lottery wins and so find a pattern average.
      The overwhelming conclusion I came to was that the average of six lottery numbers in 49 was about as useful and indicative as having a global average temperature. Completely meaningless! (And I never won!)

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 20, 2022 10:18 am

      And post 1979, they still can’t measure any temperatures to 2 decimal places – hundredths of a degree.

  3. ThinkingScientist permalink
    October 19, 2022 4:39 pm

    Its ok, but a notable omission in the discussion (and possibly in AR6) is the Holocene optimum and Holocene temperature reconstructions.

    It is entirely possible the IPCC goes from the last 2,000 years to the previous interglacial (125,000 years ago) and misses out everything betwixt and between to avoid discussing a potential inconvenient truth – the Holocene optimum. If they have omitted it, I would have liked GWPF to have mentioned it – it would be an example of the IPCC science ignoring results they don’t like.

    The other point are the documented papers on hippos in the Thames during the last interglacial (the Eemian). Recently I note hippo remains found in sediments in the Severn too and of course another found in the Mendips from the early Pleistocene (just over 1 million years ago).

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      October 19, 2022 6:00 pm

      Hippo bones turn up all over South Britain Norfolk and The Armley Hippo, aka The Leeds Hippo.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armley_Hippo

    • Stuart Hamish permalink
      October 19, 2022 7:30 pm

      The 1990’s ice core temperature reconstructions used by the IPCC show the Eemian warm interstadial peaks – at both poles – warmer than the late Holocene modern warm period .. The IPCC has since deleted the Eemian results probably on the consideration that atmospheric carbon dioxide was of an order 120 ppm lower 125 – 122000 years ago ..Tony Heller published the Eemian temperature data on his blog

  4. Martin Brumby permalink
    October 19, 2022 4:50 pm

    “…demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that the public are being failed by IPCC officials and the news media.”

    The public?

    The public is just there to be deceived and exploited as milch- cows and lab-rats.

    That’s the plan and I can assure you that Lord Deben, His Majesty, Isaak Hunt, Bill Gates, Cruella van der Leyden, Klaus Schwab, Kneel Starmer, Brandon, Xi Jinping and all our other Beloved Leaders are absolutely content with it all.

    • Sean permalink
      October 19, 2022 6:36 pm

      I’m not sure “absolutely content” is the correct adjective. Given the amount of money that has been spent by governments chasing the zero-CO2 goal, and all the money that they’ve pushed individual households to spend in the same vein, the prospect of the bloodbath that would result from them admitting “We were wrong; CO2 has no significant effect on climate, and everything we’ve done to reduce CO2 emissions has been a waste of money” has to be terrifying; it would utterly kill the reputation of everyone involved in foisting the ‘climate crisis’ on their countries and the world. They’re riding the tiger, and if they let go of its ears, it’s going to throw them off and eat them; all they can do is hang on and keep flogging the same story.

      • October 19, 2022 9:56 pm

        I don’t think they need to even profess to know the climate science. For all the time, effort and money spent, they have made an insignificant dent in overall emissions but increased costs to the point where their domestic economy is now uncompetitive, reducing domestic living standards while enriching the economies and raising living standards in Asia.

      • 4 Eyes permalink
        October 19, 2022 11:02 pm

        I could not agree more. Sadly, climate science is too big to fail now, like some banks.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 20, 2022 8:54 am

      People go into politics and get jobs at places like the EU and IPCC to get their opinions made policy, not to serve the public or seek the truth. People misunderstand “power” – it is about forcing your views on everyone else.

  5. Coeur de Lion permalink
    October 19, 2022 7:29 pm

    Two points. Donna Laframboise’s two books catalogue just this practice over the decades – a Guidance for Policymakers ignoring the scientific opinion and formulated by officials and politicians with an agenda. Secondly- on this occasion the frontispiece of the Guidance for AR6
    blazons a Hockeystick just like THE HOCKEYSTICK that did so much to wreck climate science. Unbelievably it’s not part of AR6 workings!!! And the sainted Steve McIntyre takes it to pieces in his climateaudit.org and shows it to be yet another disgusting fraud in a litany of frauds by the IPCC.

  6. Philip Mulholland permalink
    October 19, 2022 7:38 pm

    “Ralph Alexander’s paper is a revelation, demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that the public are being failed by IPCC officials and the news media.”

    Are they really failing? I think that the process is working exactly as planned.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 20, 2022 8:56 am

      The IPCC and media simply want to push their opinions on everyone. Science and truth matter not.

  7. October 19, 2022 10:22 pm

    Not surprising. In fact EXPECTED as the IPCC is riddled with Communists with instructions to lie repeatedly but subtly with small changes or inclusions in any text they deal with for summary.

    The CAGW MEME which has gone viral originated there.

    After all this Political institution was set up by the UN for this express purpose with the agenda to obtain the global levers of power through control of energy.

  8. October 20, 2022 7:53 am

    slightly off topic except it relates to the GWPF \ Netzerowatch, who published this paper.
    A couple of articles from I think, The Independant newspaper attacking them for alleged ‘misinformation’ and trying to influence government policy.
    It seems to me that they (GWPF) are starting to show some influence and are beginning to finally get through with their views, and are now seen to need to be attacked by whom?

    • David Tallboys permalink
      October 20, 2022 8:15 am

      I brought the article to the attention of Rhys Blakely one of The Times science writers. He just dismissed Ralph B Alexander as not having any peer reviewed articles according to Google Scholar.

      I also noticed that GWPF and Ralph B Alexander are on the bad boys list at DeSmog.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        October 20, 2022 8:52 am

        Bring Retractionwatch to his attention and ask him how come all these papers get retracted (thousands as fakes) if peer review is a reliable process.

      • dave permalink
        October 20, 2022 9:20 am

        “…not having any peer reviewed articles according to Google Scholar…”

        That is a lie. Twenty seconds with Google Scholar was all it took to establish this.

        Alexander does not seem to have many articles. And none concerning “Climate Science.” But those are different statements.

        It does not matter. There is no point at all to engaging with MSM “science writers.”

        Science does not progress by publication and it never has. The idea that Science is somehow contained in the approximately 50 million “fact-checked” Journal articles that moulder in library stacks is ludicrous. It is Academic Power that is sorted out through peer review. That is all. Academia is a snobby club of snide nobodies

      • DAVID TALLBOYS permalink
        October 20, 2022 9:49 am

        @dave

        I went back to my email and Rhys Blakely did write to me:

        ” From a quick search on Google Scholar, it doesn’t seem that Ralph B Alexander has ever written a peer reviewed paper on climate change. ”

        So it was I who omitted the climate change bit.

        I agree with you that engaging with MSM “science writers” is pointless. Most of them have degrees in English, History, or Journalism.

      • dave permalink
        October 20, 2022 10:32 am

        Yes I thought Blakely probably was careful enough to pick the more limited assertion.

        ‘Peer review’ can be amusing. I once was listening to a lecture on
        Evolution in birds when the speaker made the following comment:

        “This viewpoint was first put forward by Dr X in 1992 in one of the papers in the handout. It is a rather poor paper actually. That is probably because Dr X was very busy at the time – screwing my wife!”

  9. Andrew Harding permalink
    October 20, 2022 8:26 am

    The concept that an increase in a trace and a relatively, unreactive atmospheric gas by one molecule in 10,000 others can affect the climate is nonsensical!

    We have been fed this garbage, relentlessly and methodically to ensure the ‘success’ of UN Agendas 2021, for now and even more lies and misery in 8 years’ time, when UN Agenda 2030 is enacted.

    We currently (and hopefully for much longer) have a Right of Centre UK Government. Is it not time to re-think the membership of the UK within the UN? It is not in our national interest to beggar our economy based upon a false premise! By doing so would make other countrys’ governments listen and realise that economically, they are at a massive disadvantage. To do so would require evidence, this is the easy part! I am 67 yo and I cannot say I have noticed any difference in the climate in all those years! I am sure I remember the Winter of 1963 and the Summer of 1976, the climate is unchanged, despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration has substantially increased.

    The worldwide Covid19 Lockdown proved that mankind is only a minor contributor to atmospheric CO2, nature is by far the biggest contributor.

  10. JBW permalink
    October 20, 2022 9:15 am

    And which right of centre government would that be? It seems to be coup of the left wing atm. It’s downhill all the way imho!

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 20, 2022 10:24 am

      Only in Guardianista/BBC LaLa Land is the current Tory government right of centre given that the party is stuffed with Blairites lefties hence being known as Blue Labour.

      • dave permalink
        October 20, 2022 10:51 am

        “…Blairites…”

        As foreseen by Peter Simple fifty years ago with his appalling ‘modern’ Conservative Jeremy Cardhouse M.P. who famously had to be frequently untwisted from a spastic condition brought on by attempting to genefluct in all directions at the same time.

  11. October 20, 2022 9:54 am

    The links no longer work today. (20 10 2022 newzealand.) The powers that be may have forbidden this information . But who knows?

  12. Gerry, England permalink
    October 20, 2022 10:28 am

    The IPCC is a global warming advocacy group. Where else would a summary of a report be issued months before the actual report is available? I usually found it much easier to summarise a report after I had written it and then issue it at the same time. As alluded to by Mr Alexander, it might be due to the summary bearing little relation to the report is alleges to summarise.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: