Nexus - 0906 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

THE UN IPCC's ARTFUL BIAS ON CLIMATE CHANGE IPCC's THE ARTFUL BIAS CLIMATE CHANGE Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics he United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) Working Group I (WGI) Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (titled Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis) is not an assessment of climate change science, even though it claims to be. Rather, it is an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human-induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles. Line-by-line analysis of the SPM reveals that all of the science that cuts against the Theory of Human Interference with Climate has been systematically omitted. In some cases, the leading arguments against human interference are actually touched on, but without being revealed or discussed. In other cases, the evidence against human interference is simply ignored. Because of these strategic omissions, the SPM voices a degree of certainty that is entirely false. Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the "policymakers" as well as the press and the public who read the SPM will not realise they are being told only one side of the story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the some- times artful way they conceal it. This deliberate distortion can only be explained by the fact that the UN IPCC is part of an advocacy process, organised by the United Nations Environment Program and support- ing the Kyoto Protocol. What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and posi- tive counter-evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assess- ing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its This study grows out of several years of research into the logic of the climate change debate. During that time, I have operated an email listserv where knowledgeable people from all sides of the climate change issue have posted over 25,000 messages. From this experience, I have gained a comprehensive understanding of just how complex and unsettled the science really is. I have become increasingly distressed by statements made by supporters of the Kyoto Protocol to the effect that the science is settled, or that the uncertainties have diminished to the point where action is obviously justified. Nothing could be further from the truth. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. On the contrary, atmospheric CO, is the Earth's entire food supply, and 95% of the emissions are natural. We could not live without them, for watching a child grow is watching processed carbon dioxide being reprocessed. Failure to mention this fundamental fact is the most astounding omission in the SPM. However, since the issue at hand is climate change, not food, I will not go further into this side of the CO, equation, vital though it be. I am particularly concerned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being represented as a neutral body. Such claims are simply false, and it is the purpose of this study to demonstrate that they are false. Because the IPCC scientific Summary for Policymakers is completely one sided, most of its deceptions are omissions. One cannot simply point to omissions as one can to false- hoods, so I have undertaken to catalogue the omissions and the false assertions of confi- dence that they enable, on a line-by-line basis. This present report is just a start, and more cases will be forthcoming over time. But time is of the essence, and this small collection United Nations IPCC scientists blame human interference, not natural variation, for causing our changing climate, and manipulate the data to suit their arguments. by David E. Wojick, PhD © 2002 President Climatechangedebate.org USA Email: dwojick@climatechangedebate.org Website: http:/www.climatechangedebate.org President Climatechangedebate.org USA Email: dwojick@climatechangedebate.org Website: http:/www.climatechangedebate.org NEXUS ¢ 23 OCTOBER — NOVEMBER 2002 www.nexusmagazine.com