UN desperate, dangerous

UN “scientists” are taking desperate risks with their reputations, attempting to cover up their deceptions about a climatic peril that doesn’t exist.

Some scientists at the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) have become desperate to cover up their hamfisted deceptions aimed at generating support for their hypothesis that mankind is causing the Earth to catastrophically heat up. In their desperation they’re still misleading the public, but also abandoning science and, incredibly, telling actual lies about the climate.

This makes for particularly dangerous implications for public policy. We need to be on our guard.

That this is going on is so easy to discover (but not through the mainstream media) that one cannot help but speculate whether our local journalists either have very strong reason to be sympathetic to these activist scientists or are even actually in league with them.

Yesterday, on the first day of talks at the 17th Conference of the Parties in Durban, the WMO released a report on the global climate. Today I count in Google at least 60 headlines around the world mentioning the WMO report.

One caught my eye, because it was blatantly outrageous.

Feeling the heat? We are to blame, it said.

But the WMO, as we all know, deals with weather and climate information. What could they have discovered about assigning the cause of warming to us?

First I tracked down the WMO report. Unexpectedly, at the top centre of the front page, it says:

Provisional Statement on the Status of the Global Climate

For use of the information media
Not an official record

Perhaps they’ve heard about NIWA’s claim that the national temperature record is not the “official” national temperature record.

Perhaps they use “provisional” to mean “we haven’t all agreed on this, so it might not be official”. The point is, it’s not a finished report. They’ve given themselves a handy escape clause if we ask too many questions about it. How convenient. Why would they do that? Why would the journalists not notice they did that?

I’m getting the odour of fish.

I read through the report. It’s a fairly standard litany of climate talking points regarding warming, effects of warming, supposed effects of warming and predicted effects of warming. You see no predictions? Here’s one: “The Central American region is on course to have its hottest year in at least 140 years.”

They give no examples of cooling, no cold records and mention no region that approached a cold record, though all those things occurred in 2011. They only left them out because of their bias towards warming, the scientific toads.

They have the gall to say a record was “approached” as though that’s amazing: “several other western European countries approached records.”

It’s amazing, all right — amazing that people claiming to be real scientists would make such a statement and present it as science.

In a press conference announcing the report, WMO Deputy Secretary-General Jerry Lengoasa attempts to validate the “provisional” report by saying: “Our science is solid”. What a toad. The science that presents “approaching a record” as solid science is merely playdough posturing of no account.

This post is becoming too long, but a couple of points more.

I have looked carefully, yet there is no statement of attribution in the WMO report, nothing to give the merest suspicion that humanity is causing “all” this warming (which seemed to fill the year). Where does the statement come from?

Reuters quotes a single statement from Mr Lengoasa:

“Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities.”

That’s all it takes. One unsupported assertion from a single unknown UN bureaucrat.

One. The WMO’s science is not solid. It means nothing to say a region “approached” a record in some climate metric, for the same event is also truthfully described by saying the region “missed” a record. Both statements are scientifically meaningless and irrevocably taint the report and any “science” it contains with activism.

Two. Evidence of warming is not evidence of the cause of the warming. How many times do sceptics from Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and Willem de Lange downwards need to repeat this simple principle before people listen?

Three. Publishing graphs showing a progression of annual temperatures which vary by one tenth of a degree or less is misleading. Even 0.5°C is misleading. There is no practical difference between such estimates of air temperature. The error margin is probably around 2 degrees for manually-recorded daily temperatures, and to imply a lesser amount is to speak falsely.

Four. The WMO, their scientists and Secretary-General Jerry are lying.

What is the evidence? I will continue to allege deliberate lying until these “responsible” people present evidence that humanity is causing a substantial portion of whatever warming we observe (remembering there hasn’t been any for about 15 years). Their public-spirited deception spans several decades and has gone beyond the bounds of politeness. I will no longer presume they have good reasons for their statements, for they persist in failing to provide any. I must make allegations to which they might (finally) respond.

How do you feel about that, Dr Renwick?

The evidence needs to be stronger than:

• We don’t know what else it could be.
• The models say so.
• We emitted more carbon dioxide last year than ever before.
• We’ve been naughty little industry-builders.
• We should not disturb the earth.
• We’ll decide what “disturb” means.

Views: 39