December 26, 2015

"Scientific daylight robbery": How "climate change" pushers skew data to get results they want

Tim BallRebel Columnist

Most people don’t know that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considers human causes of global warming.

This is critical because it is impossible to determine human causes if you don’t know or understand natural causes. It was done deliberately to ensure they could prove ”scientifically” the political message that human CO2 was causing disastrous global warming.

Politicians predetermine the outcome of Commissions of Inquiry by controlling definitions and terms of reference. The definition given to the IPCC in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Article 1 and formalized in 1992 at the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Rio Conference says:

"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

Most people, including media and politicians, believe they are studying climate change in total. The IPCC practice is not to correct people’s misconceptions when they suit their political objective.

IPCC authors know the limitations of their work, but the politicians and public don’t know. They put information in their reports that allow them to say if challenged that they were aware of the limits. They put the data or comments in places that few will examine or understand, even if they look. It is what I call scientific “Daylight Robbery."

The most egregious example is the Summary for Policymakers that is released months before the Science Report. David Wojick IPCC expert reviewer explained:

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it. …

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support.

Some pointed out the limitations of the definition from the start.

Apparently it took the pressure created by the 2005 exposure of the falsifications in the "hockey stick" by McIntyre and McKitrick that claimed to prove that there was no warming for 1000 years followed by a dramatic increase in the 20th century (Figure 1):

By the time of the IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4) in 2007, they inserted a broader definition.

Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

It appeared as a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of AR4. It was put there to provide an answer to any challenge from the vast unknowledgeable crowd. What that crowd would also not know is that the IPCC couldn't use it even if it were the intent.

The Reports are cumulative. Each Report simply updates the latest literature on the subjects they chose to consider at the start.  For the new definition to work, they would need to start all over and expand the Reports to unmanageable levels.

The variables examined were dictated by the definition of only human causes. Figure 2 shows the variables the IPCC chose:

The LOSU (Level of Scientific Understanding) column shows only two rated “High”, which is a completely false self-determination while almost half are Low. They list CO2, which is only 4 percent of the greenhouse gases, but don’t include water vapor, which is 95 percent by volume. They argue that although humans add water vapor to the atmosphere the amount is negligible relative to the total.

In fact, the natural variation in water vapor exceeds the possible effect of the human contribution of CO2 to any greenhouse effect. They include solar radiation (insolation), but that is not possible, humans do not alter the heat and light emitted by the Sun.

Presumably, they are considering changes in the atmosphere caused by humans that alter insolation at the surface, but they cover that in the line on Total Aerosols.

It allows them to claim they considered the Sun when, in fact, they omit major changes in solar activity that we know cause temperature change on Earth.

This is only one of the major variables that cause climate change they omit.

The analogy I used years ago is that it is like saying my car is not running properly. To save time and money I am going to ignore the engine, the transmission, or the wheels, and concentrate on a nut on the right rear wheel (CO2).

I am going to narrow it further by looking at one thread on the nut, which is the human portion of CO2.

The IPCC climate mechanics charge for their services, but the real cost is the trillions wasted on the entire deception of global warming.


JOIN FREE for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Rachel Notley's Alberta NDP just announced a $3 billion a year carbon tax.
SIGN THE PETITION telling them to cancel this job-killing tax at

READ Ezra Levant's bestselling books debunking environmentalist propaganda against the energy industry:
Groundswell: The Case for Fracking and Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands


You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-01-02 11:20:26 -0500
Dr. Tim Ball is my definition of a hero. His fight against the massive fraud of AGW has been personally and professionally ruinous but he has not relented in his struggle to speak the truth. The information he shares has been very helpful for even a small fish like me to speak out with facts over family dinners and social gatherings. A few people have changed their minds, not many, but a few, when presented with more and better information. Others, when cornered with facts that demonstrate the erroneous information on which their beliefs are based, will change the substance of the discussion, usually with, “…but surely you must agree that pollution is a problem?”
commented 2015-12-30 16:41:19 -0500
Jay K, are we really going to see a trial, where a judge gets in the middle of a debate on anthropogenic climate change? Or is Mann just hoping to use lawfare to bankrupt Steyn?
commented 2015-12-30 16:39:35 -0500
Just listen to the average observer, on the bus, or anywhere and they have been fully “educated”. No one now says “global warming” but they say “Climate Change”. That way all events are covered. They don’t even see the cynicism of changing the wording.
commented 2015-12-29 08:20:47 -0500
Weather scammers have been active throughout history. In the past they tricked gullible people into giving them money. Now they have the backing of socialist governments to force all taxpayers to pay them.
commented 2015-12-28 17:02:59 -0500
I’m looking forward to what God will do to those who seem to think they can control the weather, just because they say they can. God does not take kindly to those who think they are gods, or who think they control anything on earth.
commented 2015-12-28 10:45:21 -0500
A CBC network news “teaser” commercial last night referred to upcoming news about the storm damage in Texas and other States , which was followed immediately by a story about scientists agreeing on how to control the weather.Of course this is pure rubbish , but effective propaganda. If you apply the dictionary definition of propaganda "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view " , it applies to everything the CBC and other Canadian Networks are broadcasting.
Tim Ball’s blog is correct. But it is hard to combat the relentless messages that the Liberal/Media complex are broadcasting over the air waves.
commented 2015-12-28 10:33:56 -0500
Those like Naomi Klein, that lie and distort the truth will one day be judged for it. And I can’t wait to see real justice lobbed at those who tell lies for a living. Brag all you want to now because the day of reckoning is coming!
commented 2015-12-28 10:11:49 -0500
What this global warming scam is all about was clearly revealed by socialist Naomi Klein, who, in the midst of the recent federal election, along with a cloud of left-wing activists and artists, including ‘Dr.’ David Suzuki, leftist lawyer Clayton Ruby, Donald Sutherland, Pamela Anderson, Maude Barlow (Council of Canadians, er Leftists), Bruce Cockburn and, of course, that great ‘Canadian’ Neil Young, along with strong support from the unions and environmental and left-wing activist groups, with fanfare launched her “Leap Manifesto”, a declaration which calls for a radical overhaul of Canada’s economy, ending fossil fuel use and switching “our energy systems to 100 percent renewables”:
In her book, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate", Klein asserted that “Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war” and that the issue of global warming has given ‘progressives’ (code for socialists) “the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism” ever.
Noteworthy, that another entity, The Communist Party of Canada, thinks the same, as combating supposed man-made climate change (née global warming) was part of its platform for the recent federal election, a component of its agenda “to fight for really fundamental change in our country – not just cosmetic change – to open the door to socialism”.
commented 2015-12-28 09:57:58 -0500
This report was from The Washington Post, November 2, 1922 – 93 years ago:

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at
Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have
entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make
most coastal cities uninhabitable.”
commented 2015-12-28 00:27:51 -0500
They have been predicting doom for many years now, nothing is happening though, and they predict more. What a joke.
commented 2015-12-27 20:33:08 -0500
Anyone who believes in anthropogenic climate change who is not benefiting in some way (money, power, influence, etc) is pure stupid.
commented 2015-12-27 20:29:34 -0500
There really is no point whatsoever in responding to Nathan W since he never defends his asinine comments. All he does is post “drive by comments” to agitate the everyone. I doubt he has the intellect to carry on a true debate.
commented 2015-12-27 19:27:16 -0500
The only climate crisis is the one that corrupt left wing governments have created in order to fleece the taxpayer out of hundreds of billions of dollars.
commented 2015-12-27 14:56:24 -0500
they can say whatever they like. if it affects me the bullshit radar comes on automatically and I become an instant skeptic.
remember acid rain or how the Russians were going to get us with ‘yellow rain’ from bee shit and my favorite, Y2K.
did Nostradamus predict that we were going to all choke to death on political bullshit? he should have…
commented 2015-12-27 13:21:18 -0500
That “no” should be know.
commented 2015-12-27 13:19:31 -0500
Do these idiots not no climate change has occurred throughout earth’s history long before man made CO2. Let’s face it we are doomed by civilizations stupidity. The left is winning this battle.
commented 2015-12-27 13:15:55 -0500
Nathan W . . . . the globe has been WARMING since the last Ice Age . . . Fact !
It has been WARMER than today in the past and Cooler than today in the past . . . and you are suggesting we should do WHAT? Listen to frauds like Mann and Suzuki? Did you catch the Suz at the Australian Broadcasting appearance?
This tops Saturday Nite Live . . . . lol
commented 2015-12-27 13:04:54 -0500
AGW is the biggest scam played on Free Societies on the Planet by the incestuous UN in it’s history. The father of the IPCC, the now deceased Strong, appointed to the UN by Trudough the First, was a far left loon and globalist, follower of the cult of Ghia, created this monster that has wasted 100s of billions of taxpayer money. Money a fraction of which could have raised the living standards of millions in the third world.
Ball and Stein nailed it . . . it’s ALL about the money and these feckless radicals that want to Tax and Control the folks. This is Karl Marx dressed up in a new suit !
commented 2015-12-27 11:30:37 -0500
Enjoyed your article, Tim. Definitely merit to the points that you make, and I think you point to the heart of the simple “immaturity” in the state of climate science, and the ability to “predict”. That is, the immaturity of understanding and thoroughness of the Radiative Forcing model that you mention above. That said, I found it strange that you chose to use the image of the IPCC model published in 2007 as part of the Fourth Assessment Report rather than the model published in 2014 as part of the Fifth Assessment Report. Not that this invalidates the points that you make in any way, only that it risks undermining the perception that you’ve “done your homework”. Sorry if I’m sounding nit-picky.
MarcelP – Calgary
commented 2015-12-27 10:17:00 -0500
I almost puked when I saw Wynne on Global News yesterday talking about the urgency Of imposing a carbon tax to fight climate change. That from a woman that hasn’t figured out that she is one. She makes me ill.
commented 2015-12-27 07:42:17 -0500
PETER TOTH commented 11 mins ago – if you want to crush socialism/marxism, stop using all government services when possible, for example, stop using this fucking fraudulent “free healthcare” crap.
commented 2015-12-27 07:40:59 -0500
PETER TOTH commented 11 mins ago – if you want to crush socialism/marxism, stop personal spending.
commented 2015-12-27 07:38:55 -0500
PETER TOTH commented 3 mins ago
Suzuki, Gore, and the rest of the charlatans who are perpetuating this scam, have said that those who oppose them should be arrested and jailed. Well, it is Suzuki, Gore, Mann, and all the rest of the hucksters who are engaged in fraud.

Suzuki, Gore and Mann are the front men to this new global tax grab to make governments bigger and more evil than they already are. Remember too that big government is backed by establishment money (they finance politicians into office much like the Demarais and Dussault families paid for camp counselor Trudeau to be in Ottawa) – who offshore their billions and pay taxes on their onshore millions.

There is nothing that can be done to fight this other than to stop your personal spending. Stopping personal spending, except for essentials of course, fucks the establishment money and big government in the pocket book – the essence of their existence.

We are seeing this now as banks have cheap cash, but no one who is worth risking is willing to take on loans. Mortgage financing, for example is at all time lows – houses are bought with cash or not bought.

It’s easy – stop your personal spending. Stop using government services, like our free bullshit healthcare unless you absolutely must.
commented 2015-12-27 07:28:55 -0500
Suzuki, Gore, and the rest of the charlatans who are perpetuating this scam, have said that those who oppose them should be arrested and jailed. Well, it is Suzuki, Gore, Mann, and all the rest of the hucksters who are engaged in fraud. Which is a criminal act that does warrant arrest and incarceration. It’s time we stopped this global fraud, and put on trial those who are part of it. Including politicians and the media!
commented 2015-12-27 07:10:26 -0500
Up until 2005, the IPCC was open about the fact they were there to collect literature only on man made global warming. It was in their mission statement. Since then, they have quietly made that disappear and now pretend that they speak for all inputs into the climate. That is why Michael Mann eliminated the Medieval Warm Period from his charts. It was a naturally occurring event and therefore was just noise. You cannot possibly predict a future event without all the inputs or understanding the feedback mechanisms
commented 2015-12-27 01:44:40 -0500
Nathan W commented 2 hours ago
If you want to find our what humans are causing, it sorts of makes sense to focus on what humans are causing, doesn’t it?
Since you’re so keen on good science, please explain the 5-year moving average in the following graph:
Happy denialism. The world is getting warmer, and the hardest hit will be the most vulnerable – subsistence farmers in areas which are already hotter than optimal growing temperatures.

Nathan W. NASA has also been accused of manipulating (lying) about their data that supports the IPCC bullshit. Why? Because they are on the gravy train and they like it there.

Thank you Dr Tim Ball for your usual concise report.
commented 2015-12-27 00:40:58 -0500
Tim Ball. I’d be thrilled if you and your ilk stopped allowing the Marxists labeling you guys. You’re not “deniers”, your the Climate Peer Group. Your by-line being; They say it’s peer reviewed, well we we ARE their peers – and it’s junk science.
Doing this puts you on top, and them on the defensive.
commented 2015-12-27 00:37:19 -0500
Lad Reme. You answered your own question in your last sentence as to what sinister plot is going on. It’s all about Marxism, one Gov to rule the world etc etc.
commented 2015-12-27 00:34:33 -0500
Nathan. He’s explained in the past. Thks for demonstrating Lefty psychosis for all to see. Could you show us where he says Global Warming isn’t happening? The whole point to his article, is that it’s not caused by man, and they’re leaving out half the facts, as Lefty’s ALWAYS do!! Also, since you’re so clever, you must know, according tho the IPCC, Canada is only responsible for 1.5% of all emissions. If every Cdn died and all human activity ceased, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. So what do you suggest we Cdn’s do Nathan? Please be specific!