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 TheRebel.media 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 StopTheCarbonTax.com
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