By Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press

It’s time to stop the lies, deceptions, denials and fantasy that is the world of political climate science known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Official climate science recently offered more insults, comparable to the whitewash investigations of Michael Mann, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang, with its latest ‘investigation’ of the IPCC.

They think a simple mea culpa will do the job and allow them to continue their corrupt and corrupting ways. It won’t and it can’t. Not even the full mea maxima culpa will solve the problem.

The most recent whitewash

The most recent whitewash began with UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon ordering a supposedly independent investigation. The Inter Academy Council (IAC), which combines 15 Science Academies, whatever that means, were assigned to produce a very limited report. “The review by the IAC will not involve any in-depth analysis of the report produced by the IPCC, or of any “vast amounts of data”. “

It’s no surprise they prepared a very shallow report that identifies some errors and makes recommendations for the ongoing IPCC, but it is grossly inadequate. Why didn’t they talk to people who have raised questions about the process? Why didn’t they review the extensive literature on problems with the IPCC and the entire process? Why didn’t they recommend the removal from office of Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC? His activities are well documented and clearly show his integrity is completely compromised. The scientist whose false report on retreat of Himalayan glaciers was used by the IPCC worked for TERI of which Pachauri is the chairman. Why do they avoid the connections between CRU and IPCC?

The answer is given in the list of members of the IAC Board.  It includes Ralph Cicerone, which though he may not have been involved in the Report, gives a flavor of the bias of the group. He has been very active in defense of the IPCC positions and in attacking those who dare question. Here is what he said about IPCC reports, “This is the most comprehensive report ever on climate change,” said atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the academy. They outline “why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and why we should have a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable.”

It is underlined by the fact the last IAC report was on alternate energy, the unworkable but favorite solution of IPCC proponents.

Inter Academy Council demonstrate their lack of understanding

The IAC clearly has no idea of the history of the political hijacking of climate science that used the UN, the WMO and culminated in the IPCC. They acknowledge some of the minor errors made, such as the article on Himalayas glaciers that they used to claim ice was melting and faster than any logical research allowed. They dismiss these items as misguided and fail to put them in the entire context of corruption that is the IPCC. They fail to make the connection between the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) people and the IPCC. They demonstrate their lack of understanding by advising the IPCC not to make predictions unless they had solid evidence. The United Nations climate panel should make predictions only when it has solid evidence and should avoid policy advocacy, scientists said in a report yesterday that called for thorough reform of the body.

The problem is the IPCC doesn’t make predictions. They stopped after their dismal failures in the first two Reports. They cleverly and deliberately called them projections from a range of scenarios. Of course, the mainstream media choose to report the worse case scenario with regard to temperature increase. All these scenarios are based on false assumptions and evidence that was given far too much credence. As Chairman of the IAC group, Princeton professor Harold Shapiro said one of the Reports, “contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.”

It wasn’t just one of the Reports. Shapiro, and likely his group, fails to understand each Report builds on the previous one purportedly adding new material. In fact, the record shows they eliminated awkward material such as the graph showing the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP), or ignored well-documented research such as the Svensmark theory on the relationship between sunspots and global temperature.

After the IAC Report was released, Ban Ki Moon confirmed the incestuous nature of the investigation and gave an example of the gamesmanship he practices so well. He and Achem Steiner, head of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), said the report had done nothing to undermine the solid science in the IPCC Report. Of course not, they deliberately worked to that goal.

Nothing will change soon. Too many political, bureaucratic and academic careers are dependent on perpetuating the IPCC. Too many green industries have developed to take advantage of the billions governments have poured into alternate energies and other unworkable projects. Too many lobby groups are dependent on government funding, and use the IPCC message to shake funds out of a deceived and worried public.

In a recent article I recommended scrapping government weather agencies.

Maurice Strong used the UN to set up the IPCC and pursue his political goals

This is important because it was through them and their membership in the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that IPCC was created, funded and perverted. Maurice Strong used the UN to set up the IPCC and pursue his political goals. Its entire purpose was political and not scientific at all. The IAC were chosen not to realize this and couldn’t know because they didn’t do their research. To their credit they acknowledge the political leanings when they report that the IPCC is “at the interface between science and politics”, but it appears more a comment to quiet complaints than expose the obvious. They say the political actions of some senior IPCC members are harmful. “Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC’s credibility”. The reality is it has none and should be disbanded immediately along with the government weather agencies used for its creation.

Tim Ball interviews on Climategate here and here. CFP post is here.

Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg