Staff Writer, DB HolmesUnited Nations / IPCC / Climate Change
In his comments, Robert Stavins explains how the problems with the IPCC Working Group is structural, not personal. I would like to suggest that the IPCC has wasted the valuable time of Professor Robert Stavins of Harvard University. Member countries cannot come to an agreement where no problem exists.
One response to the blog post was:
In plain English this means that the IPCC contributors have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that there is no credible basis for the WG 2 and 3 reports and that the Government policy makers have no empirical scientific basis for the UNFCCC process and for the politicians economically destructive climate and energy policies.
The entire UNFCCC – IPCC circus is a political exercise with no connection to the real climate.
Other forecasting methods are required in order to provide a basis for policy discussion. For forecasts of the probable coming cooling based on the natural 60 year and 1000 year quasi-periodicities in the temperature data and the use of the neutron count and 10Be record as the best proxy for solar “activity” see several posts over the last couple 0f years at
It is really amazing that the WG2 and WG3 authors have been all working earnestly away on the basis of a future warming when it is more likely that the world will cool for the next 20 years and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that. If we want to worry about extreme events the record of the Dansgaard – Oeschger events in the last glacial period and the 8200 year cooling event and the LIA in the Holocene should provide enough concern to keep the doom-lovers busy.
You may or may not be aware that your post (which contains some excellent points) has already been seized upon by right-wing media, who are enthusiastically presenting it as evidence that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt and that the underlying science they have worked to prepare is therefore somehow suspect. As someone who has followed the IPCC’s work closely for years, I consider this dangerously close to a distortion of your comments.
Sorry, potential Harvard student, but the VDP Gazette is not a right wing conspiracy news blog. We look for facts. Facts have led us here:
The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. You cannot pressure people to change under the false assumption there is a problem without real proof. Climate is not based on computer models. Global Warming does not exist (at least in the way you were told). Climate Change is false also. Weather and climate are driven from solar and lunar patterns.
Watch this lecture by Piers Corbyn about how climate and weather are created: The Reality of Long Range Weather and Climate Forecasting | EU2014.
In this interview, Geoengineering Educator and Lecturer with Scott Stevens (a Meteorologist, minute 9:08), Mr. Stevens explains how geoengineering has been happening since the 1980's, just about the time Global Warming became a "problem." When in fact before a complete disruption of the global climate environment ensued, the Earth was headed into an ice age.
You are probably wondering why geoengineering was brought into this discussion? Easy. Let's use an analogy:
Say that I wanted to prove that all swimming pools, public and private, are human waste cesspools. The first thing that would happen is to test the water of a swimming pool, but before I did, I would urinate in that particular pool.
That is what geoengineering has done to the climate data en mass. Chemicals in the sky have warmed the environment by not allowing the cooling of night to exist. Without cooling during the night time hours, daytime heating is accentuated. Therefore, how can any temperature numbers be taken as scientific proof or fact of anything but climate manipulation?
Besides the fact that Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is creating the Venus Effect on Earth, the lack of cooling at night by raising the albedo (reflectivity of the planet), this anomalous temperature range has sparked an increase of surface temperatures, trapped greenhouse gases within this shield, and has become a threat to global environmental stability, especially when solar activity is at its peak. As well as the fact that chemicals are destroying the ozone layer, killing plant life on the ground, and releasing methane from the depths of the sea, what possibly could go wrong?
IPCC data corruption? Scientific theory corruption? Don't make me laugh. From the beginning the IPCC's numbers have been fudged, misrepresented, and distorted.
Scientific inquiry? The IPCC is a politically motivated organization for the financial betterment of a few like Al Gore and his silent partner, Maurice Strong, when it came time to sell the world on erroneous Carbon Credits.
Wake up and smell the deception.
Does this make me smarter than a Harvard Student?
Source: Suspicious Observers, Robert Stavins Blog