John McLean

Out of curiosity I created a graph of annual average temperature anomalies based on HadCRUT3 temperature data but omitting 1943-1971 . 

I don’t for a moment believe that the HadCRUT3 data is accurate and reliable, however, I found the graph interesting.

I remind you that IPCC attributed the first half of the rising period to natural causes and the second half to human activity.

I think it looks more like consistent warming out of the Little Ice Age and the omitted period is a time when La Nina conditions dominated.  Another hypothesis is that the rise in temperature is due to increasing night-time cloud cover due to industrialisation.

Cheers, John McLean

Click on graph image for larger view.

HOW many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think I’ve seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such figures. There’s no question whatsoever. It’s utterly wrong.

In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60? Let’s take a closer look at the real numbers.

Consider the statement “The IPCC report concluded that there is a human influence on climate. This was supported by almost 4,000 authors and reviewers.” The popular mythology – and one that IPCC never tries to correct – is that those 4,000 supported the findings but all they really supported, by their work, was the creation of the report. The IPCC is allowing, or perhaps even encouraging, an ambiguity be misinterpreted, and not for the first time either, but I digress.

But how many individuals were involved? Was it 4,000 or some other number?

[Read more…] about The IPCC Can’t Count – Author and Reviewer Numbers are Wrong