More information on this propaganda organization:
IPCC relies on foregone conclusions to push climate narrative
The story begins in 1990, when Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia and a group of co-authors published a paper in Nature magazine examining urban and rural warming rates at sites in the United States, the western Soviet Union, Eastern China and Eastern Australia. For the period from 1930 to 1985 they found sizeable urban-rural differences everywhere except Eastern Australia (though not all locations had data covering the entire period). Then, in an epic leap of speculation, they set those findings aside and said it was unlikely that urbanization could account for more than one-tenth of the observed warming elsewhere in the world.
…
The researchers also claimed that no evidence had been published showing otherwise.
But there have been. But since it goes against their foregone conclusions, they are ignored.
…pointed out that the Jones et al. paper, apart from being 15 years old, only speculated about the 10 per cent figure while the results for regions they did study indicated higher bias rates. I also pointed out that two studies had been published, one co-authored by me and another co-authored by a pair of Dutch meteorologists, that estimated that urbanization biases could account for much more — one-third to a half — of observed global warming over land.
Instead of only 10%, it is actually between 33-50%!
Fast-forward to last year when I reviewed the AR6 chapter on temperature changes. Cleverly, the draft said “No recent literature has emerged” to challenge the AR5 position. I drew attention to my 2013 paper, but I guess that’s not what they meant by “recent” because they ignored my comment. I also critiqued their repetition of the 10 per cent claim and said that if they were going to reaffirm the AR5 conclusions, they had to quote them accurately, including the finding that significant contamination of the surface temperature record has in fact been demonstrated.
That would ruin their entire argument. No wonder they ignore those studies/reports.
Alas, the latest IPCC authors were not receptive, and no changes were made to that section. I don’t know if the current authors or other reviewers even know where the 10 per cent number came from anymore: they now just carry it forward report after report as if it’s an empirical finding.
So faulty reports like those by the IPCC which gets all the media attention, and are talking points by governments.
It should come as no surprise that powerful bureaucracies — as the IPCC has become — get stuck on foregone conclusions. We’ve seen that often enough with military assessments. And once the process kicks in, critical voices eventually give up what inevitably is a futile effort to be heard, making it a self-reinforcing loop. The resulting bias is, unfortunately, typically much greater than 10 per cent.
Here is our goal, create a study and methodology that PROVES it, repeat.
.
