The UN IPCC Assessment Report #4 is out, released on Friday just like all government bad news. No press releases, no fanfare just dropped on the world's door step like the mysterious phone book that appears in a plastic bag in your driveway. The UN had released the Summary for Policy Makers months earlier to great fanfare and promotion. But, the AR4 report is more science than politics and comes with the uncertainty of a real world defined.
Now we will get an opportunity to look at the data, the papers, and science fraud embedded in the report. The folks at Climate Audit are on the job, dissecting the report. The discredited Hockey Stick is still there, as is some dodgy statistical tricks to dampen the impact of particularly warm or cold periods, again reducing the impact of the MWP.
Here is what one Expert Peer Reviewer ( Richard S Courtney) of the AR4 draft had to say about the Hockey Stick.
My review comments included:
“For accuracy and completeness, after “(IPCC, 2001a)” it is very, very important to add:
“However, since the TAR several studies have provided doubt to that work of Mann et al.. Many studies provide data that conflict with the findings of that work of Mann et al. (e.g. Beltrami et al) (ref. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005) ). In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published two papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work of Mann et al. (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)) (2005), Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)). But, perhaps the most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their publication in 2003 (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)) that showed it is not possible to replicate the work of Mann et al. There are several reasons for the inability to replicate this work of Mann et al.; not least that Mann refuses to reveal his source codes. The inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. means it has no scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. is anecdote of similar kind to a report of a ghost sighting. Hence, the IPCC now apologises for including it in the TAR. The IPCC will now disregard this work of Mann et al. and recommends that all others should also disregard it until it can be – and has been – independently replicated.”
His comment were either ignored or rejected. In the coming weeks we will be hearing from other reviewers and experts. It is not science unless it can be replicated, it is only politics. More on AR4 as the auditors dig in and expose more science fraud.