I en meget omfattende artikkel på WUWT hevder nå Alec Rawls, en av bidragsyterne til AR5, at han har funnet "systematic fraud" i draftet.
Siden artikkelen er lang og omfattende i sin argumentasjon skal jeg forsøke å gi et grunnriss av hva saken dreier seg omFørst, hva er denne "systematiske svindelen" han mener å ha påvist?
For å forklare hvorfor han trolig må holde en del dokumentasjon tilbake, presiserer han først hva han er blitt pålagt av (den allerede høyst kritiserte) taushetsplikten overfor IPCC, og skriver om det:Utlagt: "Ikke siter, og ikke diskuter draftet utenfor IPCC": Like everyone else who participated in this review, I agreed not to cite, quote or distribute the draft. The IPCC also made a further request, which reviewers were not required to agree to, that we “not discuss the contents of the FOD in public fora such as blogs.”Her er imidlertid måten Rawls mener han holder seg innenfor pålegget:Given what I found—systematic fraud—it would not be moral to honor this un-agreed to request, and because my comments are about what is omitted, the fraud is easy enough to expose without quoting the draft. My entire review (4700 words) only contains a half dozen quotes, which can easily be replaced here with descriptions of the quoted material. Cited section numbers are also easy to replace with descriptions of the subjects addressed. And so with Anthony’s permission, here is the rest of my minimally altered review:Her er forhold Rawls mener inngår i den omtalte "systematic fraud" (systematisk svindel):
Først omtaler han hvor mange studier som indikerer helt andre betydninger for klimaet av hhv. solen versus CO2 enn IPCCs "settled science":For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century. These two correlations with temperature change give rise to the two main competing theories of 20th century warming. Was it driven by rapidly increasing human release of CO2, or by the 80 year “grand maximum” of solar activity that began in the early 1920′s? (“Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints,” Usoskin et al. 2007.)
The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to . between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.Unnlatelse av å ta med overveldende tydelige data på solens betydning siden 1750 + 40 ganger oppumping av betydningen av CO2:The 40 times greater warming effect of CO2 is achieved by blatant omitted variable fraud.
As I will fully document, all of the evidence for a strong solar magnetic driver of climate is simply left out of AR5.
Of the many careful empirical studies that show a high correlation between solar activity and climate, only three papers are obliquely referenced in a single sentence of the entire First Order Draft.
On [page___, line ____ of the chapter on aerosols and clouds] there is a bare reference to three papers that found unspecified correlations to some climate variables, with no mention of the dramatic magnitude of the correlations, or the scope and repetition of the findings. And that’s it. Not a single other mention in the entire report.
A person reading AR5 from cover to cover would come away with not even a hint that for more than ten years a veritable flood of studies have been finding solar activity to explain something on the order of half of all past temperature variation. The omission is virtually complete.Rawls oppsummerer jukset slik:Nothing could be more perverse in such a circumstance than to unplug the modern world in a misbegotten jihad against CO2.
The IPCC’s omitted variable fraud must stop.
AR5′s misattribution of 20th century warming to CO2 must stop.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the solar-magnetic warming theory.
The only support for the CO2 theory is the fact that models built on it can achieve a reasonable fit to the last couple centuries of temperature history, but that is only because CO2 is roughly correlated with solar activity over this period, while these models themselves are invalidated by their demonstrable omitted variable fraud.
If warming is attributed to solar-magnetic effects at all in accordance with the evidence then the warming that is left to attribute to CO2 becomes utterly benign.
With natural temperature variation almost certainly both substantially larger than CO2 effects, and headed in the cooling direction, the expected external value of CO2 is unambiguously positive. If anything, we should subsidizing and promoting increases in atmospheric CO2, exactly the opposite of the draft report’s opening claim that developments since AR4 “… [summary conclusion about scientists supposedly being more sure than ever (thanks to the absence of any 21st century warming?) that the effects of human activity are the primary climate concern].”
As someone who recognizes the scientific errors in this disastrous report, I can at least make sure that the issue is put properly before the authors of AR5. Thus I am documenting as concisely as possible the solar-magnetic omission and the errors it leads to. The discussion is substantial but I have kept it well under the character limit for a single comment. This comment is being submitted as a top-level comment on AR5 as a whole, and it is being submitted unaltered as a comment on three different sub-chapter headings where the omitted solar-magnetic evidence ought to be taken into account: ____, ____, ____ [a subheading in the paleo-data chapter, a subheading in the chapter on clouds and aerosols, and a subheading in the radiative forcing chapter].
Konklusjonen på dette er åpenbar:Hvis Rawls' påstander står seg videre i debatten, er dette en skandale av dimensjoner man knapt kunne tro ville skje etter all den kritikk som allerede er reist om overseelser av viktig forskning til fordel for en enøyd AGW/CO2-ortodoksi.
Resten av artikkelen er en omfattende dokumentasjonsdiskusjon av ikke-konsensus-forskning som iht. Rawls er holdt utenfor og sett bort fra i AR5-draftet.
Dette ser m.a.o. ut til å være en repetisjon - muligens enda grovere og mer desperat - enn det jeg nylig har dokumentert av utestenging av kritisk forskning foran AR4 i en annen artikkel her på forumet.
En av kommentarene til artikkelen bekrefter det til fulle:p gosselin says:
February 22, 2012 at 1:35 am
The IPCC 5th report is going to repeat the same shenanigans we saw in AR4. The IPCC cannot justify ignoring the sun based on that they don’t understand the amplification mechanism, but at the same time claim that CO2 has massive positive feedbacks without having a clue how it does.