Heliogenic Climate Change

“The watchdog organisation CDM Watch has confronted the United Nations with new evidence that alleged emissions reductions from HFC-23 destruction projects under the [UN's] CDM [Clean Development Mechanism] offsetting mechanism are actually increasing global greenhouse gas emissions. The evidence was put forward in an official submission which calls for a benchmark to cut the inflated number of carbon credits generated by these projects by more than 90%.

HFC-23 is a potent greenhouse gas which is an unwanted byproduct of manufacturing the refrigerant gas HCFC-22. Under the UNFCCC’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the destruction of HFC- 23 generates emission reduction credits that are used to fulfil commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. While all 2236 currently registered projects are estimated to generate about 1 billion credits by 2012, only 19 registered CDM HFC-23 projects would be accountable for about half of the issued credits under current rules.

Analysis of monitoring data from all registered HFC-23 destruction projects revealed that CDM HCFC-22 plants are intentionally operated in a manner to maximize the production of offset credits. The analysis indicates that because of the extra CDM revenue more HCFC-22 is produced and far more HFC-23 [is] generated than would occur without the CDM.

“The amount of HCFC-22 production and HFC-23 generation appears to be mainly driven by the possibility to generate offset credits rather than other factors”, summarizes Lambert Schneider who evaluated the data.  …

Due to the lack of action by the CDM Executive Board to address these flaws, CDM Watch has now submitted a formal proposal to revise the crediting methodology in line with UN procedures.  …

“The revision would ensure that the CDM projects achieve actual mitigation because it would remove the current financial incentive that causes plants to produce gas for the sole purpose of getting paid to destroy it …”, explains Eva Filzmoser, Director of CDM Watch.

“It’s completely unacceptable for the UN to keep issuing an inflated number of bogus credits that create vast profits for carbon trading groups and chemical companies. If the UN wishes to avoid irreparable damage to its reputation and show that is truly serious about climate mitigation, it must take action now. The CDM Executive Board must put the current methodology on hold with immediate effect and halt issuing credits until the methodology is revised,” [said] Eva Filzmoser.”  “UN Under Pressure to Halt Gaming and Abuse of CDM“

““REDD [the UN's Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation program] is branded as a friendly forest conservation program, yet it is backed by big polluters and climate profiteers … ,” said Alberto Saldamando, legal counsel for the International Indian Treaty Council.  …

“REDD is not a solution to climate change,” said Marlon Santi, President of CONAIE, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, the largest Indigenous organization in that country. “REDD has been created by multilateral institutions like the World Bank that routinely violate Indigenous Peoples’ rights and pollute Mother Earth.  … REDD should not be implemented in any country or community.”

“REDD is a predatory program that pretends to save forests and the climate, while backhandedly selling out forests out from under our Indigenous Peoples,” said Tom Goldtooth, Director of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), based in Bemidji, MN. “REDD will encourage continuing pollution and global warming, while displacing those of us least responsible for the crisis, who have been stewards of the forests since time immemorial.””  “Indigenous Peoples meeting in Cochabamba condemn “predatory REDD forest programs””

-

“[T]he idea that REDD could help secure the territories or consolidate the rights and livelihoods of forest-dependent peoples is ludicrous. In the voluntary carbon markets, carbon forestry and REDD-type projects have already resulted in land seizures, violent evictions, forced displacement, violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, militarization, loss of access to land and livelihood, loss of biological diversity, fraud, coercion and the corruption of the sacred. Inclusion of forests and tree plantations in the giant compliance carbon market could only multiply such abuses.”  “Sign on to the Durban statement: “No REDD! No REDD Plus!”“

This will never happen — UN climate fat cats won’t give up their all-expenses-paid globe-trotting boondoggles to exotic locals like Bali:

“A plan to find a permanent home for U.N. climate meetings could result in more work getting done and a reduction in travel emissions, British officials said.The proposal, supported by Britain, would designate a permanent home for the Conferences of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The plan would create a permanent governing council and appoint a new head with greater authority, The Times of London reported Friday.

For the last 20 years, as many as 20,000 people at a time have traveled to cities in Indonesia, Morocco, Spain, Brazil, Japan, Denmark and other countries for meetings on climate change.

The jump to a new city distracts from negotiations and increases the amount of air-polluting emissions, the plan’s supporters said.

More than half of the officials come from Europe, making it a likely home for a permanent center, though developing countries could argue they are overdue to host a U.N. institution, The Times reported.”  “Plan Calls for Permanent U.N. Climate Host“

“Germany will host an extra session of U.N. climate talks in April …

[Danish Climate and Energy Minister Lykke Friis, who presides over the U.N. negotiations,] said that 11 representatives of key nations decided at a one-day meeting at the headquarters of the Bonn-based U.N. Climate Change Secretariat to add an extra session of senior officials from 194 nations in the Germany city from April 9-11.  …

The April meeting, of senior government officials, would be preceded by one-day preparatory talks among key groups of nations. The April talks would also decide if more U.N. meetings were needed before Cancun.”  “Bonn To Host Extra U.N. Climate Talks, Treaty Unsure“

“On balance if you look at all the things the IPCC has been doing over the last number of years, they were trying very hard to put in all the peer-reviewed serious stuff. I’ve actually always felt that they were taking a somewhat conservative stand on many issues and for justifiable reasons.”  Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy

“Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ top climate official [Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change], announced Thursday that he would step down from his post in July to work in the private sector on environmental sustainability.”  “U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer to quit in July“

“And just in case further evidence is needed, [a] recent 2009 paper by Turner et al. (on which Comiso was a co-author), concluded that:

Based on a new analysis of passive microwave satellite data, we demonstrate that the annual mean extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.97% dec^-1 since the late 1970s.

This rate of increase is nearly twice as great as the value given in the [UN IPCC's] AR4 (from its non-peer-reviewed source).

So, the peer reviewed literature, both extant at the time of the AR4 as well as published since the release of the AR4, shows that there has been a significant increase in the extent of sea ice around Antarctica since the time of the first satellite observations observed in the late 1970s. And yet the AR4 somehow “assessed” the evidence and determined not only that the increase was only half the rate established in the peer-reviewed literature, but also that it was statistically insignificant as well. And thus, the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic was downplayed in preference to highlighting the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

It is little wonder why, considering that the AR4 found that “Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.””  “Another IPCC error:  antarctic sea ice increase underestimated by 50%“

The IPCC, citing yet another WWF “study”, concludes in AR4 that AGW causes droughts.  But the reverse is actually true:  droughts (no water) lead to lack of evaporation which leads to increase in air temperature (the heat which would otherwise be used to evaportate water remains in the air instead).  Read the whole article here:  “Droughtgate: Study Finds IPCC had Temperature – Drought Connection Backwards“

Rahjendra Pachauri:  “If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?”  “Climate Science Leader Rajendra K. Pachauri Confronts the Critics“  h/t Icecap Feb. 6

“The news that the IPCC cited a master’s student’s dissertation caused quite a stir. However, this citation wasn’t alone in the IPCC’s AR4. There are nine citations of Master’s theses altogether, and two of those weren’t even published. There were also thirty-one PHD theses or dissertations, one of which was unpublished, and three of which are from the University of East Anglia. Here is the list below …”  “IPCC cited multiple master’s students in AR4, some unpublished“

“Climate science credibility requires the creation of a alternative scientific body outside of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. William Sprigg, research professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona and head of the International Technical Review Panel for IPCC’s first report, told the Thirteenth Annual Energy and Environment Expo in Phoenix, Arizona.

The alternative science panel should be funded and administered by non-government, private entities, Sprigg emphasized.

“To improve credibility, we need one more group to study the issue carefully,” said Sprigg. “This group should not be funded by the government, but should be funded by the private sector. We must allow alterative views into the system and show that we are doing so.”

Sprigg observed that IPCC reports have not undergone any internal technical review since he headed the International Technical Review Panel for IPCC’s first report in 1990. Technical review, Sprigg said, should be resumed to enhance accuracy and credibility.  …

Sprigg’s observations are particularly noteworthy because he held such important role with IPCC and he is not one of the so-called “skeptics” that have strongly challenged IPCC and its claims that humans are creating a global warming crisis.  …

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should undertake substantial reforms and revisions, Sprigg answered. “There will be some reforms,” said Sprigg. “There will be changes in the peer-review process. There are calls for Pachauri to resign. Since the IPCC’s first report, there has been no technical review. There are other reforms that need to be done as well. We need to take into consideration the perceptions of IPCC. We tend to get some hubris some times.””  “Former IPCC Leader Says Alternative Group Needed“

“Head of UN climate change body ‘not at fault’ for false claim Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

The embattled chief of the UN’s climate change body has hit out at his critics and refused to resign or apologise for a ­damaging mistake in a landmark 2007 report on global warming.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that ­Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report. “You can’t expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report,” he said.

The IPCC issued a statement that expressed regret for the mistake, but Pachauri said a personal apology would be a “populist” step.”  “No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy“

“The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.  …

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.  … [I]t is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.  …[W]hat they claim is complete nonsense.”  …

[N]either the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.  …

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC’s latest report, added: “The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.  …

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report … “  “UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article“  h/t Larry Tomasson

“Another day, another IPCC-gate.  …

The attachment of “gate” to this scandal is more than appropriate.  In its original 1973-4  incarnation, little bits of information, snippets of foul play, and deletions of records dripped out one-by-one over a year.  Ultimately the person responsible, President Richard Nixon, had to resign.

We’re seeing the same with climategate and the IPCC.  Wouldn’t if just save everyone a lot of time and trouble if Rajenda Pauchari resigned and the United Nations disbanded the IPCC.  Neither its head nor its body have any remaining credibility, so why not put it out of its misery?”  “Kill the IPCC“

““I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it.” That was the verdict of Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, after the organisation was forced to admit the total invalidity of its scare-mongering claims that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.” “IPCC’s vice-chairman thinks its glaciers gaffe has increased its credibilty: up to a point, Lord Copper“

As the credibility of the IPCC, the “scientific” basis of Rudd’s ETS scheme, collapses, Rudd reintroduces the ETS:

“Australia’s ruling Labor Party, seeking to pass a carbon trading scheme, will reintroduce the already-rejected climate change proposal to the House of Representatives when parliament returns next week.  …

Global warming is at the top of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s agenda as he heads into a year that may see an election fought over the issue. Australia’s Senate rejected Rudd’s carbon bill for a second time in December, a day after the issue forced a leadership change in the opposition Liberal Party that saw Malcolm Turnbull replaced by Tony Abbott.

Abbott argues the proposal will raise costs without mitigating climate change.”  “Australia’s Govt to Reintroduce Carbon Plan Next Week“

“Every time I have questioned our politicians about global warming they have fallen back on the mantra that “2,500 scientists can’t be wrong”, referring to the vast numbers supposedly behind the IPCC consensus.

But it is now clear that the majority of those involved in the IPCC process are not scientists at all but politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.   …

[W]hat has become clear in the past couple of months is that, contrary to what many leaders have claimed, the science as promulgated by the IPCC is very far from “settled” and that there are important questions still to ask. The mainstream media has been slow to do this.

The bloggers, too easily dismissed in the past, have set the pace with some real scoops — and some of the mainstream media is now rushing to catch up.

The sceptics may be about to get their first scalp. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman often wrongly described in the media as the world’s leading climate scientist (he’s actually a railway engineer), at first attacked those who questioned the IPCC’s alarming glacier prediction as “arrogant” and believers in “voodoo science”.

He’s since had to retract the prediction but can’t quite manage an apology — and is now under mounting pressure in his Indian homeland to resign.”  “The dam is cracking“

“What attracted our attention most, however, was this claim [by the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (Oxfam)]

According to the IPCC, climate change could halve yields from rain-fed crops in parts of Africa as early as 2020, and put 50 million more people worldwide at risk of hunger. [Pg. 2]

We looked to see if it was true. All we could find in the IPCC report was this.

In other [African] countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003). [IPCC WGII, Page 448. 9.4.4]

Oxfam cite the IPCC, but the citation belongs to Agoumi. The IPCC reference his study properly:

Agoumi, A., 2003: Vulnerability of North African countries to climatic changes: adaptation and implementation strategies for climatic change. Developing Perspectives on Climate Change: Issues and Analysis from Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. IISD/Climate Change Knowledge Network, 14 pp. (PDF).

There is only limited discussion of “deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture” in that paper, and its focus is not ‘some’ African countries, but just three: Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria. It is not climate research. It is a discussion about the possible effects of climate change.  …

Most interestingly, the study was not simply produced by some academic working in some academic department, for publication in some peer-reviewed journal. Instead, it was published by The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).  …

Oxfam takes its authority from the IPCC. The IPCC report seemingly takes its authority from a bullet point in a paper published by an organisation with a declared political interest in the sustainability agenda …

That the IPCC is citing non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific research from … sustainability advocacy organisations must say something about the dearth of scientific or empirical research. The paper in question barely provides any references for its own claims, yet by virtue of merely appearing in the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report, a single study, put together by a single researcher, becomes “consensus science”.”  “More laundered literature:  a guest post by Ben Pile“

“Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, Ont., and a well-known IPCC critic, says the panel’s scientific failings, and its willingness to cross the line into advocacy, will eventually percolate into the policy arena.

“The halo has come off the IPCC,” he says. “At the time of the 2007 report, there were very few politicians willing to question statements from the IPCC. Now, as this plays out, people will start to be embarrassed to cite the IPCC.”  …

“The IPCC is not going to be able to recover from this unless there’s an honest attempt to reform their procedures,” says McKitrick. “They need to start doing what they’ve always claimed to do — to be balanced, and open, and scientifically rigorous.”"  “Canadian scientist says UN’s global warming panel ‘crossing the line’“  h/t Marc Morano

“At its heart, the Himalayan glacier scandal that has recently shaken the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) involves a document created by the WWF.

The WWF is an activist organization. Much of its funding comes from public donations. The more successful the WWF is at persuading the public that there’s a crisis, the more likely people are to give it money. (In North America, WWF stands for World Wildlife Fund. Elsewhere, it stands for World Wide Fund for Nature.) …

The IPCC, on the other hand, describes itself as “a scientific body” that provides “the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change” by assessing “the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information.” [bold added]

Many people would consider it improper for a science-focused organization to rely on a document created by an oil company, since the oil company can’t be counted on to provide the whole story. Surely, therefore, it is equally improper for the IPCC to consider a statement to be true solely because an activist group says it is.  …

But that is not how the IPCC behaves. AR4 is the shorthand name for the 2007 Nobel-winning IPCC report. When one types “WWF” into an AR4 search box dozens of references are returned.  …

All told, an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF is cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC report:  [list here]

I’ve only spent a few hours tracking these down, so there may be more.

I haven’t yet fully explored the Greenpeace citations, but two occur in the first paragraph on this page.  …

This, apparently, is how you win a Nobel prize.”  “More dodgy citations in the Nobel-winning IPCC report“