« Back to Home Page

Skeptic Leaks Latest IPCC Draft Claiming It Overturns Global Warming Theory

RP Siegel | Wednesday December 19th, 2012 | 4 Comments

IcebergOver the past few weeks, we have seen Hurricane Sandy initiate a new high water mark in the level of discussion and concern expressed about our society’s role in the changing climate – much as Sandy Hook has stirred up deep reflection on this nation’s love affair with guns.

Of course, entrenched interests who continue to gobble up huge fortunes from the status quo, even as we speak, are not, despite the turning tide of public opinion, going to give up without a fight. Indeed, their adherents continue to come crawling out of the woodwork at every turn. Recently, we described the efforts of groups like American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to try and turn back as much progress as they can on renewable energy in order to prolong our addiction to fossil fuels. After all, even one percent of billions, is still tens of millions.

Now we have another Alec, a climate skeptic named Alec Rawls, who gained access to the latest (fifth) IPCC draft report by posing as a reviewer and then posting an unauthorized copy of it on the web, despite having signed a confidentiality agreement that forbade him to do so. After cherry-picking the text, he used some out-of-context and unreviewed passages to suggest that some newly disclosed findings would undermine the science connecting human activity and rising temperatures.

In leaking the unauthorized copy, Rawls focuses his commentary on the phenomenon of solar forcings.  He claims, “The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum.”

Of course, no sooner was his release made public than fellow skeptics piled on, calling the disclosure a game-changer.

But, the fact of the matter is, it simply isn’t. Climate scientists have been talking about solar forcings, also known as the cosmic ray effect, all along, and have consistently agreed that they have little to no impact. This latest report is no different. Rawls, apparently seeing what he wanted to see, simply misread it.

When asked about Rawls’ assertions, Steve Sherwood, one of the authors of the report, said, “that’s completely ridiculous. I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.”

This is the paragraph that Rawls highlighted:

“Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system. The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.”

This talk of an “amplifying mechanism,” could be construed as an alternative explanation to the warming we have experienced. Except for the fact that another paragraph, which appears a few pages later (that Rawls fails to highlight), states otherwise.

“Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN [cloud condensation nuclei] or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.”

Nice try, Mr. Smart Alec, but it appears that you will need to do a little more homework before you can overturn the world’s scientific consensus.

Speaking of homework, according to Rawls’ bio, he was a PhD candidate in economics at Stanford when some kind of moral imperative caused him to leave.

The IPCC has issued a statement in response to the leak, focusing more on the process than the content of the disclosure. They did point out, however, that, “The text that has been posted is not the final report.”

[Image credit: caro77: Flickr Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.


Categorized: Climate Change|

Newsletter Signup
  • Paul S

    Also, you can learn from his bio that he was the editor of “The Stanford Review,” which is your typical fascist-in-training right-wing student rag. Seeing as how he also wrote a book about how the Flight 93 memorial was actually a SECRET MUSLIM MEGA MOSQUE, I think it is safe to say that he is a couple of spoons short of a tea set. The IPCC can let this one go.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alec-Rawls/220013 Alec Rawls

      Right. Al Qaeda would never want to attack America. Why the very idea should be dismissed out of hand. No need to look at the facts here!

  • davidg

    Who the heck is RP Siegel and what does he know about climate?! Nobody and nothing, from the looks of this knee-jerk and arrogant attack on people who know a great deal more than he does.. I’ve never read of any papers by you and here you are making ad-hominem attacks because you don’t have a leg to stand on scientifically, doofus!

    Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is an example of the big lie, the bigger the better. Edward Bernays, the father of PR and the author of Propaganda, whose books had pride of place on Hitler’s bookshelf, explained long ago how to get people to believe nonsense like CAGW and people are stupid and afraid, so they believe it, temporarily. Now it has been exposed, no warming in 17 years means the theory doesn’t match the evidence. That means, idiot, that you get rid of the theory, not the evdience!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alec-Rawls/220013 Alec Rawls

    RP: I didn’t “pose as a reviewer.” I was a reviewer. And please look again at the sentence from the draft report that I highlighted, where the IPCC admits that solar-climate
    relationships found in the geologic record imply “the existence of AN amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.” (Emphasis added.)

    Yes, the report does go on to judge (very prematurely) that the evidence for the GCR-cloud mechanism suggests that it is a weak effect. This judgment about the GCR-cloud mechanism leaves completely intact their admission of strong evidence that SOME substantial such mechanism is at work. But indeed, they proceed to do just as you do here: they pretend that their belittling of one candidate mechanism of solar amplification
    justifies ignoring the evidence from the paleo-evidence for SOME substantial mechanism of solar amplification.

    That is an exact inversion of the scientific method. They (and you) are using theory (your claim to be able to dismiss one particular theory) as a grounds for ignoring evidence. But the scientific method is defined by the priority of evidence over theory. Using theory to dismiss evidence is pure, definitional, anti-science. Congratulations.