Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Leaker Of The New UNIPCC Fifth Assessment Report Charges Systematic Fraud

The Leaker of the UNIPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Alex Rawls, Says Report Shows "Systematic Fraud": Solar Activity Has Affected the Earth's Temperature Moreso Than Global Warming Proponents Are Willing to Admit

Mr. Rawls says new report commits "omitted variable fraud."

"Expert review" of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th (this would be the 10th of December, 2012, we assume). Here is the first paragraph of my (Alex Rawls') submitted critique:

"My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call "the omitted variable problem" (or when it is intentional, "omitted variable fraud"). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.

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 forums, such as blogs.'

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 [from the new report], 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."

Introduction to the "omitted variable fraud" critique, continued...

See the rest of his article here:

Note: This has only been out since mid-December, 2012. No one so far has tried to claim the report is fraudulent - as far as we can discover. A few Warmers have in fact responded to it.

Rawls also says that the US Climate Czar bureaucracy, created by Albert Gore twenty-years ago, tries to see to it that no funds go to any researcher or group that does not toe the global warming line. No news there - but is another witness to the anti-science tyranny carried out by Warmists to protect and promote their hoax. The US has, according to the figures he cites, has already spent $80 billion on fighting this Phantom Beast (our term - Rawls'). While we figured less, any amount is too much - but when you figure a nation spent over $600 billion to prepare for another Phantom Beast, Y2-K, then $80 billion is a light figure. Imagine what we will spend - if you dare.

One weakness in Mr. Rawls view, as we see it, is that he has only one sentence he can use about solar heating. He does, however, do an excellent job of presenting his "omitted variable fraud" and what he calls systematic fraud.

Another weakness, in our view, is that he is a little too much Republican for our tastes - giving the implication that the Republicans are correct on the warming issue. It is true that at least they don't have it stuck in their political platform - and that a few of them have tried to stand against this boiling juggernaut, such as Senator Inhofe (R-OK) who has done an excellent job within the government of publically exposing this horrible hoax, to little aid at this point, to our sadness.

But there are plenty Rs stuck in the steaming smoke of the AGW Hoax, including John McCain, the entire Bush family (as far as we can tell they either believe that C02 is evil because it is a polluter or a heater), a large majority of Rs in the House and about 25 or so in the Senate. We can find very few people within the US Government who are not at least lukewarm.

Rawls' work obviously demands the question be asked as to where is the research behind that one statement - and why is it not in the report? Why toss that one sentence in, then leave it at that? Was the sentence itself an oversight? And he does certainly ask some of those questions.

Alex Rawls says: "Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole."

The Warmers will quite typically attempt to shoot him as the messenger, most likely because he is an economist - not a scientist. But that truly gives him more (or at least as much) ability to point out systematic fraud, especially of the "omitted variable" type.

But the problem for Rawls is not at all whether he is correct or whether he has presented a strong argument or a weak one. (similar for all who point out this Hoax) One man fighting a bureaucracy established for the express purpose of promoting global warming! That is the problem - doubled over again and again.

It's doubtful he'll get very far unless a wealthy, powerful group takes the fight up along with him. And what evil group of rich people would that be, pray tell? There are so many greedy, rich people out there who hate the planet and wish to continue robbing it so that they can destroy it and get richer while doing it - one wonders why they're not popping up on every corner raising their cash-fat hands to get in line to help Mr. Rawls. Yet they are not

Remember when reading the following that humans still don't have a way to determine a "global temperature." Remember too how the Warmers have jiggered the temperature records to show warming over the last century - and even then it is ever so slight. The truth is, the planet could be cooling. We simply do not know - but we do know that all of their theoretical predictive models have failed (they tell us they are greatly improved though; that is refreshing, even though they predict the same catastrophic future, just as their old models did, if humans don't severely restrict themselves from breathing, eating, driving, flushing commodes, drinking water, having sex, and producing children).

Go here to see how far off their models have been from the true temps:

Here is what some of the Warmers have had to say about the charges by Alex Rawls:

"The solar component is real but not of sufficient magnitude to have driven most of the warming of the late 20th century," Pat Michaels, the former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and current director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.

"I see climate contrarians try this trick almost every time a big new solar study comes out. They somehow tend to neglect mentioning that solar variation is smaller than the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide," Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

We say: Don't tell us - show us!

Rawls responds to them with this: "While solar activity has indeed stopped increasing, the important thing is that it remains at a historically high level. The simplest way to put it is like this: If you put a pot on the stove at the maximum temperature, and leave it on at that temperature - are you telling me that the pot won't keep warming?"

Seems reasonable, by Jove.

This one sentence in the report struck us: "It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has increased during the last two centuries."

Very likely!! The truth is, they don't know! But they want us to turn ourselves into abstentious monks on a "very likely" event!!??

See the full draft of the leaked UNIPCC' WGI Fifth Assessment Report Here:

Rawls' charge is worth getting out - but the weight it should carry against the Warmers' claims is not settled at this point. The weight of fraud is powerful, and we know that the UNIPCC has in the past distorted data, rigged temp numbers, and moved weather stations in a what seems to be a definitive effort to show warming. All of these vain efforts ought to enlighten them that they should have stuck with Global Freezing - because that could indeed be a possibility the way things are looking. But sane people cannot automatically conclude that humans are causing that cooling.

The report is the more dire of all the Warmists have put out so far. The cure, however is exactly the same: that governments must quickly act to save humanity by taxing, restricting, and controlling human activity - the same minacious scream we've heard for forty-years.

We say: What else?

Compiled by Candy Goldstein, Tilly Rae Frederick, Strasen Gildeen, and Michelle St. Jacques.

Edited by the ArtfulDodger