It's Official: Fraser Institute Re-releases Leaked Summary

authordefault
on

The Exxon-funded Fraser Institute officially released its Independent Summary for Policy Makers (ISPM) today, confirming that the version leaked here on the DeSmogBlog last week was authentic.

The Institute also announced that it has scheduled an ongoing attack on the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, promising a โ€œFraser Institute Supplementary Analysis Seriesโ€ on topics such as โ€œFundamental Uncertainties in Climate Modelling.โ€

Still, the denial community is likely to be disappointed with this effort. While hostile analysts were able to imagine serious flaws in the IPCCโ€˜s Third Assessment Report, this โ€œIndependentโ€ summary can do little more than cling to the dwindling uncertainty that the IPCC itself defines in the most forthright way.

Perhaps most pathetic are the ISPMโ€˜s โ€œSupplementary Informationโ€ sections, in which the Fraser Instituteโ€™s โ€œexpertsโ€ add information that they deem under-reported in the 1,600-page IPCC report. For example, the ISPM reports recent record-breaking snowfalls in New York, Boston and Atlantic Canada, introducing the section with this banal question:

ย“โ€Record-breakingย” local hot weather events are sometimes promoted as evidence of global warming. What can we infer if record-breaking cold weather events begin to accumulate in some local data?โ€

They neglect to mention that such weather anomalies are predicted in the most rudimentary climate models.

Even more sophomoric is the Fraser Instituteโ€™s argument in a โ€œSupplementary Informationโ€ section entitled โ€œDefining โ€˜Climate Change:โ€™โ€

โ€œIf the climate is nonstationary, a change in the mean is consistent with an ย‘unchangedย’ climate.โ€

You can almost imagine the assembled โ€œscientistsโ€ sitting around a table, shouting: โ€œAh ha! We sure got them on that one.โ€

Then, they conclude the whole analysis by wondering aloud โ€œwhether or not such (climate) change is a good or bad thing.โ€

Even if the energy industryโ€™s tracks were not evident on this report, itโ€™s hard to believe that any but the most agenda-driven deniers could take it seriously.

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

European leaders are bending to the demands of U.S. climate science deniers.

European leaders are bending to the demands of U.S. climate science deniers.
Series: MAGA
on

From Colorado to Virginia, environmental groups are challenging legal barriers that prevent scientists and communities from seeing the full picture of fossil fuel harms.

From Colorado to Virginia, environmental groups are challenging legal barriers that prevent scientists and communities from seeing the full picture of fossil fuel harms.
on

The anti-climate network received the donation from the owner of a company fined $47 million by the Department of Justice.

The anti-climate network received the donation from the owner of a company fined $47 million by the Department of Justice.
on

Kemi Badenochโ€™s party has been receiving money from fossil fuel interests while pursuing anti-climate policies.

Kemi Badenochโ€™s party has been receiving money from fossil fuel interests while pursuing anti-climate policies.