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 wasย 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 Climateย 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 IPCC‘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 forthrightย way.

Perhaps most pathetic are the ISPM‘s โ€œSupplementary Informationโ€ sections, in which the Fraser Institute’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 banalย 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 climateย models.

Even more sophomoric is the Fraser Institute’s argument in a โ€œSupplementary Informationโ€ section entitled โ€œDefining ‘Climateย Change:’โ€

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

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

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

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

Related Posts

on

New accounts show the oil and gas industry trying to weaken methane reporting while saving the federal emissions system it relies on.

New accounts show the oil and gas industry trying to weaken methane reporting while saving the federal emissions system it relies on.
on

At the American Legislative Exchange Councilโ€™s annual meeting, members of Leonard Leoโ€™s network explain why the right-wing court majority is crucial for protecting oil companies from climate lawsuits.

At the American Legislative Exchange Councilโ€™s annual meeting, members of Leonard Leoโ€™s network explain why the right-wing court majority is crucial for protecting oil companies from climate lawsuits.
on

Toronto Sun opinion writer Jay Goldberg works for a group that backs Trumpโ€™s AI strategy and has received funding from a Big Tech lobbying firm.

Toronto Sun opinion writer Jay Goldberg works for a group that backs Trumpโ€™s AI strategy and has received funding from a Big Tech lobbying firm.
on

Critics say that as the climate crisis worsens, Aberdeen Science Centre is sending the wrong message by partnering with the Norwegian oil major.

Critics say that as the climate crisis worsens, Aberdeen Science Centre is sending the wrong message by partnering with the Norwegian oil major.