The Copenhagen Synthesis Report: No, it ain’t so!


I just finished reading this report, that makes one very angry: angry because of real disinformation, half-truths and fully blown lies, that seem to go unchecked by the parroting and copy/paste crowd.

The most annoying writings can be found in the “Key Message 1”  section called “Climatic Trends”.  The graph showing the sea-level rise conveniently uss a scaling that hides the non-rising of the last years clearly documented in the University of Boulder web-site does not show up. The graph of  the change in ocean heat content, in the same vain, hides that since 2003 there was no change (increase) in the observed (not modeled!) upper ocean heat content (as documented by Willis)!

Roger Pielke Sr.  writes an angry post on his website “Climate Science“. Let me just show this :


1. “rising sea levels”

NOT TRUE;  e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.

Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.

2.  “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”


Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.

Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.

3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice”

NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.

These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.

Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.


One really has to ask if these big political machines and maneuvers are trustworthy anymore, or if, as the German say “Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel”.

A politicised and activist science is not Science, and it should not be relied upon.

3 Responses to “The Copenhagen Synthesis Report: No, it ain’t so!”

  1. Mark Says:

    Oh just shut the **** up will you?

    I could go on but what’s the point? You’ve made your mind up and nothing will change that.

    • fmassen Says:

      As comments are not frequent on this blog, I refrain from deleting this one. It is a pity that “argumentation” in climate affairs/opinions reverts to stone-age manners. As a skeptical of the quasi-religious consensus on AGW I am always eager to change my mind, if good observational data demand this. For the moment my mind tells me that the anthropogenic influence (mainly CO2 emissions) is overblown, and natural variability silenced by the politically correct crowds. A big exception to this being M. Latif’s Geneva comments. (see:

  2. John A. Jauregui Says:

    …the interaction of science, advocacy and politics in both the global warming and eugenics cases share a number of characteristics:

    • Powerful advocacy groups claiming to represent both science and the public in the name of morality and superior wisdom.

    • Simplistic depictions of the underlying science so as to facilitate widespread ‘understanding.’

    • ‘Events’, real or contrived, interpreted in such a manner as to promote a sense of urgency in the public at large.

    • Scientists flattered by public attention and deferent to ‘political will’ and popular assessment of virtue.

    • Significant numbers of scientists eager to produce the science demanded by the ‘public.’

    Prof. R. S. Lindzen, MIT

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: