The IPCC is completely shot. Turns out that their "research" and "consensus" on global warming is a scam and a farce, with research quality which would have gotten me pulled up for academic integrity in High School. There is both an upside and a downside to this. The upside is that the idiotic mindless belief that we are on the brink of disaster and have to sacrifice our economies and thus global development in order to "save the world".

Sidenote: think about it this way global warming believers. A truly "green" global agreement with a target of 450 or 350ppm would lead to millions (billions?) of people in poverty over time who otherwise would have been lifted out. You see it as limiting big evil companies, but its really cutting back on development for the people who need it most. Cutting back on growth in the US and EU is a direct attack on the lives, health, and safety of billions of people around the country. You always quote numbers based on pseudo-science about how many will be harmed by climate change, but never stop to consider how many will be harmed by trying to prevent a mirage.

On to the story:
The Great IPCC Meltdown Continues

It’s not just the threat of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035.

Now another headline grabbing IPCC scare story is melting away. A report in Sunday’s London Times highlights new humiliations for the IPCC.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

There is however one teensy-weensy little problem. As Professor Chris Field, the lead author of the IPCC’s climate impact team has now told reporters that he can find “no evidence” to support the claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report.

There’s more. When the glacier story broke, IPCC apologists returned over and over again to a saving grace. The bogus glacier report appeared in the body of the IPCC document, but not in the much more carefully vetted Synthesis Report, in which the IPCC’s senior leadership made its specific recommendations to world leaders. So it didn’t matter that much, the apologists told us, and we can still trust the rigorously checked and reviewed Synthesis Report.

But that’s where the African rain crisis prediction is found — in the supposedly sacrosanct Synthesis Report.

So: the Synthesis Report contains a major scare prediction — 50% shortfall in North African food production just ten years from now — and there is no serious, peer-reviewed evidence that the prediction is true.

But there’s more. Much, much more. Readers of the Times and the Telegraph are watching the IPCC’s credibility disappear before their eyes. The former head of IPCC has publicly said the IPCC risks losing all credibility if it can’t clean up its act. The head of the largest British funder of environmental research has joined the head of Greenpeace UK in criticizing the IPCC. (At Greenpeace, they want Pachauri to resign.) The Dutch government has demanded that the IPCC correct its erroneous assertion that half of the Netherlands is below sea level. Actually, it’s only about a quarter. A prediction about the impact of sea level increases on people living in the Nile Delta was taken from an unpublished student dissertation. The report contained inaccurate data about generating energy from waves and about the cost of nuclear power (this information was apparently taken without being checked directly from a website supported by the nuclear power industry).

No comments:

Post a Comment