Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Lienbuster (94.89)

Save the planet and pass the Kool-Aid

Recs

17

January 23, 2010 – Comments (8) | RELATED TICKERS: FR , AU , D

The Economist, a longtime friend to global warming proponents, has reported that the alarming prediction by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the immanent demise of the Himalayan glaciers in 2035 is simply not true. 

 Although over 40,000 comments were made during the IPCC review process, not a single one recognized that the source for their data, an article entitled Down to Earth, was:

A) Looking at all of the world’s glaciers (not just Himalayan glaciers);

B) The research was looking at prospects for 2350 not 2035!  

The IPCC issued a statement on 1/20/2010: “the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.”  

My question is, just how many more of the IPCC’s apocalyptic prognostications are the result of cannibalizing/manipulating “bad science/data”?

Here is a link to the article below: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15328534&source=features_box1 

8 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Option1307 (29.69) wrote:

This mixture of sloppiness, lack of communication and high-handedness gives the IPCC’s critics a lot to work with.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against AGW, but this is getting a litte ridiculous isn't it?

There has been essentially one "incident" after the next recently. I understand that every group/organization/etc. has a few bad apples and this can really dampen things for the whole group, sometimes unfairly. However, how many "issues with the IPCC credibility" are we going to here about before we decide that maybe this is more than just a coincidence?

I don't know the answer, but come on IPCC. Do you really have to keep shooting youself in the foot? It maks it awfully ahrd to take anything you say seriously...

Report this comment
#2) On January 23, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Option1307 (29.69) wrote:

Wow, need an edit fxn.

here = hear

maks = makes

ahrd = hard

Report this comment
#3) On January 23, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Lienbuster (94.89) wrote:

The TimesOnline offers a less faltering view of the IPCC’s proposed transfer of wealth and sovereignty from industrialized nations via carbon taxes to less developed countries to offset the damages incurred as a result of man-made climate change.  

In support of the demand for $100B in compensation at the COP summit the Times cites the arguments made by the gathered luminaries: 

“Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent." 

Last month Gordon Brown, the prime minister, told the Commons that the financial agreement at Copenhagen "must address the great injustice that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those that have done least harm"

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses." (emphasis added)

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.”

In the context of a business transaction this “omission” could be deemed fraud. I suppose in the context of a global transaction of 100B in wealth transference there is a more apropos term for this sort of thing, but fraud sums it up for me.

On the plus side it looks like we all dodged a bullet when COP failed. It is nice to see that investigative reporting is not dead everywhere

Here is a link to the full article:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

Report this comment
#4) On January 23, 2010 at 8:55 PM, ChrisGraley (29.73) wrote:

This is really old news. They knew about the error right after the fact, because they were flooded with responses that it was pretty much impossible.

Years later, they finally decided to admit it and that is why it's news again now.

Report this comment
#5) On January 23, 2010 at 9:04 PM, ease1 (91.20) wrote:

Careful now, talking about this stuff in a negative way will surely bring on an onslaught of graphs and derogatory comments from Lucifer.. ah I mean lucas claiming how stupid everyone is if they don't "believe"..

 

Just saying..

Report this comment
#6) On January 24, 2010 at 8:45 AM, whereaminow (21.88) wrote:

It's really amazing isn't it?  The AGW crowd likes to sqauwk about the sanctity of "peer review."  They utter the words as if the process is a sacred rite of passage to higher knowledge of our planet. 

Obviously, it's a rubber stamped bureaucratic farce. 

Let's just quickly review all things debunked in the last three months:

1.  Open and honest scientists using verifiable methods..... debunked.

2.  Rigorous peer review process to ensure quality research.... debunked.

3.  Advanced computer modelling with accurate temperature sets to forecast future climate changes.... debunked and then debunked again.

4.  Hockey Stick... .debunked

5.  Selfless society-serving scientists (say that 10 times fast) with no financial interest in global warming research... debunked

What's left for the AGW supporters to cling to?  Just ignore it and have "faith" in the IPCC and the CRU fraudsters?  Hmmm, sounds like some people are in denial.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On January 24, 2010 at 1:05 PM, LIMITlosses (< 20) wrote:

It's been said many times before but to correct the problem"1st we must kill a the lawyers" ...king lear

Report this comment
#8) On January 29, 2010 at 7:37 PM, mikebmoney (34.10) wrote:

Child Please...

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2010
February (1) January (4)

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement