IPCC based claims on a student dissertation and a magazine article

posted at 11:56 am on January 31, 2010 by Karl

This story just keeps getting better:

The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]‘s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

Neither the article nor the dissertation was subject to peer review. Moreover, the Sunday Telegraph notes that the latest IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed reports from the World Wildlife Fund.

Then again, the ClimateGate scandal has raised questions about the the quality and process of peer review in the field of climate change, so maybe it is more honest for the IPCC to rely on a magazine article. It is arguably more honest than covering up the inconvenient truth that the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 was based on nothing but speculation.

These lapses should be a source of embarrassment to those involved, but apparently are not to the UK’s weather service:

The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: “The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed.” (Emphasis added.)

It is impossible for the IPCC to continue drawing only from peer-reviewed studies, because they clearly are not doing that now.

Thanks to Kathleen McKinley for the tip.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

I’ve absolutely no bias against geography majors, but I would think that a dissertation written by a major in climatology, or meteorology, or even geology would have been more credible.

But obviously, they found a dissertation that agreed with their already-decided-on conclusions, and went with it.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Climate science will now have to have an * next to it, like the baseball players who did steroids.

4shoes on January 31, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Oh, and I’m sure those Alps mountain guides are world-renowned climatologists as well.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2010 at 12:03 PM

C’mon tell me again how “the science is settled.”

Skt510 on January 31, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Money, money, money.

BKeyser on January 31, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Don’t forget that they also based their claims on some guy name Johann who was skiing and thought that it felt a little warm.

NeoKong on January 31, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Sadly,0bama has decided that the rest of us are dolts, reference his claimed at the SOTU , the science is proven !

Green as we all now know is the new RED and enviromentalism the front line!

Sandybourne on January 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM

AGW will be cataloged in the library under the Dewey system as 398, fables, fiction and folklore.

Electrongod on January 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM

O/T: (sorry Karl)

Just heard on CNN from Gibb’s mouth: “We’re on the five yard line….we’re ONE VOTE away from passing health care reform in the HOUSE.
This is getting un-nerving!

Rovin on January 31, 2010 at 12:11 PM

The basic problem here isn’t the IPCC, but the very existence of its parent, the United Nations. The UN misstated the facts on the Iranian nuke program, too. The UN today is a wholly corrupt organization, much like the defunct Soviet Union.

Let’s get the United States out of the United Nations, and the United Nations out of the United States.

Emperor Norton on January 31, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Oh, and I’m sure those Alps mountain guides are world-renowned climatologists as well.

Nah, the disqualifying part is that it’s anecdotal evidence, not empirical. The guides — prepped by news reports of “global warming” — will notice things that reinforce that bias, and discount things that do not. It’s not their fault; they’re not attempting to do science, just act as guides.

The whole purpose of the scientific method is to factor out individual biases. What’s happened is that ideologues have figured out how to use the practices formed to deal with individual biases to introduce institutional biases.

Crawford on January 31, 2010 at 12:15 PM

All papers are pier reviewed. One a week the entire staff has lunch down on the pier and gleans magazine articles for reports of Global Warming Climate Change Scary Weather that will kill us all.

Rocks on January 31, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Just heard on CNN from Gibb’s mouth: “We’re on the five yard line….we’re ONE VOTE away from passing health care reform in the HOUSE.

I don’t think he means 1 vote as in 1 more congressperson, he means 1 more vote of the entire House

nothing new, just bs for the left and keeping up appearances

windansea on January 31, 2010 at 12:19 PM

windansea on January 31, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Yes,but they turned the ball over to the other team on downs.

Rocks on January 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India earlier this month, tells the story of Sanjay Nath, an academic in his 60s reminiscing on his “spiritual journey” through India, Peru and the US.

On the way he encounters, among others, Shirley MacLaine, the actress, who appears as a character in the book. While relations between Sanjay and MacLaine remain platonic, he enjoys sex – a lot of sex – with a lot of women.

In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.

The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has “endangered the fragile ecosystem”.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/30/return-to-almora/

windansea on January 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM

31,486 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Sandybourne on January 31, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Anecdotally, this past year was rather cool; but then again cooler weather is a consequence of Goebbels warmening.

Next revelation? All those pictures of glacial retreat were based on kindergarteners’ crayon drawings.

rbj on January 31, 2010 at 12:25 PM

But wait, there’s more.

First, Glaciergate. Now Amazongate:
Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC’s failures, From UK Telegraph, Jan 30th
The claim in an IPCC report that 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could disappear through global warming turned out to be unfounded

The IPCC is beginning to melt as global tempers rise, says Christopher Booker

petefrt on January 31, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Using students’ work isn’t new-Mann’s “Hockey Stick” paper was the work he did for his Ph.D. dissertaion…

oddball on January 31, 2010 at 12:32 PM

What causes a threat to haggis and causes all sorts of critter invasions? AGW!!!!!!arghhhh!

daesleeper on January 31, 2010 at 12:35 PM

The only review these corrupted charlatans are doing is checking the books to see how much largess they’ve been able to sucker out of tax payers. They can then determine how much they’ll have to kick back to the world’s corrupt political classes and keep the money flowing.

chickasaw42 on January 31, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Can you imagine how many emails are being deleted off of their servers? It’s a good time to be the guy in charge of maintaining the server. I’m sure they’re making a lot in extra “commissions.”

Mojave Mark on January 31, 2010 at 12:38 PM

whoa whoa whoa

is karl no longer green room status?

nice

blatantblue on January 31, 2010 at 12:39 PM

The biggest scam in the history of Science will die hard because participating in it pays so well. These hoaxers need to start losing their jobs.

SurferDoc on January 31, 2010 at 12:47 PM

BTW, at the Master’s level it is traditionally called a “thesis” not a “dissertation”, which is a Doctoral level paper.

SurferDoc on January 31, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Climate science will now have to have an * next to it, like the baseball players who did steroids.

4shoes on January 31, 2010 at 12:02 PM

At least the baseball players were only slightly aided by the steroids. They were already good.

The climate science was completely made up from glaciers to global temps to hurricanes to deserts…

Now if steroids could turn somebody like say, Allahpundit, into a Hall of Fame calibur baseball player, that might be comparable.

uknowmorethanme on January 31, 2010 at 12:50 PM

whoa whoa whoa

is karl no longer green room status?

nice

blatantblue on January 31, 2010 at 12:39 PM

I think Sundays are guest poster day.

Three posts today by The Boss, Cassy Fiano, and Karl.

uknowmorethanme on January 31, 2010 at 12:52 PM

It’s all about wealth redistribution. It has nothing to do with science. The UN should be dismantled.

d1carter on January 31, 2010 at 12:53 PM

How in the world do they get away with this? And Sen. Graham still wants to push forward.

Cindy Munford on January 31, 2010 at 12:54 PM

How in the world do they get away with this? And Sen. Graham still wants to push forward.

Cindy Munford on January 31, 2010 at 12:54 PM

That is where we are at with this “Man Made Global Warming” fraud right now.

There does not seem to be one single claim by the eco-fundamentalist that has stood the ground of scrutiny and scientific research.

The scientist have been found to be frauds that falsified their data to reach predetermined conclusions.

None of their predictions of looming disaster are coming true.

How can they still try and push this international fraud that the American press is helping enable by ignoring it?

Baxter Greene on January 31, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Never fear, IPCC, Out: NASA’s heroic moon effort. In: NASA’s odious AGW effort.

wildcat84 on January 31, 2010 at 1:04 PM

But obviously, they found a dissertation that agreed with their already-decided-on conclusions, and went with it.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Pretty much sums up the whole platform of liberals period.

Ignore reality and only push what they can find that supports their ideology.

Baxter Greene on January 31, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Considering that some of his fellow students probably read his paper, isn’t it as well peer-reviewed as anything else in the IPCC report?

Fred 2 on January 31, 2010 at 1:10 PM

“Fake But Accurate”

the_nile on January 31, 2010 at 1:13 PM

31,486 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs: http://www.petitionproject.org/
Sandybourne on January 31, 2010 at 12:22 PM

So? What do a few thousand scientists who aren’t even smart enough to be interviewed on TV know about anything?

That paper was fully cited. If these anti-global-warming brainiacs of yours want to disprove it, all they have to do is go out and recheck the findings of: “a bunch of hikers; one of whom, I think, may have been named Bjorne, or Mike, or something like that.”

logis on January 31, 2010 at 1:14 PM

In: NASA’s odious AGW effort.

wildcat84 on January 31, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Yeah, we can add NASA to the fast growing list of agencies that are being redirected toward documenting AGW. What with Climategate growing bigger almost daily, I imagine the O-bots have hit the panic button. Probably they’ll be redirecting even more agencies toward shoring up the case for AGW, until they get their cap-n-trade bill passed.

petefrt on January 31, 2010 at 1:18 PM

There\’s nothing inherently wrong with student-written papers – as a grad student (quite a few years ago) I wrote a number of them myself.The problem seems to be that the \”data\” in this paper consisted of interviews with mountain guides – hardly objective, hard scientific evidence like actual measurements of glacier dimensions over many years.I keep seeing these interviews with arctic fishermen who say that the seas are less icy than they used to be. Sorry, but THAT\’S NOT SCIENCE!Ask ANYONE about the winters they remember from childhood, and they will say that the current winters are not as snowy. I have the same memories. It\’s more likely that a 5 year-old child sees an average snowdrift as HUGE, and then remembers it as being bigger than the average snow drift he sees now as an adult.Again – THAT\’S NOT SCIENCE.

sultanp on January 31, 2010 at 1:22 PM

O/T: (sorry Karl)

Just heard on CNN from Gibb’s mouth: “We’re on the five yard line….we’re ONE VOTE away from passing health care reform in the HOUSE.
This is getting un-nerving!

Rovin on January 31, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Nah, everything is cool. Gibbsy got that report from an Alps mountain guide.

Yoop on January 31, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Amazongate:: New evidence of the IPCC’s failures

The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report, again citing the WWF as its authority, that climate change could endanger “up to 40 per cent” of the Amazon rainforest – as iconic to warmists as those Himalayan glaciers and polar bears. This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain’s two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging.

A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC’s report which cite similarly non-peer-reviewed WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority, and other researchers have been uncovering a host of similarly dubious claims and attributions all through the report. These range from groundless allegations about the increased frequency of “extreme weather events” such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, to a headline claim that global warming would put billions of people at the mercy of water shortages – when the study cited as its authority indicated exactly the opposite, that rising temperatures could increase the supply of water.

petefrt on January 31, 2010 at 1:32 PM

The entire basis for the “settled science” of Anthropogenic Global Warming is crumbling right before our eyes. Even the UK media is outraged and calling for heads on the block. The countries like England which have already instituted carbon-reduction based legislation, which invariably involved fees and taxes, naturally, are now seeing their pro-AGW politicians scrambling for the hills as the general populace starts cries in outrage at the fraud.

And yet, here in the USA, notable figures are still blind to what is happening. John McCain, CA Gov. Arnold Swartzenager, and too many others, have closed their minds to the possibility that it has all been a huge scam and hoax. And with President Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress spending like there’s no tomorrow, they’ll soon be looking for new income sources to reduce the burgeoning national deficit. So even though Cap and Trade may appear to be a dead issue as far as legislation is concerned, don’t be surprised if they tack on an amendment of some kind to other proposed legislation for a new carbon emissions tax.

What astounds me the most is that Dr. Pachauri is being allowed to continue to chair the IPCC despite having used non-peer reviewed anecdotal sources as the basis for their report to the UN on AGW. I suppose that’s because addressing the fallacious report directly would just add to the image of the United Nations as an inept, ineffectual, doddering old toothless lion in the 21st Century. Yet it’s so true, and the only way to eliminate that as a black hole for funneling our hard earned tax dollars into is to disband the UN completely. Fat chance, since there are way too many poorer nations that benefit from the association to suddenly walk away from a gold mine.

KendraWilder on January 31, 2010 at 1:34 PM

The scientist have been found to be frauds that falsified their data to reach predetermined conclusions.

Baxter Greene on January 31, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Being that, after a lengthy career in the field, I am a retired earth scientist, I always take exception to these people still being referred to as scientists. As far as I am concerned they lost that right to claim such a title and we need to find another name for them (that is descriptive, yet acceptable in polite company).

Yoop on January 31, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Where are these peoples mama’s, and why weren’t they taught that lying is WRONG!!!!

capejasmine on January 31, 2010 at 1:47 PM

… As far as I am concerned they lost that right to claim such a title and we need to find another name for them (that is descriptive, yet acceptable in polite company).

Yoop on January 31, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Climate Science Fictologist?
Climate Scientologist?

ROCnPhilly on January 31, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I looked out my window today and saw that it snowed yet again for the umpteenth time this winter. Based on this irrefutable evidence and since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, I can say with 100% certainty that we are experiencing the next ice age.

Wyznowski on January 31, 2010 at 2:12 PM

I found another article, that I think would compliment Eds report, nicely.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/global_warming_science_implode.html

capejasmine on January 31, 2010 at 2:24 PM

… As far as I am concerned they lost that right to claim such a title and we need to find another name for them (that is descriptive, yet acceptable in polite company).

Yoop on January 31, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Climatecons

Climathugs

macncheez on January 31, 2010 at 2:27 PM

capejasmine on January 31, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Good one. Bumpworthy. Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent

Perhaps its time to ask why this story being revealed overseas with new revelations almost daily in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Timesonline, and other Fleet Street publications can’t get any traction here.

petefrt on January 31, 2010 at 2:31 PM

AGW crackup, endless supply of schadenfreude.

daesleeper on January 31, 2010 at 2:49 PM

I believe that it was Ed Begley Jr. who once said:

“Peer Review. PEER REVIEW! ACK PTTHT! Peer REVIEW! IPCC! PEER REVIEW!!!!! SHUT UP! PEER REVIEW!!!”

29Victor on January 31, 2010 at 3:23 PM

A “dissertation” would be for a doctoral degree, typically, whereas master’s candidate submit a “thesis” instead.
`
Notice that neither of the cited articles directly pertain to the subject of global warming, yet the IPCC used them anyway, in violation of their own standards. At what point do even advocates have to say, “No matter what the truth may be, this process is entirely corrupt.”?

Adjoran on January 31, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Climate Science Fictologist?
Climate Scientologist?

ROCnPhilly on January 31, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Cranial proctologists? Cause they got their collective heads stuck where the sun don’t shine.

Oldnuke on January 31, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Baxter Greene on January 31, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Many “pollsters” do that too.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Climate Science Fictologist?
Climate Scientologist?
Cranial proctologists?

Oldnuke on January 31, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Proctnosticator. Pulling the future out of their a$$es.

ROCnPhilly on January 31, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Their world and worldview is crumbling around them….

To quote the WW of the W: “Im melting! Melting! Oh, my world my world!

thebrokenrattle on January 31, 2010 at 3:44 PM

as an independent academic, it has been fascinating to witness the classical collapse of a Grand Narrative, in which social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. It is like watching the Berlin Wall [pictured] being torn down, concrete slab by concrete slab, brick by brick, with cracks appearing and widening daily on every face – political, economic, and scientific. Likewise, the bloggers have been swift to cover the crumbling edifice with colourful graffiti, sometimes bitter, at others caustic and witty.

J_Crater on January 31, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Al started a hoax which started the whole world thinking they were going to be a frying
But what Al didn’t see was that the joke would be on he
Oh no, Al started to cry which started the whole world laughing
Oh, if he’d only seen that the joke would be on he

Al looked at the skies, running his hands over his snowed up eyes
And he fell from his throne, cracking his head on the ice and choking on all the crazy things that he’d said

Till Al’s power finally died which started the whole world living drilling
Oh, if he’d only seen that the joke would be on he
Oh no, that the joke would be on he

MB4 on January 31, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Why are we surprised at this? The same kind of people who produced the artistically pleasing but factually challenged propaganda posters for the Soviet Union are the same kind of people who have now migrated to leading the climate movement after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Lies are their stock in trade, their native tongue so to speak. The only difference is that they don’t have a captive audience upon whom to peddle those lies.

AZfederalist on January 31, 2010 at 4:11 PM

So much for all those leftwing intellectuals! All that book-learnin’ at them-thar Ivy League schools or Berkeley done no good when it comes to this Climate Change Hoax. If anyone had the ability to check facts and logic, it was them – and they failed miserably. Even the Iraq WMD report had a greater basis in fact.

KillerKane on January 31, 2010 at 4:29 PM

The gift that keeps on giving.

BallisticBob on January 31, 2010 at 4:39 PM

At least they had a source, instead of just making their nonsensical claims up.

tarpon on January 31, 2010 at 4:45 PM

I wonder what temperature would be the right one for these idiots? And if they could influence the weather in their little world how would that affect people in other parts of the world? The whole thing is ridiculous and I for one am tired of freezing my ass off!

tbear44 on January 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM

… As far as I am concerned they lost that right to claim such a title and we need to find another name for them (that is descriptive, yet acceptable in polite company).

Yoop on January 31, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Climate Science Fictologist?
Climate Scientologist?

ROCnPhilly on January 31, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Heh! ROC, when I first glanced at your post I thought it said, Climate Science Fistologist!!!

4shoes on January 31, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Waiting for Karl to be accused of being insane and this great article being posted and torn apart with lies by LGF Chuckles in 5….4…..3…

Knucklehead on January 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them

These are the same folks that label the rest of us hicks and rubes when we remain skeptical about their “peer-reviewed” science.

If an IPCC report demonstrates that the science that it is based upon is questionable in its validity and reliability, the the entirety of the report must be thrown out.

I question the integrity of the IPCC report and challenge the climatology community to defend the premises of such report.

ted c on January 31, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Baxter Greene on January 31, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Many “pollsters” do that too.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I am starting to notice that some polling like CBS/NYT/CNN etc. are not making their party affiliation breakdown available.
If they do end up showing it..days have passed and the headlines are made.

I pretty much stick to Rasmussen and Gallup.

Zogby laid yet another egg with their prediction that Coakley would win.

Baxter Greene on January 31, 2010 at 6:07 PM

The scientist have been found to be frauds that falsified their data to reach predetermined conclusions.

Baxter Greene on January 31, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Being that, after a lengthy career in the field, I am a retired earth scientist, I always take exception to these people still being referred to as scientists. As far as I am concerned they lost that right to claim such a title and we need to find another name for them (that is descriptive, yet acceptable in polite company).

Yoop on January 31, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I like Climatecons …macncheez on January 31, 2010 at 2:27 PM
…sharp and hits the spot.

Baxter Greene on January 31, 2010 at 6:10 PM

I’m more inclined to believe that they based their report on something they read on the back of a box of Cap’n Crunch.

BDavis on January 31, 2010 at 6:31 PM

I am starting to notice that some polling like CBS/NYT/CNN etc. are not making their party affiliation breakdown available.

If they do end up showing it..days have passed and the headlines are made.

I pretty much stick to Rasmussen and Gallup.

Zogby laid yet another egg with their prediction that Coakley would win.

Baxter Greene on January 31, 2010 at 6:07 PM

To my knowledge CNN never divulges their samples. They ended their longtime relationship with Gallup a few years ago and replaced them with “pollster” Vinod Gupta, a longtime Clinton suckup.

The C-BS/NYT “polls” require looking for the pdf that accompanies the story. They have regularly been busted for polling samples that wildly oversample Democrats to achieve the desired result. Many over the past 2 years sampled 14% more Dems than R’s, when the real number should have been 7% or so, but in one poll I saw them do, they sampled 19% more D’s than R’s.

I saw one al-AP “poll” last fall that was even worse-sampled twice as many Democrats as Republicans.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Here’s a new AGW research tool-a few weeks back a huge Elm tree in Maine was cut down. Turns out it’s over 200 years old. Scientists now want to analyze the tree rings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100131/ap_on_re_us/us_old_man_and_the_tree

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Deny funding for the IPCC and save $12.5 million a year.

BDU-33 on January 31, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Thank you for that link..I am sending it to my senator–Mr. Grassley…

lovingmyUSA on January 31, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Excellent job Karl!

lovingmyUSA on January 31, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Check “Watts Up With That.” The student was just quoting a throw away observation of some mountain guides he was interviewing. They thought the decrease in mountaineering had either to do with the poor exchange rate of the Swiss France verus the German Mark OR climate change. To quote the student paper in question: “In how far the changes observed indicate a global change of climate can only be guessed and will show in the future.” Way to go IPCC !!! So now we know what the phrase “settled science” means. It means whatever you need it to mean.

Fred 2 on January 31, 2010 at 8:57 PM

So, “IPCC based claims on a student dissertation and a magazine article” Come on, it could have been worse. They could have based an entire model of impending doom and heat on just one tree ring or something.

BigAlSouth on January 31, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Don’t forget that they also based their claims on some guy name Johann who was skiing and thought that it felt a little warm.

NeoKong on January 31, 2010 at 12:08 PM

That is because I had on a goose down jacket.

Johan Klaus on January 31, 2010 at 9:54 PM

“The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed.”

Problem is transparency becomes a major hurdle to overcome if your entire premise is a fraud to begin with.

They could have saved themselves trouble if only they interviewed each other because we all know that the science is settled!

larvcom on January 31, 2010 at 10:51 PM

I would just like to point out that Al Gore could not carry his home state of TN. Say what you will about Southerners; but we know a skunk when we smell it!

GW = Skunk Science

TN Mom on January 31, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Obama believes!

That’s authority enough, peons!

OBAMA BELIEVES!

Silence serfs!

profitsbeard on February 1, 2010 at 12:29 AM

AGW will be cataloged in the library under the Dewey system as 398, fables, fiction and folklore.

Electrongod on January 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Perhaps but only if there is not a category for Swindles, hoaxes, and frauds.

Slowburn on February 1, 2010 at 1:27 AM

Leftists have always politicized science…phrenology, eugenics, “discoveries” of genes that supposedly biologically justify every deviant behavior imaginable, embracing psychology in order to make arguments concerning social environment, using the theory of evolution to make an argument for atheism, Lysenko destroying decades of Soviet wheat production because he embraced the more PC Lamarckian views of evolution…

Once science was the sole realm of the independently wealthy and has come to thrive only in societies where Capitalism thrives.

These Communists would be quite content to have us live in Medieval squalor and ignorance…only if they were in charge, of course.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 1, 2010 at 1:41 AM

This is just a small part of what is happening.

The left has permeated the education system to the point they literally attempt to brainwash you. Critical opinions of liberal causes often receive lower grades than their effort, content and presentation would warrant. Researchers compete for grants from donors looking to advance their liberal agenda, and their results are often geared to support the donors desires.

This is just a high profile case of the level of deceit and manipulation present in the supposedly neutral field of science.

You cannot view this as an isolated incident. This is becoming commonplace. Science is being invaded by a liberal version of Lysenkoism.

Mr Purple on February 1, 2010 at 6:49 AM

Let’s see now…I need to know the fate of the world. I’ll ask this student over here. Geography? Ok close enough. Tell me what you think.

Alfresco on February 1, 2010 at 8:20 AM

I’ve worked in environmental research since the late seventies. We worked hard and made great progress, stiving to ensure that we practiced our own version of “first, do no harm.” Anyone 50 or older has memories of polluted environments in the US, but our kids won’t – that’s pretty d@mn good work.

When the “advocates” came up with the idea of scaring everyone into the enviro ethic with scientifically unsupportable end-of-world scenarios, I knew we were in trouble. One day, I thought, everyone’s view of environmentalism will be colored through the lens these b@$+@rds are holding. Well, that day has arrived.

And those of us still doing solid work and reporting it through HONEST peer review, will soon see our life’s work and even our entire field of study being thrown in the cr@pp3r. How can you trust us when the fundamental mechanisms of quality assurance in science have been corrupted?

There’s nothing left to stand on.

Cricket624 on February 1, 2010 at 8:22 AM

If the IPCC wants, I may still have a 7th grade Earth Science paper around somewhere, the paper may have a bit of damage, it was close to 30 years ago after all, but can still be read. The IPCC just needs to send me an email with their request. The email: getafrackin’clueyouidiots@therealworld.com

TQM38a on February 1, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Why is is that lying, cheating, fudging and destroying evidence is protected in Academia, where anyone else would be frog-marched off to a Federal Penal Institution? I guess there are two places in the US where prostitution is legal: Nevada and NASA.

Dang them Scientist-hos. . .

BigAlSouth on February 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Next up, the IPCC will be citing NBC reports about the IPCC as proof that they’re right.

hawksruleva on February 1, 2010 at 10:38 AM

These Communists would be quite content to have us live in Medieval squalor and ignorance…only if they were in charge, of course.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 1, 2010 at 1:41 AM

That’s because education empowers people. Collectivists don’t want to empower people, because then people get in the way of their plan for a perfect society.

hawksruleva on February 1, 2010 at 10:40 AM

30 years of shouting “Wolf” and this is the best they can do? They’ve been predicting catastrophe for most of my life.

At this point I’d have to see islands submerged by the rising seas. And the polar ice caps would really have to disappear… not just be projected to melt after the team writing the research have retired. AGW better defecate or get off the pot. There are other strange memes waiting in line that might produce something solid.

theCork on February 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM

The UK’s head shill for the AGW hoax isn’t backing down a bit:

The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, last night warned of the danger of a public backlash against the science of global warming in the face of continuing claims that experts have manipulated data…”We know there’s a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that’s a question of physics; we know CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years; we know there are observed increases in temperatures; and we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That’s what the vast majority of scientists tell us.

I just love the irony of using an illogical Appeal to Popularity to make a scientific argument.

RadClown on February 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM

major in climatology, or meteorology, or even geology would have been more credible.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Looks like a geography major is a social science, not a quantitave science. The only thing I see that is quantitave comparing even remotely to any kind of mathematical evaluations of the Earth’s processes is that they are usually involved in GIS & remote sensing programs.
Looks as if Master’s degrees in geography involve environmental, urban, etc planning situations.
So they are not experimentally studying cause & effect related to climate at all.
Bogus.

Badger40 on February 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM

RadClown on February 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Honestly, even with my undergrad major in geology, I can tell after sifting through climate data sets over the last 15 yrs that there is no definitive conclusion to be made concerning CO2 & temp.
The only conclusion I can personally make from looking at various data sets over the years is that CO2 atmospheric concentration FOLLOWS a rise in temp: not temps rising due to increasing CO2 levels.

Badger40 on February 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2