Even more problems found in IPCC report on AGW

posted at 11:00 am on February 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

First, the IPCC  Himalayan glaciers claim turned out to be based on speculation from an interview — and copied incorrectly.  Almost immediately after that scandal, the claim that anthropogenic global warming could kill off 40% of the rainforest was exposed as an unsubstantiated claim from the World Wildlife Fund, postulated by two activists, neither of whom were climate scientists.  It just seemed like a matter of time before someone started digging through the IPCC’s report to knock down the entire house of cards.  Today the Telegraph reports on its research into the basis for the IPCC’s claims on AGW and discovers that much of its foundation consists of highly suspect components (via Newsbeat1):

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

  • The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.
  • Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.
  • New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.
  • More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.

Student dissertations? The IPCC claims to use the peer-reviewed standard; in the East Anglia CRU e-mails, its chief threatened to redefine peer review to block legitimate scientists from introducing peer-reviewed papers that contradicted AGW claims. And in this case, these aren’t even doctoral theses:

It can also be revealed that claims made by the IPCC about the effects of global warming, and suggestions about ways it could be avoided, were partly based on information from ten dissertations by Masters students.

One unpublished dissertation was used to support the claim that sea-level rise could impact on people living in the Nile delta and other African coastal areas, although the main focus of the thesis, by a student at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, appears to have been the impact of computer software on environmental development.

The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures. The panel has already come under fire for using information in reports by conservation charity the WWF.

Estimates of carbon-dioxide emissions from nuclear power stations and claims that suggested they were cheaper than coal or gas power stations were also taken from the website of the World Nuclear Association, rather than using independent scientific calculations.

In fact, the Telegraph also reports that the IPCC deliberately ignored a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Roger Pielke, an AGW believer who considers much of the alarmist rhetoric as fantasy.  The IPCC says that they believed Pielke “changed his mind” based on nothing at all, certainly not on any contact with Pielke, whose complaints led to the disclosure.

The IPCC doesn’t do science.  They do advocacy, mainly for the idea of international control of energy and manufacturing, with a healthy dose of redistribution of wealth.  These revelations should put an end to any reliance on IPCC work for American policy, and the UN should be pressured to fire everyone involved in this sham, starting with railroad engineer Rajendra Pachauri.

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

I give a lot of money to wildlife conservation groups, and I want clean air/water, but these transnational socialist liars are dangerous.

juliesa on February 7, 2010 at 12:50 PM

I appreciate your motives, but many of us figured long ago that these “wildlife conservation groups” fund the transnational socialist liars. In fact some of these “wildlife conservation groups” are socialist liars. Don’t send them your money!

Christian Conservative on February 7, 2010 at 3:16 PM

When will these people be handcuffed and trotted in front of a judge and jury to determine where they spend the rest of their lives???

AubieJon on February 7, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Why has no one initiated proceedings against this international cabal of swindlers and con-men in the International court ?
Oh wait…never mind

macncheez on February 7, 2010 at 3:16 PM

My son who is a high school student has done a paper disputing AGW . Should I contact the AP, CBS, or Cnn ?

/

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Between AGW and LOST, the UN is on a fast track to be the biggest wannbe slave-master on the planet ever.

Maquis on February 7, 2010 at 3:19 PM

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 2:33 PM

You aren’t just a troll but an AGW troll. You just spew and retell the lies that are being exposed on a regular basis. Do your homework as the earth has had rapid heating and cooling long before SUVs.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 3:20 PM

This is really very shocking. I mean we’ve been killing this thing piece meal but honestly the depth of deception involved in this is astounding!

And yet almost everyone still will preface anything they say as… “well we all know there really is Global Warming we just don’t know what is causing it.”

NO WE DON’T!!!!

We don’t know a gosh darn thing! The only thing that is coming into perfect focus is that these people cannot be trusted!

Maybe the earth is warming. I think it is more likely that it is not at this point. If the earth really was warming there would be no need to lie and exaggerate! It would be self-evident!

petunia on February 7, 2010 at 3:22 PM

The UN is a communist front group.

Johan Klaus on February 7, 2010 at 3:24 PM

I appreciate your motives, but many of us figured long ago that these “wildlife conservation groups” fund the transnational socialist liars. In fact some of these “wildlife conservation groups” are socialist liars. Don’t send them your money!

Christian Conservative on February 7, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Look into the Nature Conservancy. Their primary mission is to use donations to purchase land and leave it natural. Much better than most eco-groups, who try and get laws passed to prevent you from doing what you like on your own property.

Vashta.Nerada on February 7, 2010 at 3:24 PM

I give a lot of money to wildlife conservation groups, and I want clean air/water, but these transnational socialist liars are dangerous.

juliesa on February 7, 2010 at 12:50 PM
I appreciate your motives, but many of us figured long ago that these “wildlife conservation groups” fund the transnational socialist liars. In fact some of these “wildlife conservation groups” are socialist liars. Don’t send them your money!

Christian Conservative on February 7, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Not only that! People starved because we used FOOD to make biofuels! We starved people because of these lies!

petunia on February 7, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Europe’s all time high temperature reading was in 1881. Sheesh this is really stupid.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 3:25 PM

The UN is a communist front group.

Johan Klaus on February 7, 2010 at 3:24 PM

I don’t know about that but they definitely don’t have our interests at heart.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 3:26 PM

JimD on February 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Hmm, who should I believe? A plastic bag manufacturer’s site, or my own eyes?

Vashta.Nerada on February 7, 2010 at 3:26 PM

You first need to prove the “anthropogenic” part of the present climate change. So far all that has been “proven” is a massive, coordinated fraud.

What would constitute “proof”?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:27 PM

The IPCC doesn’t do science. They do advocacy, mainly for the idea of international control of energy and manufacturing, with a healthy dose of redistribution of wealth

Advocacy combined with a “science is settled” attitude completely justifies all of the skepticism associated with the religion of AGW. These ridiculous individuals have nearly foisted harmful legislation upon us. To what consequence? What shall be their punishment? Loss of a career? Inability to publish? Demotion in the church of AGW? No more Christmas cards from Algore? How shall these charlatans be dealt with.

ted c on February 7, 2010 at 3:28 PM

What would constitute “proof”?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:27 PM

If you had it you wouldn’t ask. Let me ask you too? Do you have any other interest besides being part of one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated ?? All you do is show up on these threads with little knowledge and support these lies.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 3:29 PM

What would constitute “proof”?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Certainly, not cooking the books

Johan Klaus on February 7, 2010 at 3:30 PM

All you do is show up on these threads with little knowledge and support these lies.

What “lies” are you referring to?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:31 PM

My back is killing me from shoveling several tons of warmth yesterday and today.

forest on February 7, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev of Green Cross International. Enough said.

Johan Klaus on February 7, 2010 at 3:36 PM

What would constitute “proof”?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:27 PM

You don’t debate. You continue with nothing but obtuse questions to deflect your real intentions. You offer nothing.

Bye, troll.

Yoop on February 7, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Oakland you are being obtuse. You are not very knowledgeable are you ?

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 3:40 PM

but obtuse questions to deflect your real intentions. Y

Yoop on February 7, 2010 at 3:37 PM

great minds think alike

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Oakland you are being obtuse. You are not very knowledgeable are you ?

I’m being obtuse by asking questions? I am trying to understand what you mean by your statements. I am not very knowledgeable, for sure; this is why I ask questions.

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:42 PM

I am not sure how you feel that this relates to the present day issue of anthropogenic global warming. Are you implying that we would have nothing to fear from rapid changes in climate (temperature, rainfall, humidity, etc) because the earth has undergone such changes in the past?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM

That’s like asking “Are you implying that we would have nothing to fear from Frankenstein and the Wolfman combining forces to attack the crowd at the Super Bowl? Wel-l-l-l?!?!”

The “evidence” supporting AGW has been proven to be an absurd stack of outright lies. Demanding that people still take the theory seriously is ridiculous.

Django on February 7, 2010 at 3:54 PM

First we need to establish the IDEAL temperature for the Earth. THEN we can discuss if we should do anything about the weather.

What’s that you say? There’s simply no way of knowing what the best temperature for the Earth is?

Well…

Mojave Mark on February 7, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I am not very knowledgeable, for sure;

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Well at least we agree there.

Why do you ask “what lie” when the thread is about AGW?

-

AGW / Climate Change are the only subjects you comment on.Do you not think about anything else? Seems someone so passionate about only one subject would be knowledgeable.

Simple quizzes for you:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Globalwarmingquiz.pdf

There ya go. Go learn something sheesh.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:07 PM

I’m being obtuse by asking questions? I am trying to understand what you mean by your statements. I am not very knowledgeable, for sure; this is why I ask questions.

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:42 PM

You must not be paying attention. India just disavowed their own man at the UN and appointed someone else to check the science! Now there is confidence for you!

petunia on February 7, 2010 at 4:07 PM

here’s simply no way of knowing what the best temperature for the Earth is?

Mojave Mark on February 7, 2010 at 4:05 PM

As you know as long as we don’t know than they can scare simpletons like Oakland.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:08 PM

But the Polar Bears …ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Lol

Their numbers are increasing . This becomes dumber and dumber.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM

But the Polar Bears …ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Lol

Their numbers are increasing . This becomes dumber and dumber.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM

It is my understanding that polar bears can swim. They will be fine.

petunia on February 7, 2010 at 4:11 PM

I appreciate your motives, but many of us figured long ago that these “wildlife conservation groups” fund the transnational socialist liars. In fact some of these “wildlife conservation groups” are socialist liars. Don’t send them your money!

Christian Conservative on February 7, 2010 at 3:16 PM

I realize that about some of them, like WWF and Defenders of Wildlife, and probably many others. They are horrible.

I give to Ducks Unlimited, Quail Unlimited, Texas Bighorn Society, North American Grouse Partnership, and similar groups, and to some targeted university research programs.

juliesa on February 7, 2010 at 4:11 PM

To continue with my comment, wildlife is a HUGE industry in Texas, both for hunting and ecotourism. Landowners make a lot more money off wildlife than they do off beef production, in many cases.

juliesa on February 7, 2010 at 4:15 PM

It is my understanding that polar bears can swim. They will be fine.

petunia on February 7, 2010 at 4:11 PM

yes they can and have been seen swimming at least 100 miles out.

where are the pictures of the thousands of drowned polar bears? Oakland?

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:17 PM

exsanguine on February 7, 2010 at 12:56 PM

If you’re still around, thanks for finding that Harper’s link for me.

juliesa on February 7, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Everyone and Oakland should read this:

Without a doubt, by using the green movement’s “correlation equals causation” methodology, I have proven that America’s current economic downturn is directly correlated with the meteoric rise of environmentalism and its damaging effects on business management (just as certainly as global warming brought about the destruction of New Orleans). Using this standard, set by greenies themselves, feel free to blame environmentalists for what may be unfolding as the United States’ next Great Depression. They’ve earned such opprobrium.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/englund/2008/0505.html

What a wasteful use of resources. The nutty environmentalists are in part responsible for the economic mess. Nice work. Maybe that was part of the plan after all.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Not a new thing.

“a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.”

—President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20 November, 1817.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:27 PM

yes 1817

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:27 PM

I just got done shoveling 3ft of global warming out of my driveway! My liberal neighbor was doing her’s too. Making a fist I said if ”I ever met Al Gore … ” She said ”I’d give a shovel.” haha

Tony737 on February 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM

I got your global warming right here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwzD0V-x6qo

Tony737 on February 7, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Why do you ask “what lie” when the thread is about AGW?

You accused my of “spewing” lies. Please quote for me the “lies” that I “spewed”.

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 4:43 PM

It appears that the IPCC has less control over the facts than Wikipedia does.

And Wikipedia is dealing with a much larger universe of subjects.

HondaV65 on February 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM

You accused my of “spewing” lies. Please quote for me the “lies” that I “spewed”.

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 4:43 PM

So you have not stated that man has caused GW ? I guess not. I must have been wrong….sorry.

———-

Did you notice that Al Gore was biggest during those hottest years that the AGW proponents claim. Ever think that he was the cause with all that hot air he let out? Makes as much sense.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Oakland when did the hottest temperature in Europe happen?

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Oakland do tell me why temperatures rose up to 1940 then tailed off til about 1975? Before 1940 the earth was no where near as industrial as it is now? This is just silly.

And YES you do push the lie of man made GW . You play games but you are part of it. quit with your games. We ain’t buying and less and less of the world is. Thank goodness.

CWforFreedom on February 7, 2010 at 5:07 PM

CW, I don’t know when the hottest temperature in Europe happened.

Oakland do tell me why temperatures rose up to 1940 then tailed off til about 1975? Before 1940 the earth was no where near as industrial as it is now? This is just silly.

I don’t know. What is your take on this?

And YES you do push the lie of man made GW . You play games but you are part of it. quit with your games.

Please show me where I “pushed” the “lie” of man made GW. Are you not free to believe what you wish? I am not sure of what “games” I am part of; please enlighten me, if you would. Thanks for answering.

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 5:58 PM

2,000+ scientists signed on to this scam? I wonder how many “peer reviewed” it beforehand. One, maybe two?

All I know is that it was too good to be true from the start. What caught my eye was its solution = wealth transfer. It simply would never work, because people would resist the new taxes required. This country was based on resistance to unnecessary taxation and abuse of rights. What may have worked in Europe could never have worked here. heck, it didn’t even work in Canada! Had it passed, I would have put on my tricornered hat and picked up my musket and stood on Concord Bridge against the Greencoats to defend my rights. I would fire the second shot heard ’round the world.

Stick a fork in this global warming scam, it’s done. Well, it never really had a chance.

KillerKane on February 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM

The Tasiday are the only ones still pushing this global warming bullsh!t.

Oh, and the Tasiday were bullsh!it too.

daesleeper on February 7, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Reminds me of Leo Getz, Joe Pesci’s character in the Lethal Weapon movies.
29Victor on February 7, 2010 at

Dang close!

Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.
AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005

Yep, and the Two thousand scientists sent their DATA to a central hub like East Anglia Climate Research Unit that disseminated DATA info back to the Two thousand scientists, scientific community, AFTER said DATA had been “Adjusted”.

Amazingly the Two thousand scientists of this scientific community, took the “Adjusted” DATA, plugged it into their “collective” model and all came to the same conclusion?

Go figure!

DSchoen on February 7, 2010 at 7:45 PM

I beg to differ with you on this one, AGW is made-up from whole cloth. Plastic bags and the problems that arrise from near permanant half-life is a serious problem.

Archimedes on February 7, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Unless one can demonstrate that the bags are actually causing a problem, the fact that they survive a long time without degrading is irrelevant. (BTW, they only survive a long time if they are protected from sunlight. UV breaks them down in a few years.)

The claim that the bags hurt sea turtles and such was based purely on anecdote and conjecture. Serious studies have found no links.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 8:47 AM

I’ve been saying for years now, that today’s dump sites will be the profitable mines of tomorrow. When the materials become valueable enough (as they would if they started running out of the raw materials) then companies would rush to be first in line to start recovering from old dumps.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM

And this being a given, why not attempt to discern the extent of mankind’s involvement in it (climate change)?

Also, can we say that rapid climate change is something to be desired? If we know more about it, then we may be able to prepare for it better, no?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 2:33 PM

They have been trying to discern if there is a man-caused component. So far they can’t find it.

Also, the climate has been known to make rapid changes since long before man got around to altering the environment.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 8:57 AM

I am not sure how you feel that this relates to the present day issue of anthropogenic global warming. Are you implying that we would have nothing to fear from rapid changes in climate (temperature, rainfall, humidity, etc) because the earth has undergone such changes in the past?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM

No, it means that the fact that the climate is changing, is not evidence that it must be caused by man.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM

I’m being obtuse by asking questions?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Since these questions have been answered time and time again. Yes, you are being obtuse.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 9:01 AM

2,000+ scientists signed on to this scam? I wonder how many “peer reviewed” it beforehand. One, maybe two?

KillerKane on February 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM

This is another one of the great lies.

There were not 2000 seperate scientists. Of all the papers accepted by the IPCC, the grand total of names on all the papers was 2000. Once you eliminate the duplicates, the total of unique names drops to a couple hundred.
Then when those couple hundred are polled as to whether they believe in catastrophic AGW, the number drops to a few dozen.

(Unfortunately, only that few dozen were permitted to have any input into writting the summaries.)

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 9:06 AM

I am not sure how you feel that this relates to the present day issue of anthropogenic global warming. Are you implying that we would have nothing to fear from rapid changes in climate (temperature, rainfall, humidity, etc) because the earth has undergone such changes in the past?

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Not quite. Humans could have something to fear from climate changes. Whether it’s increased desertification or rising sea levels, climate change affects people.

But I don’t believe the SOURCE of the climate change is at all relevant. Do polar bears swim better if warming is natural, and swim worse if the warming is man-made?

hawksruleva on February 8, 2010 at 11:27 AM

I’ve been saying for years now, that today’s dump sites will be the profitable mines of tomorrow. When the materials become valueable enough (as they would if they started running out of the raw materials) then companies would rush to be first in line to start recovering from old dumps.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM

My geology teacher said the same thing. Landfills are a ready source of raw materials, it’s just a matter of when the cost processing landfill material drops below the cost of extracting the same material from the earth in the traditional manner.

hawksruleva on February 8, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Just look at this loser! He wins the Rasputin lookalike contest hands down!

kens on February 8, 2010 at 1:12 PM

This set of episodes has demeaned all of the contributions by scientists who are involved in legitimate and rigorous scientific testing in climate research.

oakland on February 7, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Therein lies the problem.

There is no legitimate and rigorous testing in climate research. WHich is why mistakes like this can lie around for years before they are caught.

What part of rigorous and legitimate testing tells a researcher that it is OK to completely withold their raw data and the methods they used to manipulate the raw data?

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2