Add another exposed doomsday mistake to IPCC’s failures

It’s hard to believe that it’s been more than a month since the latest example of intellectual collapse at the IPCC.  Now added to the fraudulent claims about Amazon rain forests, African crop harvests, and Himalayan glaciers comes the exposure of a very large error in the UN body’s warnings about flooding in Bangladesh.  Turns out that the scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits (via Yid with Lid):

Scientists in Bangladesh posed a fresh challenge to the UN’s top climate change panel Thursday, saying its doomsday forecasts for the country in the body’s landmark 2007 report were overblown.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already under fire for errors in the 2007 report, had said a one-metre (three-foot) rise in sea levels would flood 17 percent of Bangladesh and create 20 million refugees by 2050.

The claim helped create a widespread consensus that the low-lying country was on the “front line” of climate change, but a new study argues the IPCC ignored the role sediment plays in countering sea level rises. …

But IPCC’s prediction did not take into account the one billion tonnes of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers into Bangladesh every year, which are crucial in countering rises in sea levels, the study funded by the Asian Development Bank said.

“Sediments have been shaping Bangladesh’s coast for thousands of years,” said Maminul Haque Sarker, director of the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS), who led research for the study.

Even if the sea level rises that far — a claim which is itself greeted with increasing skepticism — most of the coastline for Bangladesh won’t be affected.  The study concludes that sedimentary deposits would rise in the same proportion as sea levels, providing protection for almost all of the coastline.

The IPCC’s response?  Chair Rajendra Pachauri claims that one mistake shouldn’t shake anyone’s confidence in the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately, he’s not referring to this error, but one exposed previously:

According to Pachauri, the glacier mistakes should not be allowed to detract from the fact that the IPCC’s conclusions overall are “robust and they are reliable”.

“One single error doesn’t take anything away from the major findings of the report. The fact is that the glaciers are melting,” he said.

The glacier claim wasn’t an “error”; it was a claim based on nothing at all other than speculation in an interview, and it was even misquoted. That’s hardly the only error discovered in the IPCC’s claims and in the AGW industry over the last few months, either:

• University of East Anglia e-mails that exposed data destruction, attempts to hide contradictory data, and conspiracies to sabotage the work of skeptical scientists
• The East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data, undermining any effort to check their work
• NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases
• East Anglia CRU’s below-standard computer modeling
• No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol
• IPCC withdraws claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035
• IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri knew Himalayan claim was bogus for months before exposure
• Amazonian rainforest conclusions not based on scientific research but on advocacy group claims
• Mountain glacier claims based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from climber magazine
• Search of IPCC report footnotes exposes ten more student dissertations presented as peer-reviewed research
• Medieval Warming Period temperatures may have been global, undermining entire AGW case
• Measurements used for AGW case were influenced by urbanization, poor location, bad data sets
• African-crop claims exposed as false
• IPCC researchers excluded Southern Hemisphere data to exaggerate effects of warming on hurricanes
• Hurricane claims further exposed as false by actual peer-reviewed research — including by some AGW researchers
• Major scientific group concludes IPCC-linked researchers “complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices“
• NASA data less reliable than faulty UEA CRU data

Pachauri continues to insist that the emperor wears clothes at the IPCC, when he’s been naked for months.

Blowback