HolyCoast: The Perfect Global Warming Storm
Follow RickMoore on Twitter

Sunday, February 28, 2010

The Perfect Global Warming Storm

No, we're not talking about the blizzards pummeling the east coast or the rains pounding the west, but the storm that's hitting the UN's official climate panel responsible for so much bad information:
The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm – after three months when the IPCC and Dr Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost.

The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC's last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other "extreme weather events" were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The "science is settled", the "consensus" is intact.

But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.

All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC's 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.

Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge.

Al Gore came out just today in a NY Times op-ed and tried to pooh-pooh the mistakes in the IPCC report as trivial in an effort to save his own reputation. Sorry, not buying anything from The Goreacle anymore.

The IPCC and it's wacky head guy need to be thoroughly discredited. They're political hacks intent on controlling the world's economy through bogus climate regulation and taxation.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

These errors only just came to light. Given time, with over 3,000 pages, more will errors will surely surface. If a couple of errors are nothing for a report of this size, the certainty of finding more seems unequivocal.

How many errors must occur before an IPCC assessment report suffers loss of credibility? 10? 15? 20? 30 or more?

---JeffM