Filed under: Environment, Foreign Policy, Junk Science, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics | Tags: Climate Change, False Reports, IPCC, More Scandal
The great glaciers of the Himalayan Mountains feed the rivers of South Asia, which in turn feed the people who depend upon them. The UN’s IPCC announced in their 2007 report that the glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035. “The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers” it wrote in its supposedly definitive report “can be attributed primarily to the [sic] global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gasses.” That’s enough to get a lot of people more than a little worried.
Just last November, U.N. climate chief Rajendra Pachauri attacked India’s environment minister for casting doubt on the notion that global warming was causing the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Tracing things back, it appears that this very widely publicized prediction came from a report in 2005 from the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF, in turn, based it on a comment made by Indian glacier expert Syed Hasnain in 1999. Mr. Hasnain now says he was “misquoted.”
The IPCC was warned in 2006 by leading glaciologist Georg Kaser that the 2035 forecast was baseless. “Mr. Kaser told the Agence France-Presse “This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
This last Wednesday, the IPCC finally got around, a few years late, to acknowledging that the claim was “poorly substantiated,” Mr. Pachauri, according to the Wall Street Journal , also suggested it amounted to little more than a scientific typo.
The U.N.’s IPCC has been assumed by the media and governmental offices around the world to deliver the final word about anything related to global warming, in spite of the fact that their own website says:
The IPCC’s mission is to reflect the science, not create it. Its duty, it says, is:
assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data.
The scientist behind the bogus claim, Dr. Murari Lal, admitted last night that the claim about Himalayan glaciers melting did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. It was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. “It related to several counties in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise points out the World Wildlife Fund is an activist organization that has an agenda. Many documents cited by the IPCC have been authored or co-authored by the WWF, without scientific research behind them
When so many billions of dollars are being committed around the world in the name of halting an anthropogenic global warming that seems to be neither anthropogenic nor alarming, it would be encouraging if some of the participants could just say “We made a mistake, we were wrong.”
Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, Science/Technology | Tags: Climate Change, IPCC, Scientific Uncertainty
The October 2009 issue of the “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,” has a new survey that indicates that a significant number of professional meteorologists doubt that manmade sources of greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. The survey was vetted by an advisory board of climate experts, including representatives from several climate-science organizations as well as the EPA, the Pew Center and many members of the AMS.
- When asked about the UN’s IPCC statement that “Most of the warming since 1959 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral, and only 24% agreed or strongly agreed.
- 52% of the meteorologists disagreed with the statement that “Global climate models are reliable in their projections of a warming of the planet.” Only 19% agreed with the statement.
- Almost a third agreed or strongly agreed that “global warming is a scam.”
- When the meteorologists were asked to identify “the greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change,” their top answer (41%) was “too much scientific uncertainty.”
The credibility of theories of global warming and the accompanying alarmism, or any notion that international climate controls are either desirable or possible are fading. The president has admitted that no climate treaty will be signed in Copenhagen this year. This will mean another fortuitous nail driven into the coffin of proposed U.S. climate legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill in the House or the Kerry-Boxer bill in the Senate.
Every nail is well-deserved.
Filed under: Economy, Environment, Science/Technology | Tags: Global Warming, IPCC, The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method
- Observe a phenomenon carefully.
- Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.
- Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1. and 2.
- A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.
The Scientific Computer Modeling Method
- Observe a phenomenon carefully.
- Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.
- Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.
- In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, “refine” the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.
- Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.
- Continue to “refine” the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.
- Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model
- Repeat steps 3. through 7. indefinitely.
This succinct explanation of the way things work was written by Roy Tucker.