Tuesday, February 2, 2010

If Man-Made Global Warming Were A True Threat, Why All Of The Lies?

Here are the latest lies from the IPCC, as reported in the London Times. Apparently the IPCC reported in 2007 that even a slight change in rainfall would wipe out "swathes" of rain forests. This claim was of course backed by...nothing. Oh, and three weeks ago the IPCC claimed that man-made climate change would cause the Himalayan glaciers to melt by 2035, which was again, backed by...nothing. Finally, the IPCC recently also claimed man-made climate change was causing an increase in natural disasters, and this was backed by...absolutely nothing. At what point does the IPCC become irrelevant?

Here's a snippet of the story from the London Times:
A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

6 comments:

Chris said...

Oh, hey, Josh, what is 2500 - 1?

Furlong said...

You think only one guy approved this? Its approved by a panel. From what I can tell there were vocal minorities, but these scientists are associating themselves with a corrupt, deceiving organization that puts the reputation of everyone associated at risk.

Chris said...

Pish-posh, one guy lying based on his prior track record of credentials is exactly what the peer review process is supposed to catch. Again, what is 2500 - 1, Josh?

Furlong said...

There was a vocal minority that attempted to speak up within the IPCC that the report contained false information. They were ignored. If one guy has that much power, that in itself is enough to condemn the IPCC. If it was a panel of individuals (which I'm pretty sure I read that) that ignored the warnings, then that is also enough to condemn the IPCC. It is a crooked organization that enjoys a monopolized authority on climate science within the UN. The UN loses credibility for forming it and the IPCC loses credibility for lying.

Chris said...

"There was a vocal minority that attempted to speak up within the IPCC that the report contained false information. They were ignored. If one guy has that much power, that in itself is enough to condemn the IPCC."


Not at all. The IPCC is a forum for science. If mistakes are found, then the IPCC is validated.

"If it was a panel of individuals (which I'm pretty sure I read that) that ignored the warnings, then that is also enough to condemn the IPCC. It is a crooked organization that enjoys a monopolized authority on climate science within the UN. The UN loses credibility for forming it and the IPCC loses credibility for lying."

Mistakes are not lying, Josh.

Furlong said...

"Mistakes are not lying"

When you publish information stating that swaths of the rain forest will be wiped out with a slight change in rainfall after it was brought to their attention it was false; and this information is backup my nothing; and you're supposed to be the definitive source on this science....

Sorry. Whether you lied, or made a mistake, your credibility is busted.