Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

01/31/2010 (8:04 pm)

And The Hits Just Keep On Coming

Perito Moreno Glacier calves

Just when you thought that the IPCC could not look worse, the UK Telegraph reported today that a key claim in the 2007 IPCC report regarding ice melts in the Alps, the Andes, and Africa was based on anecdotal evidence from climbers and the masters thesis of a geography student, neither of them peer-reviewed.

The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes…

“There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”

Tol observes that there were probably no policy decisions based on this particular conclusion, but that’s beside the point. The point is, it’s becoming abundantly clear the IPCC lied about the level of rigor in its reports. The makes both the IPCC and its reports untrustworthy. After ClimateGate, which featured several key authors of portions of the IPCC report, the false claims about Himalayan glaciers, and numerous citations from non-peer-reviewed articles by environmental activist groups, this report makes the IPCC look comical. It will be interesting to see whether the IPCC actually maintains any clout in the coming years.

The entire climate change regime needs to be re-evaluated from the start, by groups of scientists chosen from places not tainted by the recent climate change scandals. More than anything, the conflicts of interest that apparently exist for governments should be publicly acknowledged — climate change can be used to increase governmental power — and information to be used in policy formation should come from sources who are neither personally nor ideologically aligned with increasing the power of government. If there are scientific reasons for humans to change their behavior, the warnings must come without the slightest hint of partisanship — something that is arguably now impossible for the IPCC.

Meanwhile, El Miliband, the UK’s Climate Secretary, demonstrated his purely political point of view by “declaring war” on climate skeptics, minimizing the impact of the deeply embarrassing revelations about the “robust” IPCC report, and calling on those who “take these things seriously” to “organize.” Nice to know they’re concerned about keeping the science pure. [/sarc]

« « Bipartisan Job Creation, My Posterior | Main | Ailes Schools Arianna » »

6 Comments »

January 31, 2010 @ 9:09 pm #

Phil, this does make them look particularly boneheaded. And your last paragraph is good common sense (which is why it probably will not happen)

It’s not really important, but I’m not sure of the chain here. Was Tol one of the authors of the 2007 report? Is he disavowing the 2007 report for which he was partially responsible, saying it is based in part on a collection of anecdotes?

January 31, 2010 @ 9:33 pm #

It’s not really important, but I’m not sure of the chain here. Was Tol one of the authors of the 2007 report? Is he disavowing the 2007 report for which he was partially responsible, saying it is based in part on a collection of anecdotes?

Tol was one of the authors of the 2007 report, according to the Telegraph article. He’s not disavowing the entire report, just the section linking the melting of Alpine, African and Argentine glaciers to global warming based on anecdotal evidence.

February 1, 2010 @ 8:12 am #

Thanks for the clarification. Seems like this would be a good issue for the Republicans to press in their quest to become something more than ” the party of no.”

Bullet point the ludicrous and biased mistakes. Emphasize how current policies are being shaped by those with a vested interest. Tell Americans we need to “hit the reset button” and reevaluate this before tossing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into what may be a rathole. And suggest a logical way to reevaluate.

I have no problem trying to leave a smaller carbon footprint if someone can convince me the problem has been rigorously and honestly vetted. But I have a little problem with Al Gore or George Clooney pontificating from their private jet or 20,000 square foot mansion on how the guy who works at the local Wal-Mart needs to get rid of his SUV.

February 1, 2010 @ 1:40 pm #

>>Seems like this would be a good issue for the Republicans to press in their quest to become something more than ” the party of no.”>>

I don’t disagree with your response, but personally, I’d like the GOP to stand up and take responsibility for being the “party of NO!” Maybe run some of those old drug use ads that touted “Just say NO”. Show an ad with someone about to just about to jump off a cliff, or a parent with a child about to run into a busy street after a ball…there are times when you _need_ someone to “Just say NO”, and now is one of them. I’d like for the GOP to stand firm and start saying “you’re darn right we’re the party of NO”!
That’s of course, aside from the fact that the Dems hold an absolute majority in both houses plus the presidency, so that the GOP could turn blue while saying NO and it would make no difference…

February 1, 2010 @ 3:10 pm #

suek,

No problem at all with this. I think they should wave “No!” like a flag in their campaign and state emphatically that they will continue to say No! whenever the situation warrants; and that they will not hesitate to do so, even if it is politically incorrect or cuts against the grain of one of the media’s sacred cows. But I think they also need to emphasize that they do have some new ideas of their own.

February 2, 2010 @ 11:19 am #

>>I think they also need to emphasize that they do have some new ideas of their own.>>

No disagreement here. The problem, of course, is that the Dems insist on denying that the GOP has offered anything, and that’s the way the MSM reports it. Obama finally admitted that the GOP had offered solutions (during his meeting with the GOP), but then said that “none of my economic advisors said they would work”. Ok…we disagree. But denial is just a flat lie. And the MSM is supporting that denial. I’m not sure how to break through the news reportage when it seems determined to undermine the facts.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>