Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/15/2010 1:50:49 PM PST by neverdem
The establishment weblog Real Climate has posted a lengthy defence of the errors found in the IPCC report. This is much like their behaviour after the Climategate leak of emails--they waited a few days and came out with a long post saying basically, 'there's nothing to see here.' I wonder if Gavin Schmidt (the principal contributor to Real Climate) will man the fort as heroically as he did at the time of Climategate, where he babysat and commented on more than 2,000 posted comments in a couple of days.
However, much like his defence of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Ben Santer and the rest of the crew involved in Climategate, Schmidt's defence of the IPCC has some serious flaws. According to Real Climate, there was only one real mistake found--the misreported meltdown of the Himalayan glaciers. They say possibly two--a misreading of documents led to a rather inconsequential misreporting of the percentage of land in the Netherlands that is under sea level.
After that, however, Real Climate starts to do a little bit of a dance in defending the report. (Real Climate's post is valuable in explaining how the IPCC is organised and how their reports are structured. I recommend reading their post just for that, especially as I'm not going to repeat it here.) Their 'gold standard' Synthesis Report states that in some African countries, 'yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50%' due to global warming. However, this is not true. Real Climate says that more information is provided in another section of the report, done by Work Group 2, which provides proper context for the statement in Work Group 2. And they quote the nuanced information. To which the only real response is, it's a pity that the correct information didn't make it into the part of the report that people read.
Policy makers are not expected to read the 3,000 page report--they are expected to be familiar with the 'gold standard' Synthesis Report. Which is dead wrong on the facts of this issue. It's very much like the argument on 'hide the decline,' where the climate establishment wants us to believe that because the decline in proxy temperature reconstructions is discussed in the literature, it is legitimate to hide the decline and replace it with other data--which means policy makers who don't read all the peer reviewed literature will not know that the proxy temperature reconstruction may not be reliable at all...
"Environmentalism is instinctively and relentlessly illiberal, and it is doing more to inculcate people with fear, self-loathing and a religious-style sense of meekness than any piece of anti-terror legislation ever could. If you believe in freedom, you must reject it."
-- Brendan O'Neill, Greens are the enemies of liberty, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday July 15, 2008
I have also been noting just how many references to Global Warming I hear in any given day of channel surfing on cable, and the investment in the farce is indeed enormous when one considers the rationale behind an enormous number of assertions on so-called science channels is a bogus theory which is having its own little meltdown.
This is either going to hurt the media a lot more than throwing out a few dozen Captain Planet cartoons, to either edit out the references or shelve/chuck hours upon hours of programming, or they are not going to stop pushing the myth.
Scandinavia-gate --IPCC fails.. temperature today roughly similar to that of the 1930’s
The warmers need to publicly apologize to us and to the millions of children they have brain-washed (”for the children!”). They then need to resign their positions and roam the wilderness begging for forgiveness. What frauds, fools and incompetents. feh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.