Free Markets, Free People

More Global Warming Claims Debunked

It started as a trickle and is now turning into a flood.  More claims found in the “bible of the alarmists”, the UN’s 2007 IPCC report, have been found to be false.

The two latest have to do with extreme weather increases and the disappearance of the Amazon rain forest.

The IPCC 2007 report claimed that global warming was leading to an increase in extreme weather, such as hurricanes and floods. Like its claims about the glaciers, this was also based on an unpublished report which had not been subject to scientific scrutiny — indeed several experts warned the IPCC not to rely on it.

The author, who didn’t actually finish his work until a year after the IPCC had used his research, has now repudiated what he sees has its misuse of his work.

His conclusion: “There is insufficient evidence to claim a statistical link between global warming and catastrophe loss.”

Yet it was because of this — now unproved — link that the British government signed up to a $100 billion transfer from rich to poor countries to help them cope with a supposed increase in floods and hurricanes.

Peer review? Obviously impossible since the work hadn’t even been finished by the time the IPCC report was published. And much the same has been found concerning the IPCC claim that 40% of the Amazonian forests were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by “tropical savannas” if temperatures continued to rise.

This claim is backed up by a scientific-looking reference but on closer investigation turns out to be yet another non-peer reviewed piece of work from the WWF. Indeed the two authors are not even scientists or specialists on the Amazon: one is an Australian policy analyst, the other a freelance journalist for the Guardian and a green activist.

The WWF has yet to provide any scientific evidence that 40% of the Amazon is threatened by climate change — as opposed to the relentless work of loggers and expansion of farms.

What was that question that alarmists like to ask about the IPCC report? Oh, yeah – “how can 2,500 scientists be wrong?” Here’s how – take unfinished research, fudged data and un-peer reviewed work and publish it claiming it is none of those things, that’s how.

The good news?

The sceptics may be about to get their first scalp. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman often wrongly described in the media as the world’s leading climate scientist (he’s actually a railway engineer), at first attacked those who questioned the IPCC’s alarming glacier prediction as “arrogant” and believers in “voodoo science”.

He’s since had to retract the prediction but can’t quite manage an apology — and is now under mounting pressure in his Indian homeland to resign.

And resign he should – the IPCC report, for which he was responsible, seems to be a pack of lies promulgated to advance a political agenda designed to loot rich countries and transfer the wealth to poorer countries under the auspices of “science”. He and that group have, instead, tarnished the reputation of science and set it back at least 50 years. It’s time for a little accountability in this world. Pachauri should resign at a minimum and, if a way can be figured out to do it, brought up on charges of conspiracy to defraud.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

29 Responses to More Global Warming Claims Debunked

  • As someone who has argued on the other side since 2001, there is one word to summarize: VINDICATION
    Thanks for posting it

  • Schadenfreude makes me feel so guilty, but it sure is fun.

  • The alarmist excuse is the same as it was when the CRU email scandal erupted, and is just as hollow.  When the CRU emails went public, the reaction was to shrug their shoulders and claim that a bunch of personal and out-of-context emails proved nothing except that these were human beings with typical human failings and that there was no conspiracy to socialize the planet.  They continue with this line, even though there has been plenty of evidence that, when placed into proper context, the emails show a determined effort to falsify data and disrupt the peer-review process in order to force a specific story on the public.
    After the discovery about the inclusion of claims about the Himalayan glaciers, the excuse was that it was just one entry, and to focus on it was to attempt to dismiss the other 2,500-3,000 pages of “good science.”  But the problem with the claims about the Himalayan glaciers is that it revealed that the review process was corrupted and that this corruption put the entire report into doubt.  Subsequent discoveries have verified that this concern is legitimate, and continue to erode confidence in the IPCC and its reports.  Personally, I believe that the whole mess should be scrapped, as it is hopelessly scandalized and compromised.
    The IPCC and its reports cannot be used to influence policy anymore, except in a direction opposite of that which its creators want.  It has become an albatross, and the longer that the organization and its output exist, the greater the damage being done to science and research in general.

  • Yes, he should resign, and Erb should also resign, for being such a tendentious silly hoax believing twat.

  • Now, we must overcome the inertia provided by fools and charlatans, college professors and politicians, ah, but I repeat myself.

  • so more fake but true ‘evidence’ from the reality based community…
    who’da thunk it…

  • … but the science is “settled”  .. like shit in a cesspool

  • But the science is still settled.  Global warming is real.  I decree it.

    / sarc

  • Why do you hate Erb’s children?

  • Well, at least we can feel safe in the knowledge that Dr. Erb won’t show up on this thread to tell us we’re all deniers who want to doom his children.

  • I don’t agree he should have the choice to resign. He should be fired/dismissed and his reputation so tarnished he can not find another job in any scientific field.

  • Three years ago, when the IPCC report was issued, we wrote: “Let there be no mistake: all the signs suggest the need for action . . . but cool heads are essential.” We noted the big story from the report was the “higher level of implied scientific certainty” about anthropogenic warming and predicted the debate would be pushed out of the laboratory and into the political arena.
    It has proved to be so, with politicians unwilling to manage the uncertainties and gaps in science as they push their constituencies to action. Still, nothing prepared us for the sloppy reporting, including the extraordinary process by which claims on the melting of glaciers were based on a third-hand news report. Our planet deserves better than that.

  • I just heard something on the Radio that he had resigned.

  • I hope I’m not alone, but I keep getting a feeling that the whole AGW schtick is a “happy face” painted on an otherwise unhappy scenario. Sure, fossil fuels will run out one day, global oil production will (or has) peak(ed), and we are sending bucket loads of cash overseas to countries that don’t like us, but if this is the underlying story why can’t policymakers be square with us ?

    Higgins: It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
    Joe Turner
    : Ask them?
    : Not now – then! Ask ’em when they’re running out. Ask ’em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ’em when their engines stop. Ask ’em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ’em. They’ll just want us to get it for ’em!

    Did the 1975 film, “Three Days of the Condor” so scare policymakers that they believe that they can’t level with the American people, or is it that their current strategy requires fooling the current OPEC countries until they exhaust their supplies ? The latter would explain the failure to develop domestic oil sources and concentrate on “renewables” like bio-fuels, that are carbon based an would add to AGW sources (an AGW paradox).
    Or is this all merely a plot by politicians to raise taxes out of thin air ?

    • you are reading far too much into it.  The answer is (d), They are stupid.  period, that is all there is too it. Most politicians are stupid, and the left wing ones are particularly, sometimes spectacularly, stupid.

    • Neo – … I keep getting a feeling that the whole AGW schtick is a “happy face” painted on an otherwise unhappy scenario… if this is the underlying story why can’t policymakers be square with us?

      I wouldn’t worry about it too much.  Predictions of gloom ‘n’ doom are a regular feature of human life.  There have been such predictions that the world will run out of oil / food since the ’70s (“Soylent Green”, anyone?) and before, yet the world’s population continues to grow.  George Will did a quick sketch of the “energy crises” of the past:

      In 1914, the Bureau of Mines said that U.S. oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. In 1939, the Interior Department said that the world had 13 years’ worth of petroleum reserves. Then a global war was fought, and the postwar boom was fueled. In 1951 Interior reported that the world had . . . 13 years of reserves. In 1970, the world’s proven oil reserves were an estimated 612 billion barrels. By 2006, more than 767 billion barrels had been pumped, and proven reserves were 1.2 trillion barrels. In 1977, scold in chief Jimmy Carter predicted that mankind “could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.” Since then the world has consumed three times more oil than was then in the world’s proven reserves.

      At any rate, I’m a big believer in technology and necessity being the mother of invention.  For example, I’m pretty sure that we could not feed our current population if not for the invention of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, mechanized farming techniques, etc, as well as high-speed transportation systems that can deliver fresh food from farms on one coast to stores on the other before the food can spoil.  When the price of oil naturally rises to a level that will make alternate forms of energy economically viable*, then I expect to see those technologies go into widespread use with usual advances.^  And who knows what tomorrow may bring?  Perhaps some smart scientists will solve the problem of nuclear fusion, make a breakthrough in solar cell technology that will make them much more useful, or develop some completely new technology that will make the IC engine as useful as a horse and buggy.

      NeoOr is this all merely a plot by politicians to raise taxes out of thin air?

      Yeah, that’s pretty much it.


      (*) This has been part of the driving force behind the efforts of libs around the world to create an energy crisis through taxation and the global warming fraud: FORCING people to use alternative energy, which is usually heavily subsidized because it doesn’t work as well as the commonly-used technologies it’s designed to replace.

      (^) Despite the venom directed at it by tree-huggers, the automobile is a great success story and underscores how technology improves an idea.  A bit over a century ago, the car was a balky, unreliable, expensive luxury.  Now, it’s a commonplace, reliable, indispensible part of our lives due to improvements that have been made over the years.

    • No resource is suddenly going to run out one day.  There will be a declining supply over time (decades and years, not months) and no one is going to be surprised by it as the prices will correspondingly rise.  And as oil prices rise, more oil will be extracted from harder to get sources, thus flattening the declining curve even more.

      • You forget the people who predict these sorts of ‘running out’ things generally don’t live in the real world the rest of us live in.    They think this suddenly running out thing happens regularly because they go to Whole Earth food store, and find their favorite yogurt has been discontinued due to lack of demand, and from there, upset, they make their way home where they embark on a flight of fancy about automobiles suddenly stopped cold on the streets of New York because some moron cabbie from Tadjickistan almost picked them off as they went from Whole Earth back to their 3rd floor walk up.   Shortly followed by a script sent to a producer in Hollywood that’s turned into the movie RoadWarrior.

  • The WWF?
    Man, what do wrestlers know about forests?

  • I predict that we will improve tech and make shale oil the next big energy source for transportation. I think nukes are the future in power plants. We just need to get leftists out of the way . . .

    • “I think nukes are the future in power plants.”

      So do I, but I do hope advances in solar manage to kick in 5 or 10% of power needs. Some of the new nanotech stuff for solar looks to get the cost for roof-based, individual solar cheap enough to compete with other power options in the next few years. Plus, generating electricity close to where it’s used might save on transmission costs.

      • And it would be nice if something happens to the big power plant to have some minimal power in your house from your own solar panels.

  • Even more – turns out the Brits have decided that East Anglia broke the law by refusing to release their the climate data for review under their version of the FOIA (but can’t be prosecuted…well, we have to start somewhere I suppose).