Herald unhappy with IPCC errors
The Herald editorial looks at the IPCC woes:
More than one mistake has been found recently in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set up by the United Nations to provide authoritative reports on global warming, and the errors are hardly peripheral.
The IPCC’s powerful Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 declared there was a probability of glaciers disappearing from the Himalayas by 2035 or sooner.
And those pointing out the error were labelled as pushing voodoo science by the IPCC Chairman.
If the Himalayan debacle was bad enough, the panel references to disappearing ice in the Andes, the European Alps and Africa are even more embarrassing.
They turn out to have been based on a student dissertation and an article in a climbing magazine.
And there is more …
Last week, the IPCC’s attempts to link natural disasters to global warming was critically examined.
Its claim in 2007 that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s” turns out to have been based on a paper that had not been peer-reviewed or published at that time.
When the paper was published in 2008 it included a caveat that the evidence was insufficient to establish a statistical relationship between the global temperature increase and catastrophes.
Yet the panel said nothing about the caveat before last year’s Copenhagen Conference where the fear of natural disasters loomed large among African nations in particular.
The IPCC seem to have gone for any article anywhere that supports the thesis, regardless of whether or not it is peer reviewed.
These errors are not merely academic; they cause real worry in the regions concerned.
And generate lots of funding to study said problems.
Climate scientists are anxious to deny that these “slip-ups” discredit the IPCC’s conclusions overall but sceptics of climate change have seized upon them to do exactly that.
The IPCC’s reputation is not helped now by the argument of authority its supporters have employed for so long. Criticism was dismissed as conceit in the face of a “scientific consensus” that by implication could not be wrong.
Well the consensus has been wrong, or at least careless on several points. Scepticism has strengthened, but it is only scepticism; human-induced climate change has not been disproved. It remains too worrying to be dismissed.
Governments need dispassionate scientific assessments of it, not anecdotes, unchecked papers and agitators’ propaganda.
The IPCC urgently needs new leadership and a return to strict scientific rigour if it hopes to be taken seriously again.
At a minimum the IPCC Chairman needs to resign. Anything pubished under his watch will not be regarded as credible after his voodoo science comments.
iPredict has the chance of the Chairman resigning as 60%. It was only 20% up until the end of January and has shot up in the last few days.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:07 am
They still cant help spinning it “but it is only scepticism; human-induced climate change has not been disproved. It remains too worrying to be dismissed.”
Of course human-induced climate change has not been proved either but the way they spin it you wouldn’t pick that up. If it’s too worrying to be dismissed so is the very real chance of this planet being hit (again) by a large meteorite. Where is the massive spending on space defenses?
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:10 am
“Scepticism has strengthened, but it is only scepticism; human-induced climate change has not been disproved.”
We don’t have to disprove anything. You want to tax me, YOU have to PROVE there is a problem with ACTUAL SCIENCE. So far all we got is bullshit and your bullshit HAS BEEN DISPROVED.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:11 am
And we have NIWA in New Zealand. NIWA Unable To Justify Official Temperature Record.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 am
GUILTY! …until proven innocent… why not throw the progeny of dysfunctional families in prison now so as to avoid the problems they may create in the future? Statistics have shown there is a likelihood…sure it’ll cost more in increased taxes to put them inside, but it’s a price society must be prepared to pay to safeguard our future.
It’s bullshit whichever way you look at it!
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:27 am
Did ya hear the Chairman of the IPCC has written a bodice ripper. leighton Smith read bits of it on ZB Talk about a laugh,
And didya know the guys a train engineer otta India.
When outfits like this start to publish everything and anything that even looks like it agrees with their wacko thinking you know the end is nigh.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:29 am
There has been another mistake outed since those two. I forget where I saw it- on the Times website, I think.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:30 am
Does the Green Party fifth-columnist Nick Smith read the Herald?
As a Minister he based his ETS on much of the IPCC findings, that Smith must be ashamed of the many lies discovered so far.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:31 am
Its game over for the Climate Alarmists and its game over for john Key if he doesn’t do something about the wretched ETS and it fucks over the economy.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:33 am
Global warming has never been proven.
The entire argument has always rested on a large number of probable or possible ideas.
Supposedly a large number of probable or possible things add up to certainty and consensus.
Now it’s recognised that many of those ideas are complete rubbish (something that sceptics have been saying for a long time).
All that’s left now is a smaller list of probable or possible things – growing shorter every day.
What people should be asking now, is at what stage do we consider Global Warming dead?
As we know, it’s almost impossible to disprove something in science.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:33 am
FF Smith
Is this the article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:38 am
I’m buying around $0.50 and selling around $0.65. Totally agree that they OUGHT to get rid of Pachauri. But there’s no clear mechanism for removal of Chair in the IPCC constitution, the next meeting isn’t ’till November (contract pays out in May), and one of the IPCC report authors previously cited as calling for Pachauri’s head has recanted.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:52 am
Of course the whole impact of this fraud would have been a lot less if the staff at the Herald had done their job as journalists, and probed and enquired and sought truth rather than just repeating propaganda and, like the original creators of that propaganda, sought to silence by intimidation and ridicule anyone who spoke against AGW.
One swallow does not make a spring, and one editiorial does not make a newspaper from a propaganda broadsheet. People should never forget how they were betrayed by their media, and how the media today are, until they are embarrassed by their own deceit and can deny it no longer, an echo chamber for the fraud and fakery that populates the left of the political spectrum.
The media are traitors to their profession and agents for their leftist political masters. Do not forget their complicity in this fraud.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:53 am
It seems Phil Jones could face up to 10 years for the fraud he has committed.
http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges
There’s also this interesting chart showing the grants and funding the UAE CRU received http://i46.tinypic.com/4uv13n.png
And a critique of an editorial in Nature that highlights how political that magazine is (rather than actually being a scientific journal)
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/the-politics-of-nature/
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:53 am
ipredict should be used to hedge one’s emotions. You bet on Labour so that if Labour wins an election you at least get some money to compensate for the horror that involved. So, on this issue, it is best to invest in Pachauri staying.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 am
Read in the SMH that a study from 1990 which backed the idea that increased urbanisation had little effect on temperature readings has been called into question. Apparantly the scientists behind the study would not disclose the location of the weather stations they used in China.
Now one of the strongest argument against global warming has been that increased urbanisation means that many weather stations have changed from being rural, surrounded by cool trees and grass, to urban, surrounded by warm concrete and cars, just by staying exactly where they are. So from the IPCC’s persepctive, the study above is very important as it forms the basis of their response to that criticism.
Stop me if this is unreasonable, but if I was a scientist who believed my paper proved the world was very likely to experience some sort of catastrophe in the next few decades, I would be releasing ALL my data to ANYONE that asked for it. I mean, we are talking about the end of the world here, there is no point hiding anything if you want to save it.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:06 am
As many on this thread have said, the onus is on the AGW brigade to PROVE human-caused global warming, not on skeptics to DISPROVE it. I haven’t yet read anything that proves to me that humans are causing global warming; in fact, the very idea is ludicrous.
I was going to say that future generations will laugh at us for this, but they probably won’t. By then everyone will be able to see that AGW wasn’t about saving the planet or anyone else – it was all about politics and establishing a new kind of government – oh, and MONEY.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:06 am
@george: that’s a VERY good overall policy.
I’m emotion-neutral, so I’m happy to provide that kind of insurance for folks.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:10 am
The problem is there is a lot of competition for being the one who successfully predicts the end of the world, so it is natural that some will try and hide their sources.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:10 am
>At a minimum the IPCC Chairman needs to resign.
That’s like saying the Flat Earth Society could be made credible if they got a new chairman. Or that the Catholic Church’s position that the Earth was the center of the universe was salvageable if only the Pope who had it in for Galileo had resigned.
The IPCC is irrevocably compromised. So is the CRU. NIWA is getting close to that stage. And because of his lack of critical thinking, they’ve taken Nick Smith down with them as well. The only option now is to wind up these defective groups, post Smith to some minor country that needs an ambassador, and get rid of the ETS before it ruins the NZ economy.
That is all trivially easy. The hard part will be setting up a new and respected system for making measurements of the environment. You can’t do this credibly if you employ any of the current alarmist cult members, or involve any of the politicians who have contributed to the problem.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:21 am
“The problem is there is a lot of competition for being the one who successfully predicts the end of the world, so it is natural that some will try and hide their sources.”
And it would be natural to do a hell of a lot more, like, trim/adjust/massage/”correct” some data that doesnt help your case.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:22 am
The other major point is that this fraud has been perpetrated most damagingly WITHIN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM.
(If I see one more dopey dewy eyed indoctrinated schoolgirl on TV who is going to save the world from the capitalist sins of her forebears I’ll puke)
And what are National doing about that crime??
They’re calling for tenders to ensure the propaganda is more effectively applied.
Time to dump all of these politicians. They’re all cast from the same mould.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
davidp – which is why it will never happen.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:26 am
Can’t be, Doug, as I refuse to read the Grauniad. It was definitely The Times, and here it is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:32 am
Its game over for the Climate Alarmists and its game over for john Key if he doesn’t do something about the wretched ETS and it fucks over the economy.
Who you gonna elect? Goff? Your threat is too empty, there is no alternative. Switching your vote to Labour would guarentee an ETS.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:33 am
IPCC are trying to repair the damage done by the Himalayian Glacier story. Seems like they are still on thin ice to me. Interestingly, the article suggests carbon soot, nitrates and dust might be partially to blame for the current cycle of slowly melting glaciers. Even if that were so, there would be no connection to that and IPCC’s suggestion that taxing CO2 is the cure to their anecdotal evidence.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 am
The connections of the current IPCC Chair are quite alarming. More information on Mr Voodoo about to be outed. The man is a Charlatan. He would be ideal to be the fat controller for KiwiRail. Well if there was enough money to upgrade those old inefficient engines, and stop them emitting real pollution.
Kiwi Rail, ah the trainset that the Labour faithful suggested that was worth buying no matter what the cost. Busy is it?
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I reckon that the Herald actually understates the case in a way. The Glaciers issue was not a slip-up or a mistake, it was a quite deliberate piece of politicking that was passed off as “science”. Pachauri and the IPCC were made aware of the dubious and unsupported nature of the Himalayan glacier data prior to publication, and a deliberate decision was made to retain that information and not to add any caveats or corrections.
So it’s not just unfortunate errors from oversights or however they’re trying to spin it, it’s deliberate misrepresentation of facts claimed to be scientific. The IPCC is not a scientific organization but a politically activist advocacy group and its reports need to be treated as such.
This latest “revelations” on the UHI study using Chinese data is not new, it was raised several years ago, only without the sort of critical re-examination mindset being introduced to the field the original complaints were simply whitewashed by all concerned. This shows very well the problems when science becomes advocacy, dogma replaces facts. Many of the participants in the field have long since crossed the boundary from concerned scientists to religious proselytizers, and either need a huge mindshift back to science or to be dumped from the field.
Get it all out in the open, sunlight, as it is said, makes an excellent disinfectant. We should be extremely grateful to those who have persevered in exposing the problems. Despite a widespread, well funded and well supported disinformation and personal vilification campaign by the AGW camp (which continues even now, however its shrillness and untruthfulness has been partially exposed so it is less effective), those people continued to practice science as she is supposed to done.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Ed Snack – remember – the IPCC report was written by 2000 scientists and was peer reviewed. Just not very well as it happens.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Who you gonna elect? Goff? Your threat is too empty, there is no alternative. Switching your vote to Labour would guarentee an ETS.
Vote ACT
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Pachauri won’t be going anytime soon. If he does, it will focus more attention upon the discredited IPCC, as the cheerleaders within the MSM will have to report why.
Interestingly the pro warmist BBC has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth …BBC pension funds linked to climate policy…
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Remember that Gordon Brown said before Copenhagen, that he/we only had 50 days to ‘Save the World’. So the Prime Mentalist failed, and yet there is no seeming cause for alarm. Strange that.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Who you gonna elect? Goff? Your threat is too empty, there is no alternative. Switching your vote to Labour would guarentee an ETS.
Vote ACT
When their polling hits 5%, let me know.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Train-engineer Pachauri’s arrogance reaches new heights. His credibility shot, all he can do is bluster and continue the littany of lies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Andrei 10:31 am,
But Andrei, what are the One Worlders going to do now to raise funding to usher in Global Governance?
If they’re not able to use AGW as their vehicle to this ends, then I KNOW they’ll have something else in the pipeline.
Of course, if the UN determines that, despite the IPCC lies and deceit, there is still a POSSIBLE chance of global disaster due to AGW, and pass internationally binding laws to that ends, then the opinions of the likes of you and me will make little difference at the end of the day.
Somehow I still see ETSs, carbon and energy taxation, etc ALL being ushered in on the back of the scam that is AGW.
(Beam me up ‘Scotty’)
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:55 pm
A golden opportunity exists for the National led government to defer the implementation of the ETS.
They could say “we believed the scientists but recent events have cast doubts on the veracity of their claims”.
They could then announce a independent commission of inquiry, to be chaired by a senior member of the judicary, into the truth or otherwise of AGW.
Leading professionals on both sides of the debate could be invited to NZ, to fight it out in an impartial atmosphere and NZ would gain hours of precious international air time.
What think ye oh Minister of Tourism?
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:57 pm
When their polling hits 5%, let me know.
Bevan, if everyone thinks like that it never will.
The fact is that ACT is the only party that does not buy into this nonsense.
If anyone is seriously concerned about this scam I cannot understand them voting for a party that supports it.
I cannot understand National signing up to this latest agreement with the latest revelations about the dishonesty in the IIPC.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I think we need a new political protest party.
None of the present parties have any credibility at the moment, ACT included.
A one election protest party – People against the ETS Party – or sumsuch would do the trick.
Party vote only, sell it on the cost -ie $4.5k minimum ETS tax per NZ citizen per election cycle. ( average family cost $18k )
Put the shits up the bastards for a change. They need to be reminded they work for us.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
“What think ye oh Minister of Tourism?”
Precisely the problem: he doesn’t think.
The ‘empty-suit’ is told what to say by PR people, spin-doctors, and incompetent ministers.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I think we need a new political protest party.
None of the present parties have any credibility at the moment, ACT included.
Chicken Little, are you prepared to start up such a party. This would involve getting 500 paid up members amongst other things.
I do not think you have any idea what is involved in starting a political party and keeping one going.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Manolo
You don’t get to be PM of NZ by being an ignoramus. If you did it would be a damning indictment on all of us.
Key and his advisors will be aware of climate-gate and it’s aftermath and will be reading the tea-leaves AND any poll that gives an indication of the public mood.
By now they will be working on a strategy to extract themselves from the ETS or at least defer it. DPF’s change in attitude to AGW in the last 2 weeks is an indicator that a section of the National Party at least are embolding themselves to question the “once settled” science.
The “kites a being flown” and the “waters tested”, what better way of jumping the fence than to pass the whole vexatious question to a Royal Commission of Inquiry and gain international kudos for instituting the first completely impartial investigation into the scientific credibility of Anthropogenic Global Warming!
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Reg, I’m sorry to disagree but your explanation reeks of political expediency on National’s part.
Why the haste in passing an ETS last year when NZ had all the time in the world to come up with a more measured scheme? Why not to follow Australia in that regard?
As per DPF’s change in attitude, I prefer not to comment. You can draw your own conclusions.
If you are telling me Key and co. are “reading the tea leaves” (your words) and only acting on the public mood, then I confess NZ is doomed and saddled to elect vapid and undecisive political “leaders” like him.
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Ahhh Chuck – how do you know what I know?
I’d probably just go here and take it from there.
Getting 500 paid up members? Can’t see too many problems there as long as people realise it’s a protest party.
As evidenced by most of our members of Parliament you don’t have to be particularly smart to contest a general election and once in you just need a long nose so as to reach the trough.
It’s becoming obvious that unless something like this is attempted politicians of any stripe will just continue on their merry way doing whatever they want and then handing out the bribes come election year, relying on the public to not have many choices.
So Yes, if there was interest, I would definitely like to be involved in setting up such a party.
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Manolo, please don’t be surprised that politicians act politically.
That’s their stock and trade.
When Key rammed through the ETS he believed that regardles of the science it would be percieved to be in our national interests to do so.
This perception is now history. And I would expect that a shrewd politician like Key would be weighing up the political consequences of various ETS exit strategies.
I believe some form of Commission of Inquiry into AGW would be a great way to turn a political embarrassment into an international photo-op.
What would you do if you found yourself in his predicament (hypothetical I know).
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:50 pm
If Key/National really are pondering an ETS exit scheme, then why did they just sign the Jokenhagen accord? Surely holding off signing that would have been a good sign that they are actually considering the real evidence.
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
And the other issue is that if there is a problem with made man climate change (and I can’t help but wonder if pouring shedloads of shit in to the atmosphere is a great idea) these turkeys undermine the very cause they are trying to promote. In fact they do that whether or not there is man made climate change but it is somewhat more important if there is!
By suppressing debate and labelling sceptics and even questioning minds as the equivalent of holocaust deniers the proponents of climate change have only given rise to more questions and greater scepticism. Dorks.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Ahhh Chuck – how do you know what I know?
I have a fair idea what you do not know and that is how to set up a party that will achieve 1% let alone 5%.
So Yes, if there was interest, I would definitely like to be involved in setting up such a party.
It is your idea so you start the party not just offer to help if someone takes the initiative. Give your real name and contact details if you are serious.
I have heard people talk about starting a political party and see the results. Take a look at the, Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. They got 0.41% of the vote.
ACT is the only party in Parliament that opposes this scam. If you need manage to get a few thousand votes with a lot of effort what would it achieve?
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Hagues
The ground has shifted a lot since Copenhagan.
Glaciergate
Amazongate
Calls for the IPCC chairman to resign, by left wing media.
An Exit scheme must be on the cards or they will be exiting themselves.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
RightNow (601) Says:
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:53 am
It seems Phil Jones could face up to 10 years for the fraud he has committed.
http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges
I won’t hold my breath but only when I see the prosecutions in all the countries these people work in will I be truly happy.
That includes any here.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Chuck
ACT is the only party to have been consistent on Climate Change.
Vote Party Vote ACT
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Reg, the problem is the accord was only signed by National one or two days ago, after all this shit has been uncovered. In fact climategate, before Jokenhagen, should have been enough to make them hold off any signing any agreement whatsoever until the dust settled. So the question remains, why on earth did they sign at all?
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Hagues: The trouble is we put too much stead in our politician… we assume that logic and reason will form part of their vision/agenda for the country when, in fact, they stand for SFA beyond retaining their seat in office.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:52 pm
I just came here to check out Ms Luc Hansen to see if she here doing her usual piss takes comments. It is a surprise that this (repeater) Ms Hansen is not here to spout out all her usual bullsh*t. Perhaps Ms Hansen has decided to enrol in some physics courses at Auck Uni (on Falafulu’s advise), just to educate herself in fundamental physics/scientific concepts relating to climate science so that she becomes a formidable debater on the subject around the blogosphere.
I think that atmospheric & geo-physicist Prof. Geoff Austin from the Physics Department (who had criticized climate scaremongers & doomsayers in an article on the NZ Herald) would be delighted to have Ms Hansen as a geo/atmospheric physics student, since not many graduates chose to do post-grad studies in this field over the years.
Way to go Ms Hansen. You can come back and educate us all about climate science, yeeha!!!
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Yeah, yeah whatever chuck, you the man, you know it all……..
ACT have proven themselves in the last couple of months to be just as venal and grasping as the rest of them so excuse me if I don’t knock myself out to vote for them.
Now, if you’ll excuse me I’ve got a political party to organise.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:09 am
Pita (204) Says:
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Pachauri won’t be going anytime soon. If he does, it will focus more attention upon the discredited IPCC, as the cheerleaders within the MSM will have to report why.
Interestingly the pro warmist BBC has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth …BBC pension funds linked to climate policy…
Here is a link to the fund: (read how many zeros are involved!! (euros of course)…as well as who else has got their fingers in the pie)
http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx
The BBC’s ‘man in the field’:
http://www.spsconferences.com/our_speakers.asp?spkid=386
And an interesting blog post about the whole thing:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/fingers-in-pies.html