British Press Smacks IPCC Over Junk Science, Hysteria

The British press is slamming the heck out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the head office of the Church of Global Warming.

It’s all started to unravel for High Priest Al Gore and his fellow earth worshipers in the last year.

Gore himself was caught making up stuff about the polar ice caps melting and the “millions of degrees” of heat in the earth’s core (it’s only a few thousand).  Gore doesn’t seem to take the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming seriously, since he recently bought a huge mansion in California which has to leave a massive “carbon footprint” on his precious earth goddess.  We already knew about his mansion in Tennessee that uses more electricity in a month than most American homes use in a year, and how he uses floodlights to light up his trees for all to see and marvel upon.

We also learned that the head of the IPCC himself, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, doesn’t take they hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) seriously, instead taking 1-mile limo rides to work and to the market.

The IPCC got caught multiple times in the last year with its collective (collectivist?) pants down. The IPCC made hysterical claims about Himalayan glaciers melting that weren’t true.  They got caught including environmentalist propaganda about the Amazon jungle in their official report, trying to pass it off as objective science.

And who could forget the hypocrisy of the global warming crowd that showed up for the confab in Copenhagen in a bunch of private jets and limousines?  Apparently they don’t take global warming seriously, either (yet we, the ignorant unwashed masses are expected to ride bicycles and turn off our air conditioning for them).  It’s rather hard to produce a year’s-worth of carbon footprint equivalent of 660,000 Ethiopians in a few days and claim you’re worried about man’s contribution to global warming.  The cold weather and blizzards they had to put up with during this global warming confab probably made it difficult for them to focus, too. Of course, some of them accidentally let is slip that the real focus of the exercise was some good ole’ Marxist “stick it to the rich” class envy.

Let us not fail to remember the leaked emails of Climategate, including the documents and computer code from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia in England revealing the tricksfudgingstonewalling and destruction of raw data from this “scientific” center.

But now a new report by the the InterAcademy Council, an independent group of scientists from around the world, has the IPCC in a fresh vat of hot water over their bumbling.  The British press is eviscerating the IPCC over it, too.

From the Telegraph:

Dr Benny Peiser, Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Dr Pachauri was now “damaged goods”.

“The criticism of the management process is quite severe,” he said. “It is an indirect call for Dr Pachauri to step down,” he said.

The role of chairman is a part time, unpaid role.

Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest in the past because of his other role as leading The Energy Research Institute (Teri), a think tank promoting sustainable development.

It was alleged that he could have vested interest in proving climate change by business dealings with carbon trading companies. However he was cleared on any financial wrongdoing recently by an independent review.

From Reuters:

The U.N. climate panel should make predictions only when it has solid evidence and should avoid policy advocacy, scientists said in a report on Monday that called for thorough reform of the body.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was widely criticized after admitting its 2007 global warming report wrongly said Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 and that it overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level.

Such firm forecasts should be made “only when there is sufficient evidence,” said a review group supported by the academies of science from the United States, Netherlands, Britain and around 100 other countries.

Critics of the idea of mandatory limits on so-called greenhouse gas emissions have said the IPCC errors show the science behind global warming is questionable.

From The Register:

The IAP said the IPCC’s work included headline-catching statements which couldn’t be justified.

“The IPCC uncertainty guidance provides a good starting point for characterizing uncertainty in the assessment reports. However, the guidance was not consistently followed in the fourth assessment, leading to unnecessary errors. For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.”


Unpeeling the policy function from the IPCC may be problematic, since politics was a factor in the creation of the IPCC itself.

No kidding. The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific body. And it promotes the same wealth redistribution politics the rest of the UN does.

The Express pulled no punches in an article entitled “CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED”:

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

A subsequent editorial by the Express called the IPCC goofs “a howler of remarkable proportions.”

Faith in climate-change scientists who preach that we are all doomed has been badly shaken by this fiasco, by Al Gore’s flawed film An Inconvenient Truth and by the e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit last year. Most sane people care about the environment but they do not take kindly to being lied to, preached at or needlessly frightened.

Scientists must remember that their job is to present facts not scare stories.

There hasn’t been much coverage here in the home of the First Amendment yet, but Fox News at least has caught on, quoting Harold Shapiro, chairman of the review committee:

“We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up — one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment.”

I’m reasonably sure, though, that when the environmental extremists convene a board to review these findings, they will clear themselves of any wrongdoing or any mistakes. We can be pretty confident of this based on previous inquiries into global warming fanaticism.

Meanwhile, voluminous amounts of historical and modern data points to the conclusion that any warming occurring today is a naturally recurring phenomenon that has been going on for thousands of years in greater extremes than those seen today.

I hate to disappoint you socialists, but I’m not going to hand over my hard-earned dollars along with my freedom to humor your fantasy that is nothing more than a Marxist swindle.

11 Responses to “British Press Smacks IPCC Over Junk Science, Hysteria”

  1. I would comment, but seeing as you only ever publish comments by those who agree with you polemic. I won’t bother. Go to your tea-party.

  2. You obviously didn’t look very far if you think I only publish comments that agree with me. But that’s a good excuse to lean on when you realize you don’t have a substantive argument against that which you find uncomfortably true.

  3. Marxist swindle, gosh your living in the past.

  4. Even though you’re and your sound the same, they mean two very different things. ‘You’re’ is actually a contraction of “you are,” as in “You’re ignorant.” Contractions like this are especially common: won’t, didn’t, they’re, etc.

    ‘Your’ is a possessive adjective. It describes a noun by telling us to whom it belongs, as in, “I don’t understand your point.” Other possessive adjectives are: my, his, her, their, and our.

  5. You once got me on using incorrect grammar and I appeciated it. But I did notice that in your comments above you sometimes used single quotation marks when trying to denote a specific word and then in the next sentence used double quotations marks to do the same. Both are correct, but just curious about this inconsistency, which is a little confusing.

  6. Good question, Brian. I am certainly not above making occasional grammatical mistakes and welcome corrections.

    In this particular case I use single quotation marks in leiu of bold font. Because I am a lousy typist as well as ignorant of HTML formatting, I do not try to use bold, italics and such in this comments section. I have devised shorthand that includes single quotation marks instead of bold font. Perhaps I should just take the time and learn some basic HTML.

    My “Irish twin” brother was an editor for a very large newspaper and was a ‘grammar Nazi.’ I’m afraid a little of that rubbed off on me, even though I make plenty of mistakes myself; but I also learned to take as much as I dish out.

  7. My “Irish twin” brother was an editor for The Pacific Stars and Stripes for several years and was a bit of a grammar nazi.

    That really wasn’t that bad. I’ll try harder, Brian. Thanks.

  8. My older sister was an English and Spanish teacher( thank goodness not an editor nazi) and reveled in pointing out her little irritating brothers grammar faults.

    Oh, and by the way you mispelled ‘lieu’ above, so let your brother know. Just having some fun and don’t wish to get into a grammar war, because I will lose.

  9. I mispelled lieu on purpose just to see if you were paying attention 😉