« Hypocrites, Run Amok | Main | End the Stranglehold on Congress (NC-2) »

"The IPCC's credibility has been deeply dented..."

Scientific consensus reached... IPCC is fraudulent:

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.

The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC's hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were "speculation" and not backed by research.

Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: "The IPCC's credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can't just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science."

Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: "The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made."

What will it take to have the IPCC's Nobel Peace Prize rescinded?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39978.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "The IPCC's credibility has been deeply dented...":

Comments (9)

What will it take to hav... (Below threshold)

What will it take to have the IPCC's Nobel Peace Prize rescinded?

Clearly, Wizbang's drug policy needs to be reviewed. Rick, what the HELL are you smoking?

The IPCC's Nobel Peace Prize will NEVER be rescinded. It's absolutely in the spirit of the award. After all, it has also been awarded to Yassir Arafat, UN Peacekeepers, the IAEA, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter.

Haven't you figured out that the Nobel Peace Prize has become (for those of us who are properly enlightened) the international equivalent of a dunce cap or a Bill Engvall-style "STUPID" sign?

Many more comments like that, Rick, and I'm gonna have to nominate YOU for a Nobel Peace Prize.

J.

What will it take to get Ob... (Below threshold)
Maggie Mama:

What will it take to get Obama to give his back?

NOTHING.

I think they deserve the pe... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

I think they deserve the peace prize. After all, their intentions as scientists were good. It's the intention that counts, isn't it? Not the outcome.

The poor souls can't help it if politicians and bureaucrats would only offer grants if they produced junk science that said politicians and bureaucrats could make money off of through some trading scheme.

Not a surprise, as the skep... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

Not a surprise, as the skeptics have been saying all along that the IPCC was driven by political agendas and not by science.

When IPCC conferences are attended by more politicians than scientists, that should have raised red flags. Similarly when no scientists who disagreed with the theory were invited, that was an obvious attempt to avoid scientific debate.

But the true believers in the quasi-religion of anthropomorphous global warming...er climate change decided that they'd ignore the clear indications that it may not have been driven by science because they agreed with the outcome.

And the skeptics were called "anti-science" because we prefer to base conclusions on the data, instead of deciding on the conclusion first, then tampering with selected data in order to support it, as the IPCC and the true-believers did.

Global warming? Last time I... (Below threshold)
Nine Fourteen:

Global warming? Last time I dug a four foot hole in the ground it was the same temperature it has always been?

I found a nickle silver spoon buried down there although that was not the treasure I was searchin for.

The science is settled, the NOBLE prize is a big fat liberal joke.

The climate change crowd ma... (Below threshold)
John:

The climate change crowd made such extreme claims and insisted on such extreme measures that once the house of cards fell apart they were left with nothing. That's a real shame, I think most people would agree that dumping junk into the air and water etc is bad and should be monitored, most people understand our energy sources aren't unlimited. But when you insist on extreme measures and you're proven to be less than honest you lose ALL credibility. If the funding that went to these people was instead directed at alternative energy sources, cleaner process etc we might actually have had a positive impact but as it is they created a political football and nothing more.

"Admitting that it needs to... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong...."

As with liberals in general, they cannot admit error. They are the elite intelligentsia. All-powerful, all-knowing.

invest that money in cold f... (Below threshold)
JustRuss (mobile forgive mistakes please):

invest that money in cold fusion using nickel or paladium cores and heavy water. The US Govt has a policy of no while countries around the world are actively researching (germany, japan, france,...)

Two word quotes like "l... (Below threshold)

Two word quotes like "little evidence" and "substantive findings" don't actually give great context of a report, especially one that neither you nor the article in question links to. You might want to read the whole thing before declaring that the report's consensus was that the IPCC was fraudulent, here is a link and a few more substantive quotes:

Since its founding more than 20 years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can claim many important accomplishments to its credit. First among these are the periodic assessments of our understanding of the nature, origin, and impact of observed changes in the world's climate. Also among its significant contributions has been the sustaining of a global focus on climate change. Indeed IPCC has provided the framework for a continued and rather remarkable international conversation on climate research both among scientists and policymakers. In many ways IPCC, with its massive, far-flung, and decentralized network of scientists along with the governments represented on the Panel, represents a significant social innovation. For these and other contributions the IPCC was one of the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
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.
The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world's leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations. However, despite these successes, some fundamental changes to the process and the management structure are essential, as discussed in this report and summarized below.

I didn't actually find the quote substantive findings in the report, but that might have been from ancillary material.

The InterAcademy Council rightly notes that the IPCC has made errors in the past in material it has included and overstated confidence in certain conclusions. As a good analysis will do, it identifies these flaws and recommends process changes to correct these flaws in the future. I certainly think that the conclusions and recommendations they draw are well thought out and that the IPCC will be well served to follow them. However, you don't get that last report as the first conclusion of a report where you're declaring the IPCC fraudulent.

The article from the Express that you link to is a pretty egregious violation of the Lorie Byrd rule:

It isn't necessary to include the entire thing, but it is necessary in order to mount a valid and honest argument to not omit any parts relevant to the argument.

Someone should let Lorie know so that she can write an outraged article over the lax and pathetic standards at the Express.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy