The Warmers say the IPCC climate report No. 4, is the “gold standard” for the global warming science and there can be no further argument. Now that report is suffering from two new revelation, which further damage its credibility.
In the past week, the IPCC found it necessary to disavow the glacier section of the report. When issued in 2007, the report said that the Himalayan glaciers would likely be completely melted by 2035. They were forced to admit that there was no scientific foundation for that assertion. And now we learn that the lead author of that section has this to say according to the Mailonline:
“Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”
That pretty much speaks for itself. Read more of the Mailonline report here.
How many times have we heard from Al Gore, President Obama, Gordon Brown, Hugo Chavez, etc. about how global warming is causing natural disasters such as, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc.? Their proof was the 2007 IPCC report.
The support for this assertion was a not peer-reviewed, unpublished paper. From the Timesonline:
“The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.
It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: “One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.”
The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”
Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.”
To read more of the Timesonline report click here.
So the “gold standard “ seems to be the “fools gold standard”.
It has long been known that anything that conflicted with the theory of man-made global warming was never seriously considered by the authors of the IPCC report. Further use of less than scientifically veted but supportive to the AGW theory were used. However, the media, in a show of complicity, never investigated.
Late yesterday, WattsUpWithThat posted “The scandal deepens–IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers.” Watts says:
“Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch. A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html “
Note that the discoveries of the IPCC deceptions are coming from the British Media and NOT the American Media. At my local barbershop, a home of skeptism, most have never heard of Climategate as there is only minimal reporting by our media. Not that there are not many ripe targets for investigation such as our equivalents of the British CRU— The GISS and NOAA.