Global Warming

First Climategate, Then Glaciergate, Now Amazongate and …

|

4AR image

Hurricanegate? Proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming gave critics a lot of ammunition when emails leaked from the East Anglia University Climatic Research Unit indicated that some prominent climate scientists may have been manipulating data, and were definitely stonewalling critics and plotting boycotts against journals that dared to publish skeptical research. Next came the revelation that the Fourth Assessment Report of Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prediction that global warming would melt away Himalayan glaciers by 2035 had no more scientific sourcing than to a quote from a popular science magazine article published in 1999. The IPCC head, Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to admit that the glacier prediction was in error. Since then skeptics and bloggers have been pouring poring over the Fourth Assessment, and preliminarily what they have found is disturbing.

For example, Hurricanegate. BBC blogger Andrew Neil reports:

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 Like its claims about the glaciers, this was also based on an unpublished report which had not been subject to scientific scrutiny—indeed several experts warned the IPCC not to rely on it.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. It was also central to many of the calculations in Britain's Stern Report, which might now need to be substantially revised.

Note to Neil: It would be helpful (and more credible) if you named the researcher you quote. And then there is Amazongate. As blogger Richard North reports, the IPCC Assessment stated on page 596:

Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.

Sounds quite dire. But notice the citation to Rowell and Moore, 2000. It turns out that the reference is not to peer-reviewed science but to a report done by an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund. The authors are an Australian policy analyst who works for the WWF and a green activist/freelance journalist. Of course, it needs to be said that there are more cautious assessments of the possible effects of climate change on forests included in the IPCC report.

And there's more. For example, the folks over at the Heartland Institute have been uncovering a plethora of dubious "scientific" citations from the "rigorously peer-reviewed" IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. All very interesting.

NEXT: Obama's Rhetorical Retreat

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. MNG, if you’re lurking, please explain to us again how The Science Is Settled, bitch.

    1. PILTDOWN MAN! PILTDOWN MAN! PILTDOWN MAN! ROBBLE! ROBBLE!

  2. Johnny you beat me to it. Yeah, where is MNG to tell us how the “science is settled”? Come maybe he can troll under his “hoaxbusters” handle and tell us all about how this is no different than the scandles that have occured in evolutionary science.

    1. When the climate warms up, I’m gonna get me a pair of scandles.

  3. a supposed increase in floods and hurricanes

    Whadayamean, “supposed”?

  4. Of course, the same people who will argue these lies mean nothing will then turn around and say O’Keefe’s arrest shows ACORN is totally innocent, regardless of the fact that the arrest involved a totally different activity.

  5. bloggers have been pouring

    I blame Global Warming.

    1. I blame Bush

    2. Fixed. 🙂

  6. Ron, you are gonna have to stop blogging about Climate Change. The debate has been over for a while now – the climate is changing.

    1. The science is indeed settled.

    2. “The climate is changing…” As it always has been since the Earth has had a climate.

      1. Yeah, but is it peer-reviewed by an inter-governmental panel?

        1. Nothing makes something even more credible than being touched by multiple governments, right?

          1. I am not a child toucher. Is this the Congressional blog?

  7. “The IPCC head, Rajendra Pachauri was forced to admit that the glacier prediction was in error BOGUS.

  8. The fact hurricane-gate is even an argument is silly. The whole thing was always about control. Control, control, control. Duh. But I’m really enjoying watching the “manmade global warming climate change” types twist in the hurricane wind. Didn’t think I’d live to see it – hooray, science!

  9. Here’s a question I posed to a agw friend of mine (retarded acquaintance) about a year ago: what in the fuck happens to Big Al if this alarmist crap turns out to be just that, alarmist bullshit?

    Let the fantasy lynching begin!

    1. The same thing that happened to Paul Erilich when all of his predictions turned out to be bullshit; nothing. Being liberal means never having to say your sorry and always being taken seriously by the media and the chattering classes no matter how much of a collosal dumb ass you are.

      1. Strangely, when otherwise knowledgeable people are presented with his list of failed predictions, they’ll claim ‘he just got some of the details wrong’.
        Sorta like the guy on the corner with the sign saying “The World Ends Tomorrow”; he’s just off by several billion years.

      2. Environmental catastrophe is perpetually 30 years away. No matter if you predicted floods and famine that didn’t happen. They will happen, just as you predicted (and continue to predict), in another thirty years.

        It’s the environmentalist equivalent to the faith healers insurance: Your faith wasn’t strong enough

        1. Exactly. When I was in school in the 80s, we were told the Amazon Rainforrest would be gone before the end of the century. Now it will be gone before the middle of this century. For years I have heard how all the world’s coral reefs are going to die because of global warming and increased ocean temperatures. This morning I saw on the news how the coral reefs and Florida are dying because the water is too cold this winter. Now the reefs have beent here for untold thousands of years, hot and cold. Is it not possible that they are bit more resiliant than the alarmists think they are?

          1. The ugly heart of AGW is humanity’s narcissism. We think we are so fucking cool that we can just ruin everything by our mere existence.

  10. So the IPCC is gay? That explains a lot.

  11. Speaking of double standards concerning credibility, more on the O’Keefe thing.

  12. Speaking of Gates, who has heard of Louisana-Gate?

  13. John – people still fucking take Erlich seriously today.

    I remember a college professor (in the early 90’s) state that the rainforest was especially vulnerable, since if it was cut into “islands” (e.g., areas of rainforest that were no longer contiguous), it was impossible for the rainforest to regrow into a contiguous area. It took less than a second for me to wonder how the rainforest had ever grown into a contiguous area, and grown over such a large area.

    Of course, this same professor had announced that she had been a proud Maoist in her day, because he had “impacted the lives of so many people”. I was a liberal at the time, but I wanted to shout “he ended the lives of 30 million of them”. To this day, I regret not saying that.

    1. When I was at GW I had a public land law professor who was one of the big wigs at the Sierra Club. He was bloviating one day about how forrest never grow back once clear cut. I raised my hand and asked him if that was true, how is it that Roosvelt Island in the Potamac is now tree covered when as recently as the turn of the 20th Century it was farmland and didn’t have a tree on it. His response was and indignant “well sometimes it doesn’t”. Man that guy hated me.

      1. A friend got back at the professor in question – he had served in the army in Korea. One day the professor was talking about some stringy meat she had while visiting China (in the mid 80’s). He stood there, grinning, until she finished her anecdote, and said “yeah we had that in Korea, too. That was dog. You ate dog meat.” And watched as she turned ashen. I wish I’d been there for that.

        1. That is funny.

    2. This reminds me of the George Carlin anti-environmentalist rant from the 80’s, and more specifically his point about how the planet had survived massive asteroid/comet collisions, super volcanoes, gigantic earthquakes and tidal waves among others and we have the nerve to think a bunch of fucking plastic bags are going to “ruin the planet”.

      Awesome.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

      1. Like one of Vonnegut’s characters who talked about volcanic eruptions and said “if Mother Nature doesn’t give a damn about the environment, why should I?”

      2. Carlin was a comedian, and you’re an idiot.

        It’s not about saving “the planet.” It’s about maintaining the environment human beings are accustomed to surviving in.

        1. I am really getting tired of you breathing my air.

        2. your posting here, Tony dear, makes you part of the problem.

          try to be part of the solution before lecturing us, honey pie

          1. It’s amazing that Tony is not only hopeless in terms of his political and economical philosophies, but he also can’t grasp satire and comedy sufficiently enough to enjoy a good rant.

            Tis a pity.

        3. The medieval warming period is warmer than it is now. Of course, 200 years later during the little ice age it was colder than it is now.

          As far as I can tell, humanity managed to survive both events.

        4. I’m accustomed to surviving in my climate by burning fuel.

        5. It’s about maintaining the environment human beings are accustomed to surviving in.

          Hey, stop moving the thermostat!

          Man has been here for 2 million years, surviving all sorts of callamities and climatic changes. Man can perfectly adapt to anything the Earth throws at him. YOU on the other hand lack a spine – you want everything to be easy. Grow up and be a man.

          1. The human species may be able to adapt to many things. But that doesn’t mean many millions won’t die.

            You are the one who wants to do nothing and let polluting industries continue operating in the status quo until all the coal and oil is used up. That’s the easy, spineless thing to do, not to mention the most immoral. What I want is certainly NOT easy, it’s just necessary.

            1. Re: Tony,

              The human species may be able to adapt to many things. But that doesn’t mean many millions won’t die.

              Your sudden preoccupation with the lives of millions is very touching, for somebody that desired to destroy their livelyhood for Gaia . . .

              You are the one who wants to do nothing and let polluting industries continue operating in the status quo until all the coal and oil is used up.

              But after all oil and coal is used up, then there will be no more “pollution” and we will all live under the shadow of a big and gracefull giant cuisinart providing energy! So why are you so worried about what happens to oil and coal?

              That’s the easy, spineless thing to do, not to mention the most immoral.

              Seems to me you operate under a strange logic – what’s so moral about increasing everybody’s energy bills just to fat up the wallets of Al Gore and friends, under the guise of “helping the planet”?

              I would argue that my option of not doing anything is much less destructive and thus more MORAL than your option of taking people’s productive effots (also known as thieving)

              What I want is certainly NOT easy, it’s just necessary.

              No, I don’t think it is either, because it is easier to have your wishes imposed on others through the omnipotent state than by other means, and because it is NOT necessary.

            2. We already know this is about more regulation of business and more taxes.

              You and your ilk can stop pretending it’s about the environment.

            3. Tony|1.27.10 @ 5:49PM|#
              “The human species may be able to adapt to many things. But that doesn’t mean many millions won’t die.”
              The ultimate, un-falsifiable stat! Hey, Tony, how many will die as a result of ‘doing something’? Bastiat got your number before you were a twinkle in you daddy’s eye.

              “What I want is certainly NOT easy, it’s just necessary.”
              Sniff, sniff: question-begging alert!

    3. Shit, Scientific American just published an article of his.

  14. We have a science post, but nothing on How Natural Is Masturbation?

  15. This thread is a great example of how the enviros are ultimately shooting themselves in the foot with their alarmism. Whether warming leads to stronger hurricanes has nothing to do with whether anthropogenic climate change is happening in the first place, but instantly commenters interpret this as validating their doubt over climate change in the first place. And I can’t entirely blame them–if scientists are willing to posit a very uncertain hypothesis as certain fact when it comes to hurricanes, why wouldn’t they do the same about climate change itself?

    The reality is that the science is fairly certain about some sort of warming, less so on the anthropogenic nature of the warming, and not at all certain on predictions of future implications. If they would just present the information as such then it would make for a much more informed and practical debate instead of simply having people fall into the fer’it or aggin’it camps.

    1. “The reality is that the science is fairly certain about some sort of warming, less so on the anthropogenic nature of the warming”

      Even that is coming into doubt. Recently it has been revealed that the IPCC is selectively eliminating temperature stations in colder climates for use in their data set. The science is anything but settled on what the “global temperature” (if there is such a thing) is letalone if it is rising.

      1. John,

        Well said – the problem now is that the science has been tainted; it may be too late for people to trust it again (even if they purport to report extremely well verified data), except for those that already have a shrine in their homes dedicated to Gaia, with skulls and bones and candles and live serpents and the works . . .

  16. The reality is that the science is fairly certain about some sort of warming,

    …except for the past decade or so…

  17. Am I the only one who thought “Amazongate” refered to Amazon.com and not the Amazon River???

  18. “Porn star Hot Gates signs deal to star in re-make of Snow White. ‘I’m doing it for the kids,’ says Gates.”

    1. The Dark Knight Returns, I got your reference

  19. nice deflektion you meletary loier.

    “oh SCIENCE [as a monolith] is wrong hier. it’s gotta be wrong there, too”

    get yer bullshit head out of your ass and realize that evolution is yet another thing where you’re wrong.

    dammit – that shirt-and-tie combination is another.

  20. http://scienceandpublicpolicy……ption.html

    except maybe for even longer than that (sorry for no-linkie, can’t figure out the embed code)

  21. Heh, sorry for underestimating the comment tools. Instalinked

  22. My 8th grade biology teacher pronounced “umbilical cord” as “umbiblical cord.” Therefore, global warming is a hoax. Q.E.D.

    1. Yeah Tony that is very analogous. Just because the alleged scientific consensus is the result of lie after lie doesn’t mean any one should have doubts about that consensus. Just because they lied about the glaciers melting in Nepal and lied about hurricanes, and lied about their ability to account for the current cooling trend and just because they broke the law and denied valid FOIA requests and destroyed all of their source climate data, doesn’t mean we should doubt them.

    2. Tony|1.27.10 @ 2:27PM|#
      “My 8th grade biology teacher…”
      You went to the 8th grade?!

      1. It was four of the best years of his life.

        1. “I’ve been going to this high school for 7 years. I’m no dummy.”

    3. Look, Tony, I, for one, appreciate your existence on Hit and Run. But no one gives a fuck what happened to you last year!!!!!!!!!!!!

    4. Tony-ese to English dictionary, 2nd edition:

      My 8th grade biology teacher pronounced “umbilical cord” as “umbiblical cord.” Therefore, global warming is a hoax. Q.E.D.

      Translation:
      I am grasping at straws here, guys!

      1. Extremely poorly, I might add

  23. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain – the great and powerfull Oz has spoken!!!!!

  24. Speaking of climate change, Obama wants to end attempts to return to the moon and instead wants NASA to focus on researching climate change.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com…..0904.story

    Glad to see our fearless leader scrapping one of the few government programs that has actually produced some useful results to pursue research into a theory that is more and more looking like a giant scam with each passing day.

    1. “Obama wants to end attempts to return to the moon and instead wants NASA to focus on researching climate change.”

      He’s just afraid that someday the public will want to strap him to a rocket and send him on a one way trip to the moon.

      1. “One of these days, Obama…POW…to the moon!”

  25. It’s not about saving “the planet.” It’s about maintaining the environment human beings are accustomed to surviving in.

    The stupid; it burns.

    Burns!

    1. It’s not about saving “the planet.” It’s about maintaining the environment human beings are accustomed to surviving in.

      The “environment” is not some monolithic thing, and humans are accustomed to surviving and thriving in environments much more extreme than anything posited by the AGW nannies.

  26. Twenty years from now, colleges will be teaching classes and using the IPCC reports as prime examples of confirmation bias.

  27. Twenty years from now, colleges will be teaching classes and using the IPCC reports as prime examples of confirmation bias.

    FIFY

    1. The the publication of the glacier and amazon errors are such gross deficiencies in scientific practice that there must be many more errors in the IPCC report. I am actually beginning to believe that they will be thoroughly discredited within a generation.

  28. A great little article written by an IPCC coordinating author, who outlines some of the IPCC’s fraudulent practices:

    http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726

  29. What this whole deal proves is that this kind of “science” is ethically bankrupt.

    Each side chills in their respective echo-chamber and the debate comes down to a scoring contest of name-dropping and academic credential-elitism.

    No one, not the Warmers, not the Deniers – not even the authors themselves – actually reads this shit.

  30. Re: Tony,

    The human species may be able to adapt to many things. But that doesn’t mean many millions won’t die.

    Your sudden preoccupation with the lives of millions is very touching, for somebody that desired to destroy their livelyhood for Gaia . . .

    You are the one who wants to do nothing and let polluting industries continue operating in the status quo until all the coal and oil is used up.

    But after all oil and coal is used up, then there will be no more “pollution” and we will all live under the shadow of a big and gracefull giant cuisinart providing energy! So why are you so worried about what happens to oil and coal?

    That’s the easy, spineless thing to do, not to mention the most immoral.

    Seems to me you operate under a strange logic – what’s so moral about increasing everybody’s energy bills just to fat up the wallets of Al Gore and friends, under the guise of “helping the planet”?

    I would argue that my option of not doing anything is much less destructive and thus more MORAL than your option of taking people’s productive effots (also known as thieving.)

    What I want is certainly NOT easy, it’s just necessary.

    No, I don’t think it is either, because it is easier to have your wishes imposed on others through the omnipotent state than by other means, and because it is NOT necessary.

  31. Just FYI to the IPCC:

    The numbers in that image don’t add up to 2007.

    (i know, i know, wasn’t their point, but the layout makes me come to that conclusion…and then the math is wrong. Its like a metaphor for the whole climate debate somehow)

  32. This is MediaGate, not ClimateGate! Are you angry about this obvious RICO Act fraud and the national media’s complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue and the related “carbon derivatives” market Obama’s Administration is spinning up? Why pay for propaganda? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The World Wildlife Fund. They have violated the public trust. KEEP donations local, close to home. MAKE donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. People that government leaders and employees are sworn to protect. WRITE your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. WRITE your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. Carbon is the stuff of life. He (Obama) who controls carbon, especially CO2, controls the world. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984” and the US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near the truth?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdneX1djD

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

    1. We all already know the numbers the government is using talking about health care are completely fabricated. We also know that their numbers on the economy are fabricated.

      How is any of this news?

  33. Climategate Forecast…
    “What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann and debunked by McIntyre and McKitrick in 2003.]

    Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”

    AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.

  34. The Sunday Times retracted their article and apologized to the people acused or misquoted on 20 June 2010.

    So the question is:

    Will YOU have the guts to do this?

  35. Sorry, link to the proof:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi…..ngate-ipcc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.