by James Delingpole
last updated May 25, 2010
IPCC lies, cheats, distorts again.
all right, it is a bit of a “dog bites man” or “pizza found to
contain mozzarella and tomato resting on dough base” kind of story.
But on the day in which Britain’s new Prime Minister announced in
the Queen’s speech that one of his government’s main goals is to
“combat climate change”, it’s perhaps just as well to remind
ourselves of the kind of junk science and misinformation that is
inspiring his green policies. (Hat tip: Barry Woods)
This one comes from the great Canadian blogger
who has noticed that the most recent report (2007) by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) liberally cited a
scientific paper which wasn’t published until 29 months after the
cut off date for submissions.
“Ah what’s 29 months between
friends?” you might say.
But as Laframbroise rightly observes it
strips the process of its integrity.
If IPCC authors are to accurately describe the scientific
literature, an agreed-upon cutoff date is required. If expert
reviewers are to comment on the IPCC’s use of that literature, they
must be afforded adequate opportunity to examine it.
More sinister still, though, is the way the IPCC report has twisted
the paper - by one David G Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey
- for its own ends. Here’s what Vaughan’s paper said about the West
Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).
Since most of WAIS is not showing change, it now seems unlikely that
complete collapse of WAIS, with the threat of a 5-m rise in sea
level, is imminent in the coming few centuries.
Note that phrase “it now seems unlikely”.
Now see how the IPCC interprets Vaughan’s paper:
If the Amundsen Sea sector were eventually deglaciated, it would add
about 1.5 m to sea level, while the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet
(WAIS) would account for about 5 m.
Yes, yes, IPCC no doubt it WOULD. But as the report you cite to
prove it made pretty explicit: IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.
Still, as the IPCC has twigged by now, tell a lie often enough and
it becomes part of the “consensus”.
That’ll be why Vaughan’s paper appears to have become almost as big
a poster child for the Fourth IPCC report as Mann’s hockey stick was
for the earlier ones.
Just see how many times Vaughan is cited:
Working Group 1,
Chapter 4 lists a D. Vaughan (UK) as a
Chapter 10 lists a D. Vaughan (UK) as a contributing author
Chapter 15 lists a David G. Vaughan (UK) as one of two
coordinating lead authors
Summary for Policymakers lists a David Vaughan as a drafting
Technical Summary lists a David Vaughan (UK) as a lead
Maybe the IPCC were hoping that if they wrote his name in slightly
different ways we wouldn’t notice. Bad luck IPCC. We did.
Oh, and while we’re on the subject of things that could happen as a
result of “Global Warming” but which aren’t going to, check out
story about Polar Bears.
Apparently they’re all doomed - again - because a bunch of Canadian scientists have worked out that this is
the sort of thing that might happen if you punch a few scary figures
into a computer. (Hat tip: Mike Daly)
Dr Molnar, Professor Andrew Derocher and colleagues from the
University of Alberta and York University, Toronto focused on the
physiology, behavior and ecology of polar bears, and how these
might change as temperatures increase.
“We developed a model for the mating ecology of polar bears. The
model estimates how many females in a population will be able to
find a mate during the mating season, and thus get impregnated.”
Ah. So it’s not actually based on counting real polar bears or
noting how in the last 10,000 years they’ve survived much more
drastic changes in global climate than the ones we’ve experienced
The latest US assessment of the conservation status of polar bears
included the only two previous studies to assess the impact of
climate change, but these extrapolated population trends, rather
than directly modeling how the ecology of polar bears may alter.
The new study by Dr Molnar’s team offers a way to improve these
predictions, and suggests the potential for even faster declines
than those found by the US assessment.
“Canada has about two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, but their
conservation assessment of polar bears didn’t take climate change
seriously,” says Dr Molnar, a flaw noted by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear
Specialist Group last year.
“Our view is that the Canadian assessment should be redone, properly
accounting for climate change effects.
“The status of polar bears is likely much more dire than suggested
by the Canadian report,” he adds.
Yes! Yes! I trust this man. He clearly knows what he’s doing.
give him another research grant - a really big one this time. With
enough money, I’m sure he and his team will be able to model the
entire polar population off the planet by 2013 at the latest.
And won’t that just teach all us skeptics a lesson we’ll never