Jump to content

More Nonsense In The IPCC - Who Would Trust Their Reports?

Recommended Posts

More faulty "science" in UN IPCC Report (and to think this group won a Nobel Prize...)


A United Nations report on climate change that has been lambasted for its faulty research is under new attack for yet another instance of what its critics say is sloppy science -- adding to a growing scandal that has undermined the credibility of scientists and policymakers who back the U.N.'s findings about global warming.


In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.


But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.


EUReferendum, a blog skeptical of global warming, uncovered the WWF association. It noted that the original "40 percent" figure came from a letter published in the journal Nature that discussed harmful logging activities -- and again had nothing to do with global warming.


"For years, we have been told that the IPCC peer review process is the gold standard in scientific review. It now appears it is more of a fool's gold process."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think what's goin' on here is that yeh neither understand the science nor the way politics and lobbying is done.


So yeh can't make good judgments about the science, and yeh can't recognize when you're lookin' at a PR/lobbying effort by a special interest.


I actually DO understand the science and problems with the theories and data analysis as well as the way Mann, CRU, Gore et al have been misusing it for politics and lobbying efforts but feel free to continue thinking that if it makes you feel better. Having you claim I can't make good judgments about the science while you're falling for a 20 year PR and lobbying campaign by a special interest is as comical as Gore and company claiming the likes of Freeman Dyson, Jerry Pournelle, Fred Singer, etc. are "anti-science" and gives me a good healthy laugh. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...