Further implosions in Global Warming establishment

In a story published last week, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the top global warming organization in the world, says that a key IPCC report on the effects of warming has no evidence backing up the report’s conclusions.

Why is he being so fussy? Isn’t it the intention that counts?

- end of initial entry -

February 14

Hannon writes:

I was dismayed to read some of the IPCC policy snippets revealed in the article in the London Times you cited:

Viz., .”.. additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50 percent during the 2000-20 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003).”

Leaving aside the issue of unsupported declarations in this area, how does one measure a 50 percent deficiency? I presume he means losses or reduction, or perhaps a deficit. And if this loss is the result of too little rain—this is not made clear—how is greater erosion a factor? By wind? The way this sentence reads it could be that excessive rains are the looming cause of these problems. A reduction in crop growth period per se could occur with increased or decreased total rainfall. If he means a shorter rainfall season why not say so?

“The IPCC needs to investigate a more sophisticated approach for dealing with emerging errors.”

How about “adopt a more rigorous approach”? The use of “investigate” and “sophisticated” and even “emerging” in this case bespeaks the mindset of a person/s who does not grasp reality or the gravity of the problem, either in terms of science or PR considerations. How about a more rigorous approach to the writing of these documents generally?

When both the science and the report writing are substandard to the extent that the MSM picks it up on a regular basis, your street cred is in trouble.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 13, 2010 03:20 PM | Send