Monday, January 25, 2010

Another Climate Panel Problem

After a week down with the flu, I'm back.

Here's an interesting piece I found in this week's issue of The Economist. Once again we see how fallible the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) really is:

The idea that the Himalaya could lose its glaciers by 2035—glaciers which feed rivers across South and East Asia—is a dramatic and apocalyptic one. After the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said such an outcome was very likely in the assessment of the state of climate science that it made in 2007, onlookers (including this newspaper) repeated the claim with alarm. In fact, there is no reason to believe it to be true. This is good news (within limits) for Indian farmers—and bad news for the IPCC.

And shameful news for publications (like the once vaunted Economist) that parroted the IPCC warning without proper due diligence. What has happened to healthy skepticism? It seems that with the subject of Global Warming any pretense to question the science is seen as sheer heresy or a mark of stupidity. But again we see another example of where the IPCC, supposedly an authority on this matter, fails to properly carry out a simple review process. Quite frankly, no government should put any trust into anything the IPCC publishes.

5 comments:

jd said...

the real question is, should the money donated due to said fabrication be returned?

it should be. but it won't.

VH said...

It's taxpayer funds down the rat hole.

Harrison said...

Look, they already "got" $100 billion from industrialized nations so their lying paid off... big time. And once that money starts flowing it will be impossible to turn it off.

Jeff Perren said...

Sorry to hear you were under the weather. But it's really your fault, you know. If you supported efforts to curb climate change, there would be fewer viruses, and you'd be less likely to get sick. Probably you're against universal health care, too. Wise up, eh, for your own good. :)

matt said...

All I can say about The Economist's shameless shilling for the global warming crowd is that I was kind of proud of them to providing a half-hearted response to Climategate. Others in the MSM have run to the other side of the street rather than even admit it's happening. Their defense was weak and silly, but they did stare the problem in the eye for a minute.