Fish Wrapper Continues Hype About Global Warming With IPCC Study

As was to be expected, the Dead Fish Wrapper joined the frenzy that the rest of the MSM is in about the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which basically blames human activity for the supposed increase in temperature otherwise known as global warming.

But one article wasn't enough. In addition to the front page headline that screamed "Life as we know it gets blame for global warming", there was also a half page article on page A6 entitled "Global warming's runaway train" that was clips from wire reports about how scientists and lawmakers are talking about polar bears, grennhouse gas emissions, and the Great Barrier Reef among other things.

Much hype has been given to this report, but what many people don't realize is that this summary that was published today wasn't prepared by scientists, as stated by MIT climatologist Ricahrd Lindzen on Larry King this week:

Well, in a certain sense, when it comes to expenditures, and I'm speaking mostly as a citizen, except in one respect, almost everything proposed so far, if there's anything that there is a consensus on, will do very little to affect climate. So right now despite all of the claims to the contrary, we're talking about symbolism. And I think Julian's point is correct. Do you spend a lot? Do you distort a great deal in the economy for symbolism? And I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us. And I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating. Senator Inhofe was absolutely right. All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.

I've offered my opinions on global warming in various places on this blog, so I won't go into more detail about how much unnecessary and dangerous hype global warming is, but here are a couple of other things to think about.

First, it's been much warmer before this, and all without the benefit of hum industrial activity. As state by ABC weatherman Sam Champion on Good Morning America this week:

...the report predicts that the temperature increase this century could be the greatest in thousands of years.

What? You mean it's been warmer in the past? Thousands of years ago, temperatures were increasing faster than they are now? Take a look at this government paper, which makes this statement:

"About 11,500 years ago . . . forests quickly regained the ground that they had lost to cold and aridity. Ice sheets again began melting, though because of their size they took about two thousand more years to disappear completely. The Earth entered several thousand years of conditions warmer and moister than today; the Saharan and Arabian deserts almost completely disappeared under a vegetation cover, and in the northern latitudes forests grew slightly closer to the poles than they do at present. This phase, known as the 'Holocene optimum' occurred between about 9,000 and 5,000 years ago."

And it happened all without the benefit of human industrial activity!! Amazing!!

So how much of all this hype is man's thinking that he is so important that he can even change the weather? Something for you liberals to think about...

Update: I came across some more good information on joke that is the IPCC report on the site of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (hat tip to Just Some Poor Schmuck).

First, this is not the actual scientific report - it is only a summary for policy makers. It was not approved by scientists, but by political delegates. They didn't release the report itself, because it would contain actual data and in past instances the data has been found not to be in agreement with the conclusions of the summary.

However, they've taken care of that problem by pledging that the data that does not fit the conclusion will be changed to fit:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

This is another way of saying "don't let the facts get in the way."

Second, it was so politicized that one person resigned and another prominent scientist said that the summary did not reflect the chapter he contributed.

From a statement by Senator James Inhofe:

One stark example of how the process has been corrupted involves a U.S. Government scientist who is among the world’s most respected experts on hurricanes – Dr. Christopher Landsea. Earlier this year, Dr. Landsea resigned as a contributing author in the upcoming fourth assessment. His reason was simple – the lead author for the Chapter on extreme weather, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, had demonstrated he would pursue a political agenda linking global warming to more severe hurricanes.

Trenberth had spoken at a forum where he was introduced as a lead author and proceeded to forcefully make the link. He has spoken here in the Senate as well, and it is clear that Trenberth’s mind is completely closed on the issue. The only problem is that Trenberth’s views are not widely accepted among the scientific community. As Landsea put it last winter:

“All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin.”

When Landsea brought it to the attention of the IPCC, he was told that Trenberth – who as lead author is supposed to bring a neutral, unbiased perspective to his position – would keep his position. Landsea concluded that:

“Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.”

Landsea’s experience is not unique. Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT researcher who was a contributing author to a Chapter in the third assessment, among others has said that the Summary did not reflect the Chapter he contributed to. But when you examine how the IPCC is structured, is it really so surprising?

But remember, a majority of scientists agree with the global warming hype according to the MSM, so these scientists must just be some of those in the tiny minority, right?  Riiiiiiiight...

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content