The IPCC Record

This entry is part 46 of 47 in the series Blog1

Global Warming, Part 4

Thinker: Since you place so much trust in the IPCC maybe you should become aware of a couple sloppy predictions in their recent releases.

Here’s the first from the 2007 report:

After a couple years of no one paying much attention to details it was discovered the prediction that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035 was off by centuries. How could such a miscalculation be included in a report that is touted as being created by thousands of the best scientists on earth and screened by the best of minds?

It turns out that the Himalayan prediction came not from any of their supposed pool of climate scientists, but a magazine article in which nothing was peer reviewed. This magazine article was quoted by a zealous environmental group in their World Wildlife Fund publication, and apparently made it from there to the prestigious IPCC report.

How do you suppose an alarming but totally wrong prediction from non scientific environmentalist ideologues got into the IPCC report?

True Believer: Any work of that magnitude will have some errors.

Thinker: And how about this.

On May 9, 2011, the IPCC announced that renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world’s energy needs by mid-century. That sounds promising except most scientists see this as extremely impractical until you consider the source. Instead of arriving at this figure through peer reviewed science they took it from a propaganda report by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council both with an ideological interest in renewables.

It was initially written as a propaganda report by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council – the latter are of course enthusiasts for renewable energy’s prospects because they make money from selling wind turbines and solar panels, so hardly count as an unbiased source.

The lead author of this report was Sven Teske, who was a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Even more scandalous is that Teske is a lead author of the IPCC Report so he winds up approving his own ideological writings. Does that sound like a fair approach to you?

True Believer: In a large organization you are never going to find everyone to be neutral in their beliefs.

Thinker: Would you be so laissez-faire about this if Rush Limbaugh or his favorite climatologist, Roy Spencer, had written a report accepted by the IPCC telling us that renewables are impractical and we should not invest in them?

True Believer: That would be different.

Thinker: Different how?

True Believer: He has no answer that makes sense.

Thinker: We keep hearing from the left that all scientists agree but the IPCC doesn’t even agree with itself.

In 2001, the third IPCC report of the U.N. predicted a sea level rise of somewhere between 4 and 35.4 inches by the end of the century. Then, in 2007, the fourth report predicted 7 to 23 inches. Then, to top it off, the non-scientist Al Gore predicted up to 20 feet!

I don’t see anything specific that is agreed upon here. Do you?

True Believer: They all agree the sea level will rise.  We just don’t know how much.

Thinker: But some scientists said the amount would be 4 inches and others as high as 35 inches. I don’t see how you can get much consensus when predictions vary 875%.  How about you?

True Believer: I imagine that it is difficult to predict future sea levels.

Thinker: On this point we agree and that is why there are many skeptics. There is just not enough certainty to cause us to panic and support spending trillions to stop climate change when the climate may actually improve.

Did you notice that in the 2007 estimate the minimum sea level rise was increased from 4 inches to 7 inches, an increase of 175 percent? If they admit being off by 175% in their previous estimate how much do you think they’ll admit to being off in their next one?

True Believer: They fine-tune their estimates as they accumulate more data?

Thinker: Sounds like they are far from being able to fine-tune anything so far.

A blogger, Ira Glickstein, made this observation:

“The IPCC has issued four reports, so, given 90% certainty for each report, there should be only one chance in 10,000 (ten times ten times ten times ten) that they got it wrong four times in a row.” Link

If you are willing to bet trillions that they are now correct and we should panic then I have a bridge to sell you cheap.

True Believer: Silence.

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Register at The Majority Speaks Here

Log on to The Majority Speaks  Here

Search all of JJ’s Writings HERE

Read JJ’s new book – Fixing America – Go HERE

 

Series Navigation<< False Prophets of Global WarmingDistortion in the Cosmos >>

Speak Your Mind

*

Blue Captcha Image
Refresh

*