Is the Global Warming Movement Dead?
Posted by Max Dunn Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:58:00 GMT
There is more evidence coming out that some of the catastrophic claims put forth by global warming advocates and the IPCC do not have a lot of scientific basis.
The Globe and Mail just published ‘The great global warming collapse’ by Margaret Wente that posits: “as the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement.”
Walter Russell Mead agrees that “the global warming movement as we have known it is dead.”
Regarding the IPCC claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035, Wente states that “the claim was rubbish, and the world’s top glaciologists knew it.”
Wente describes Climategate as “a snakepit of scheming to keep contradictory research from being published, make imperfect data look better, and withhold information from unfriendly third parties.”
Wente continues:
“Meantime, the IPCC – the body widely regarded, until now, as the ultimate authority on climate science – is looking worse and worse. For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming . . . but the sole source for that claim . . . was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article ‘a mess.’”
“None of this is to say that global warming isn’t real, or that human activity doesn’t play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren’t valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.
“By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they’ve discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe.”
Unfortunately, I have to agree with her conclusion.
Uumm? Never heard of these publications before (Globe and Mail?). What’s the Economist or even the USA Today reporting?
You must not be Canadian, eh? ;-)
Here is the description of the Globe and Mail from Wikipedia:
“The Globe and Mail is a Canadian English language nationally distributed newspaper, based in Toronto and printed in six cities across the country. With a weekly readership of 935 000, it is Canada’s largest-circulation national newspaper and second-largest daily newspaper after the Toronto Star.”
Here is what the Economist is saying about the IPCC Himalayan glaciers mistakes:
Off-base camp
“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 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.”
A time for introspection
“intemperate defence of mistakes about Himalayan glaciers in the most recent IPCC report had to be followed by a public statement of regret as it became clear that the IPCC had indeed been wrong—and that its source has been a magazine article rather than a piece of scientific literature.”
Oh Snap! Wow, that must have been satisfying to find such a perfect quote from exactly the source I said I’d trust. Nicely done. It is a regrettable situation for sure. Upon digging deeper this story is all over the place, also including Science News – why did you choose the “globe and mail?” -JR
An article from the Wall Street Journal follows this theme:
Omitted: The Bright Side of Global Warming
“It seems the U.N. IPCC only tabulates the benefits of climate change when they are outweighed by the costs.
“With last month’s news of non-disappearing glaciers, the IPCC’s misuse of data on storm damage, and now its highly selective use of water-availability forecasts, the IPCC’s reputation is increasingly looking as tarnished as that of the rest of the U.N.”
From the Telegraph UK:
India forms new climate change body
The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.
“There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science.” said India’s environment minister Mr Jairam Ramesh.
The UK Institute of Physics had this to say about the ClimateGate emails:
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.