The Dog Ate my Data

You know the IPCC - the mob that our government tells us they rely upon as the science is settled; the mob that organised the Copenhagen gabfest for tens of thousands from the chattering class - yep that mob.

I hope you have been keeping up with the 2007 IPCC AR4 report containing the now debunked statement that glaciers in the Himalayas will dissapear by 2035.

NASA went even further on their "evidence" web page linking to the IPCC AR4 report but stating the glaciers would dissapear by 2030. They have changed that statement without comment and deleted the link to the IPCC AR4 report. To do this without crediting and explaining the reason for the change is scientifically dishonest and misleads the public. Could it be that this is more about policy leading science rather than the other way around?

Dr John Ray summarises it thus:

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.

They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment.

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.”

He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the report , who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese.

Over the last couple of days more shoddy "mistakes" have been found in the IPCC report including incorrect basic maths. I will post further examples in a seperate article shortly including suspicions of missapropriation of hundreds of thousands of pounds of gullible EU taxpayer's funds. How could this rubbish ever make it through the (we are told) "thousands of reviewing scientists"? Any glaciologist worth his or her salt even giving the IPCC "evidence" a passing glance would have seen the glaring errors and mistatements.

We may now have part of the explanation.

We have this breaking news from WUWT and it is remarkable.

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

From the Daily Mail

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

"It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in."

Thus we now have the confirmation that has been strongly suspected for a long time. Scientists involved with IPCC AR4 have allowed glaring errors and unchecked heresay "data" to be included in the IPCC AR4 report for the express purpose of encouraging policy makers and governments to take action. Let me say that even more clearly. Scientists knowingly allow fake "data" to be published in the "gold science standard" IPCC report knowing that governments will use this to justify policy changes including but not limited to the imposition of taxes, the payment of "climate damages" to undeveloped countries and the imposition of a substantially reduced level of economic well upon citizens. Penny Wong (Minister for Changing the Climate here in Australia) for example waved that 2007 IPCC report at Senator Fielding who questioned the validity of "the science" and stated that she had to write her policy based on it. Of course she did - "the science is settled" is it not? Australian PM Kevin Rudd also relies on the IPCC. He had this to say in a 2008 60 Minutes TV interview with Tara Brown:

PM KEVIN RUDD: Well, I just look at what the scientists say. There's a group of scientists called the International Panel on Climate Change - 4000 of them. Guys in white coats who run around and don't have a sense of humour. They just measure things.

Note that number of scientists - it varies every time you see it from 1,500 up to 4,000. One thing the IPCC is not good at is measuring their own scientist contributors. If only the scientists involved with the IPCC were running around measuring things instead of using faked data to further grant applications, fool government policy makers and boost flagging publishing scores we might get somewhere. Unfortunately there is proof they haven't had their eye on the "settled science" very much at all.

Read the link to WUWT carefully. Especially if you are a late comer to this growing farce, read it and ask yourself is this what you want your tax system and economic policy based on. Now if you are an Australian, email your senators and MP's and ask them not to vote for Labor's Cap and Trade tax. Remember once a tax is imposed it is almost impossible to remove due to the flow on effect of government becoming dependant on the revenue stream. You'll get one shot at this - make it count.