Prev: The Guardian: Climategate was 'a game changer'
Next: Physics Singles Wanted
From: Cwatters on 6 Jul 2010 03:44

"Eric Gisin" <ericg(a)nospammail.net> wrote in message
news:i0te8h$amb$2(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Two important articles from the UK today, this long one from the
> centre-left Economist.
>
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report
>
> Accentuate the negative
>
> Jul 5th 2010, 10:11 by The Economist online
>
> FOR everyone else it was the glaciers: for the Dutch it was the flooding.
> Last January errors in
> the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit the
> headlines. The chapter on
> Asia in the report by the IPCC's second working group, charged with
> looking at the impact of
> climatye change and adapting to it, mistakenly claimed that the Himalayan
> glaciers would be gone by
> 2035. This contradicted some reasonably basic physics, had not been
> predicted by the glacier
> specialists in the first working group (which deals with the natural
> science of past and future
> climate change) and was unsupported by any evidence. There was a report
> from the 1990s which said
> something similar about all the world's non-polar glaciers, but it gave
> the date as 2350. Then
> there was a crucial typo and some shoddy referencing. Nevertheless the
> IPCC's chair, Rajendra
> Pachauri, had lashed out at people bringing the criticism up, accusing
> them of "voodoo science". He
> then had to eat his words, and set up, with Ban Ki-moon, a panel to look
> into ways the IPCC might
> be improved.
>
>
> [rest at URL]
>

At the end of the day, or rather the article, it says..

Quote

The PBL report does not prove or indeed suggest systematic bias, and it
stresses that it has found nothing that should lead the parliament of the
Netherlands, or anyone else, to reject the IPCC's findings. But the panel
set up to look at the IPCC's workings by Dr Pachauri and Mr Ban should ask
some hard questions about systematic tendencies to accentuate the negative.


From: spudnik on 6 Jul 2010 12:30
well, there is no good news to be had from the UNIPCC, and
that is just fine. unfortunately, to much credence is given
to GCMs, as if they are as good for climate as they are
for weather (see D.Brin), and vast anthropegenic changes go unmodeled
because they are so hard to do, like clouds & water vapor.

meanwhile, BP's cap&trade is being implimented on the excuse
of their massive CO2-creating blow-out ... when all
that's rquired is a small, actual tax on carbon, instead
of "let Waxman's arbitraguers do all the work & make all
of the money."

--cap#trade is as old as the hills (circa Waxman's '91 bill
with H-Dubya -- the crack-cocaine kingpin of south-central L.A.
http://tarpley.net
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: The Guardian: Climategate was 'a game changer'
Next: Physics Singles Wanted