Site Search

Custom Search

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

The missing link

When it looked like we were not going to see an unbroken string of ever warmer winters, the man-made global warming crowd changed it tune. They changed the name of the so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) phenomenon to “climate change.” That way they couldn’t be proved wrong, or so they thought.

It did not take long for the international media to pick up on the name change, and fueled by releases from the UN’s Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they began to link devastating hurricanes and floods to climate change. But just as the trend to warmer winters proved inconclusive, so too is the link to natural disasters.

First came “Climategate,” the IPCC e-mails that appeared to show scientists using tricks to “improve” the evidence for global warming. Then, last week, we had “Glaciergate,” when the IPCC admitted there were errors in their forecast about melting Himalayan glaciers that was included in a landmark 2007 report.

Within a week of the Glaciergate disclosure, we learn from the UK’s The Sunday Times that the IPCC was wrong to link global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. The Sunday Times found that “the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.”

According to the Times, when the IPCC paper was eventually published in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Seems pretty straightforward to me: we’ve been hoodwinked, again.

In response to the newspaper report, the IPCC released a statement on Monday in which it emphasized that it had come to several conclusions about the role of climate change in extreme weather events and disasters based on a “careful” assessment of past changes and projections of future trends, and that the newspaper “ran a misleading and baseless story attacking the way the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC handled an important question concerning recent trends in economic losses from climate-related disasters.”

Hmm… There’s too much smoke here, folks. I’m guessing there’s a fire.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

1 comment — This is a moderated blog and comments will appear when approved. Please don’t resubmit if your comment doesn’t appear immediately, and please do not post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable.

  1. Warmist is such a good label for the AGW crowd precisely because they want to make us forget the old set of doomsday scenarios by a name change. Never let them forget. If the Globe warms/cools in ways that are equally random to a globe that doesn't contain humans then there is NO PROBLEM. A solution for a non-problem is a very big problem. Green will fade to red in time. Just watch.

    ReplyDelete

ShareThis