Now that I've got your attention -
I have been accused of telling lies by Biker. How do they compare with these purveyed by the IPCC in its Assessment Report 4?
HURRICANEGATE Chris Landsea, oceanographer and IPCC Lead Author, accuses the IPCC politicos of lying about the frequency, strength and damage caused by hurricanes and tropical storms. More herehttp://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=22
GLACIERGATE An assertion by a TERI employee, Dr Syed Hasnain, stated that Himalyan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Original statement came from the WWF, apparently. See more herehttp://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=168
IPCC Coordinating Lead Author Dr Murari Lal knew the glacier claim did not rest on peer-reviewed research, but put it in anyway to “encourage” governments to take “concrete action”:
NOW WE BRING YOU -
AMAZONGATE The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication.
Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the "Glaciergate" claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:
"Up to 40% of the Amazon forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation..."
It actually originates here http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000-047.pdf the authors being mere journalists and green activists. But good enough to get quoted authoritatively in the IPCC where serious scientists are cold-shouldered because their work contradicts or does not promote AGW.
In fact. the Amazon is under threat from farming and logging, activities not unconnected with over-rapid population growth and not even remotely connected to the weather, or the climate.
I have been accused of telling lies by Biker. How do they compare with these purveyed by the IPCC in its Assessment Report 4?
HURRICANEGATE Chris Landsea, oceanographer and IPCC Lead Author, accuses the IPCC politicos of lying about the frequency, strength and damage caused by hurricanes and tropical storms. More herehttp://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=22
GLACIERGATE An assertion by a TERI employee, Dr Syed Hasnain, stated that Himalyan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Original statement came from the WWF, apparently. See more herehttp://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=168
IPCC Coordinating Lead Author Dr Murari Lal knew the glacier claim did not rest on peer-reviewed research, but put it in anyway to “encourage” governments to take “concrete action”:
NOW WE BRING YOU -
AMAZONGATE The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication.
Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the "Glaciergate" claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:
"Up to 40% of the Amazon forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation..."
It actually originates here http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000-047.pdf the authors being mere journalists and green activists. But good enough to get quoted authoritatively in the IPCC where serious scientists are cold-shouldered because their work contradicts or does not promote AGW.
In fact. the Amazon is under threat from farming and logging, activities not unconnected with over-rapid population growth and not even remotely connected to the weather, or the climate.
And here is -
HUNGERGATE
IPCC AR4 Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM)
Indur Glokany of US Dept of the Interior, an EXPERT REVIEWER, wanted these statements included but they were deleted:
“We note that global impact assessments undertaken by Parry et al. (1999, 2004) indeed indicate that large numbers will be thrown at risk for hunger because of climate change; however, they also indicate that many MORE millions would be at risk whether or not the climate changes. (see Goklany (2003, 2005a). Policy makers are owed this context.
Withholding this nugget of information is a sin of omission. Without such information, policy makers would lack necessary information for evaluating response strategies and the trade-offs involved in selecting one approach and not another. One consequence of using Parry et al.’s results to compare population at risk for hunger with and without climate change is that it indicates that measures to reduce vulnerability to current climate sensitive problems that would be exacerbated by CC could have very high benefit-cost ratios.
In fact, analyses by Goklany (2005a) using results from Parry et al. (1999) and Arnell et al. (2002) suggests that over the next few decades, vulnerability reduction measures would provide greater benefits, more rapidly, and more surely than would reactive
adaptation measures or, for that matter, any mitigation scheme. See also Goklany (2005c).
These results are based on analyses that do not fully account for increases in adaptive capacity that should occur if economic and technological development. unfolds per the assumptions of the SRES (Goklany 2005c, 2006a). This should be noted in the text. "
(Indur Glokany, US Department of the Interior)
This whole text, from lines 11 to 26, has been deleted.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/SPM_REVIEWS/SPM_SOD_Expert.pdf
So, IPCC is being economical with the actualité. Why? Because only alarmism is permitted and everything must lead back to climate change as the main problem facing the world.
We find similar one-sided opinions given about water stress which could be termed
WATERGATE if that weren't already in use elsewhere.
Dr Golkany makes a similar comment about the population stated to be in increased water stress due to climate change whilst ignoring those who are taken out of water stress under the same scenario. In other words climate change has only negative impacts, no positive ones - like the Greening of the Sahel, which we have seen discussed elsewhere on this board
http://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi....read=253&page=1
or the increase in Net Primary Production http://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi....read=144&page=1
dioner
HUNGERGATE
IPCC AR4 Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM)
Indur Glokany of US Dept of the Interior, an EXPERT REVIEWER, wanted these statements included but they were deleted:
“We note that global impact assessments undertaken by Parry et al. (1999, 2004) indeed indicate that large numbers will be thrown at risk for hunger because of climate change; however, they also indicate that many MORE millions would be at risk whether or not the climate changes. (see Goklany (2003, 2005a). Policy makers are owed this context.
Withholding this nugget of information is a sin of omission. Without such information, policy makers would lack necessary information for evaluating response strategies and the trade-offs involved in selecting one approach and not another. One consequence of using Parry et al.’s results to compare population at risk for hunger with and without climate change is that it indicates that measures to reduce vulnerability to current climate sensitive problems that would be exacerbated by CC could have very high benefit-cost ratios.
In fact, analyses by Goklany (2005a) using results from Parry et al. (1999) and Arnell et al. (2002) suggests that over the next few decades, vulnerability reduction measures would provide greater benefits, more rapidly, and more surely than would reactive
adaptation measures or, for that matter, any mitigation scheme. See also Goklany (2005c).
These results are based on analyses that do not fully account for increases in adaptive capacity that should occur if economic and technological development. unfolds per the assumptions of the SRES (Goklany 2005c, 2006a). This should be noted in the text. "
(Indur Glokany, US Department of the Interior)
This whole text, from lines 11 to 26, has been deleted.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/SPM_REVIEWS/SPM_SOD_Expert.pdf
So, IPCC is being economical with the actualité. Why? Because only alarmism is permitted and everything must lead back to climate change as the main problem facing the world.
We find similar one-sided opinions given about water stress which could be termed
WATERGATE if that weren't already in use elsewhere.
Dr Golkany makes a similar comment about the population stated to be in increased water stress due to climate change whilst ignoring those who are taken out of water stress under the same scenario. In other words climate change has only negative impacts, no positive ones - like the Greening of the Sahel, which we have seen discussed elsewhere on this board
http://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi....read=253&page=1
or the increase in Net Primary Production http://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi....read=144&page=1
dioner
No comments:
Post a Comment