The emerging errors of the IPCC’s 2007 report are not incidental but fundamental, says Christopher Booker
The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm – after three months when the IPCC and Dr Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost.
The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC’s last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other “extreme weather events” were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The “science is settled”, the “consensus” is intact.
But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.
[More]
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
This should no longer be a competition between political parties to garner votes. All parties should be united in their support of scientific truth and their condemnation for any form of carbon tax. All parties should be on the same page when it comes to an all out effort to modernize our nation’s sewage disposal systems, to clean up our lakes and rivers, devise ever more efficient re-cycling, and international efforts for example to provide potable drinking water to the multitudes of those around the world who do without. Now, back to the real world…….
What is very telling is that the High Priests of AGW are spinning the matter as one of “mistakes”…..simple mistakes that this piffle showed up in their report. But that is not the case….they were not mistakes. Not at all. They were DELIBERATELY put into the reports. That is not a mistake. That is fraud. Pure and simple.
The potato is getting warmer and soon no one will want to be seen holding the ” Hot Potato “, but with the Canadian MSM still making believe that ” there is nothing to see here folks ” the Liberals and the left still thinks it’s a vote getter: And at this very moment they are still right.
Has Harper really joined the koolaid drinkers or is he reluctantly still thinking of pursuing a carbon capture policy while at the same time dealing with real pollution ? Or is he dragging his feet waiting for just the right time to drop the ” Potato ” before everybody else does ??? At the moment it’s still a political hand grenade for him he is firmly holding the spoon on with the pin removed and it’s still not ripe to be thrown to the Liberals to hold !
I think that the Conservatives know full well the issue and that they are just being cautious and a bit politically correct – both sides of the fence so to not let the opposition get any advantage.
Chess … wait for the checkmate … or as they say in curling … “he who has the hammer gets the last shot”!
Haven’t PMSH and Prentice been pretty clear that they will line up with the US? Don’t we have to do that? Because if we were to charge off on some tangent by ourselves the regime running Washington would use our non-compliance with their Climate plans as an excuse to cut our trade off. Obama would love to cut us off in order to feed his union base. So we have to pretend to be going along with them, all the while hoping November will bring in some more sane Scott Brown type legislators.
Re: #6 — “Haven’t PMSH and Prentice been pretty clear that they will line up with the US?”
Of course they will. The US is going nowhere on this issue and our government knows that. Why get beat up when you don’t have to?