The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the report on which the world’s governments are relying to sell carbon taxes and emissions trading scams to their subjects, took yet another hit at the end of last week with news of another failure on the Indian sub-continent.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already under fire for errors in its key 2007 report, said a one-metre (three-foot) rise in sea levels would flood 17 percent of Bangladesh and create 20 million refugees by 2050.
“But the prediction ignored the role that at least one billion tonnes of sediment, carried by rivers into Bangladesh every year, will play in countering sea level rises, a study by the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) said.”
This comes on the back of a host of problems revealed in the IPCC’s report, which it turns out is not even good enough for government work, and in the tinkered-with temperature records maintained and manipulated by government scientists.
The steady unravelling of the IPCC and its so-called science is bringing more and more real scientists out of the closet to decry the whole politically-driven process. The latest is Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, wrote last week that “the corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue”—a comment that garnered much attention around the traps.
Asked to back up her claim of corruption, she outlined just a few of the problems to the Collide-a-Scape blog:
“Corruptions to the IPCC process that I have seen discussed include:
• lead/contributing authors assessing their own work – (e.g. von Storch criticism in 2005), in some cases resulting in an overemphasis on their own papers written by themselves and their collaborators;
• tailoring graphics and not adequately describing uncertainties ostensibly to simplify and not to “dilute the message” that IPCC wanted to send;
• violations of publication (in press) deadlines for inclusions of papers in the IPCC report;
• inadequacies in the review process whereby lead/contributing authors don’t respond fairly to adverse criticism; this inadequacy arises in part to the authors themselves having ultimate authority and in part to cursory performance by the Review Editors;
• evasiveness and unresponsiveness by the IPCC regarding efforts to investigate alleged violations occurring in the review process;
• IPCC Review Editors and authors using the IPCC to avoid accountability under national FOI legislation.”
So problems aplenty, yet despite the IPCC’s falling credibility our own politicians still proceeds apace to impose new taxes on us on the basis of the IPCC’s politically-driven pseudo-science.