Here, too, I had had advance warning. Dr Chris Landsea, who is to hurricanes what Professor Bhat is to his Himalayan glaciers, had resigned from the IPCC’s list of authors when his lead author appeared on a public platform supporting an environmental lobby group that was claiming that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes would increase as a result of global warming.
Dr Landsea had written to the IPCC demanding that it invited his lead author to desist and apologise. The IPCC, however, did nothing – and went on to repeat in its own pages substantially the same lie that the lead author and the environmental pressure-group had been peddling.
Yet again, I was not surprised to learn that the IPCC had had to withdraw its erroneous assertion.
I have had several run-ins with the IPCC. On the day of publication of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, I noticed that IPCC bureaucrats had inserted a table into the summary that had not been in the final draft sent in by the reviewers. I contacted four senior IPCC officials at once and ordered them to remove or at least to correct the bogus table, which did not even add up correctly.
The bureaucrats, panicked by a leaked report in the London Sunday Telegraph to the effect that the report would reduce the IPCC’s high-end estimate of sea-level rise this century from three to just two feet, had inserted the graph themselves in great haste in the hope of demonstrating (falsely) that the rate of sea-level rise had recently increased. In fact, the apparent increase (from 8 inches per century to 12 inches per century) was an artifact of the change in measurement method from tide-gauges to satellite altimetry in 1993.
The IPCC, on receiving my letter, had at once moved, renamed, relabelled and retotalled the table so that it now added up correctly. But what is one to make of a supposedly scientific process where, after years of work by scientists, a handful of bureaucrats can simply insert data – and inaccurate data at that – without permission from any of the scientists?
Dr Landsea had written to the IPCC demanding that it invited his lead author to desist and apologise. The IPCC, however, did nothing – and went on to repeat in its own pages substantially the same lie that the lead author and the environmental pressure-group had been peddling.
Yet again, I was not surprised to learn that the IPCC had had to withdraw its erroneous assertion.
I have had several run-ins with the IPCC. On the day of publication of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, I noticed that IPCC bureaucrats had inserted a table into the summary that had not been in the final draft sent in by the reviewers. I contacted four senior IPCC officials at once and ordered them to remove or at least to correct the bogus table, which did not even add up correctly.
The bureaucrats, panicked by a leaked report in the London Sunday Telegraph to the effect that the report would reduce the IPCC’s high-end estimate of sea-level rise this century from three to just two feet, had inserted the graph themselves in great haste in the hope of demonstrating (falsely) that the rate of sea-level rise had recently increased. In fact, the apparent increase (from 8 inches per century to 12 inches per century) was an artifact of the change in measurement method from tide-gauges to satellite altimetry in 1993.
The IPCC, on receiving my letter, had at once moved, renamed, relabelled and retotalled the table so that it now added up correctly. But what is one to make of a supposedly scientific process where, after years of work by scientists, a handful of bureaucrats can simply insert data – and inaccurate data at that – without permission from any of the scientists?
Read these article :-
No comments:
Post a Comment