Oh dear, oh dear: The UN’s IPCC has been caught getting it hysterically wrong again. First, it was the false claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035—which turned out to be one man’s conjecture—since withdrawn—published in New Scientist. Oops. And now, it has shown to have falsely claimed that global warming had already increased climate caused catastrophes. From the story:
The United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.
The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.
It turns out the supposed increase was on account of two years of unusually strong hurricane activity:
Muir-Wood wanted to find out if the 8% year-on-year increase in global losses caused by weather-related disasters since the 1960s was larger than could be explained by the impact of social changes like growth in population and infrastructure...In the research Muir-Wood looked at a wide range of hazards, including tropical cyclones, thunder and hail storms, and wildfires as well as floods and hurricanes. He found from 1950 to 2005 there was no increase in the impact of disasters once growth was accounted for. For 1970-2005, however, he found a 2% annual increase which “corresponded with a period of rising global temperatures,”
Muir-Wood was, however, careful to point out that almost all this increase could be accounted for by the exceptionally strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005. There were also other more technical factors that could cause bias, such as exchange rates which meant that disasters hitting the US would appear to cost proportionately more in insurance payouts. Despite such caveats, the IPCC report used the study in its section on disasters and hazards, but cited only the 1970-2005 results.
In other words, the report only cited the part of the study that would increase the hysteria.
Put all of these “errors” and Climategate together and you have a significant science scandal. Look at the harm these inept, dishonest—or both—“scientists” are doing to science. Look at the potential harm they could do to our economies. Had the international bureaucrats gotten their way at Copenhagen, relying on this cooked data would have cost us $100 billion!
It’s high time to stop and sort it all out. The IPCC report is not trustworthy, and the entire global warming community—those with integrity as well as those without—have a cloud over their heads that must be remedied before we take another step farther.
(And let’s take a moment to give a hearty three cheers for the Times of London that keeps breaking these stories of false global warming data. That paper supports efforts to cap carbon emissions. But in an age when too many reporters and publications act as shills for the hysterics, this venerable paper remains a journalistic enterprise. Bravo.)
