Last night I pointed out how NASA had quietly purged IPCC AR4 referenced glacier melting claims from its climate.nasa.gov website, especially since they upped the year from 2035 to 2030 on their own. Now Roger Pielke Jr. points out that another curious purge has been spotted:
Excerpts:
There is another important story in involving the Muir-Wood et al. 2006 paper that was misrepresented by the IPCC as showing a linkage between increasing temperatures and rising damages from extreme weather events. The Stern Review Report of the UK government also relied on that paper as the sole basis for its projections of increasing damage from extreme events. In fact as much as 40% of the Stern Reivew projections for the global costs of unmitigated climate change derive from its misuse of the Muir-Wood et al. paper.
…
As I was preparing this post, I accessed the Stern Review Report on the archive site of the UK government to capture an image of Table 5.2. Much to my surprise I learned that since the publication of my paper, Table 5.2 has mysteriously changed! Have a look at the figures below.
The figure immediately below shows Table 5.2 as it was originally published in the Stern Review (from a web archive in PDF), and I have circled in red the order-of-magnitude error in hurricane damage that I document in my paper (the values should instead by 10 times less).
Now, have a look at the figure below which shows Table 5.2 from the Stern Review Report as it now appears on the UK government archive (PDF), look carefully at the numbers circled in red:
There is no note, no acknowledgment, nothing indicating that the estimated damage for hurricanes was modified after publication by an order of magnitude. The report was quietly changed to make the error go away. Of course, even with the Table corrected, now the Stern Review math does not add up, as the total GDP impact from USA, UK and Europe does not come anywhere close to the 1% global total for developed country impacts (based on Muir-Wood), much less the higher values suggested as possible in the report’s text, underscoring a key point of my 2007 paper.
I’m betting that instituions around the world are working fast to distance themselves from some of the IPCC claims. We’ll likely see more of this.
CheshireRed (12:56:55) :
More beautiful work, from intelligent sceptics and WUWT alike.
You guys do realise you’re causing acute embarrassment to Warmists, , don’t you?
Splendid.
================================================
Judging by the dramatically reduced amount of comments from trolls I’d say you’re right.
someone asked for info on sea level rise
article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
I just made the mistake of attempting to read Chapter 5 of the Stern Report under the assumption that I was reading a document written by semi-intelligent experts. Then I came across this little gem:
“In Australia (the world’s driest continent) winter rainfall in the southwest and southeast is likely to decrease significantly, as storm tracks shift polewards and away from the continent itself.”
Huh? Even the smallest grade school child knows that Antarctica is the driest continent, not Australia. Heck, even Wikipedia knows this! What is going on here? Clearly not proofreading.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_5_Costs_Of_Climate_Change_In_Developed_Countries.pdf
[bottom of page 2]
As has been said many times before, where would we be without the internet. It’s scary to think the situation we would be in now without it.
There is so much coming out now, it’s difficult to keep up with it all. I can see why Steven Mosher entitled his book ‘Vol 1’. Looks like he could be writing plenty more!
Looking at the two pdf files:
Web archive version – file creation date 27 Oct 2006
Revised version – file creation date 24 Jan 2007
Apparently not a recent change – but why the change at all. After all if one figure is being changed by an order of magnitude what faith can we place in the other figures and the conclustions drawn by Stern?
Good work Roger. You have just pulled another card of their house of cards. Regards, Mandolinjon
Unfortunately, NAS, NASA and the Space Science Board (SSB) all need to be investigated.
I tried to warn them of this impending disaster on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at the NAS Building in Washington, DC.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
So, let me see if I have this right – rather than acknowledging an error in a previously published document and correcting it in a transparent, mea culpa fashion, the British Government is actually trying to rewrite history instead?
@ur momisugly Chilled Out (13:30:48) ;
That silent change was made after Pielke Jr’s paper had come out.
I agree with boballab – this silent change is scandalous because it would indeed damage Pielke Jr’s reputation.
I’m very glad he brought it to all our attention – one less loophole which some inveterate AGW defenders might have used to besmirch whta they call ‘deniers’.
Somewhere, in the back of my head, I seem to remember that the energy released by wind varies as the cube of the wind-speed.
Does this mean that an increase in ws of 6% should give nearly 20% (1.06×1.06×1.06) boost to the destructive power of hurricanes?
They fudged the data, fudged the score
When it didn’t add up, they fudged some more
The seas will rise, the winds will roar
Floods and waves will ravage the shore
Just sell the doom to those silly men
But if challenged, simply divide by ten
@DirkH
Sorry about that, try this link:
http://notin2035.com/
The discussion of the Stern Report is the first story on the page. It’s all down hill from there. All I can figure is that he somehow omitted the hyphen between 4-5 degrees Celsius by 2060. There is really no other plausible explanation for the claim of 45 degrees Celsius aside from sheer stupidity.
Further to my post above, here is the roughly 8 minute clip to which I referred:
http://watch.bnn.ca/squeezeplay/january-2010/squeezeplay-january-11-2010/#clip254240
The interview is with someone called Skip Willis of Willis Climate Group. He refers to Nick Stern at around the 6 minute mark. Note also that he is trying the latest AGW sales-job: all of this CO2 abatement will create thousands of jobs. Yeah, right!
We will know when the climate has changed when we see Lord Stern making a public announcement. Why? Because Hell would have frozen over.
But seriously, I expect Lord Lawson will want to rub his nose in it.
Yes, it appears the dams have burst on the AGW hoax and fraud. I’m now convinced it has been a deliberate fraud, not a mistake. There has been far too many “mistkaes’ to be treated as just coincidence. No doubt there’s more to be revealed. What about the IPCC computer models predicting a global warming catastrophe? This should be the next falsehood to be revealed to the public. This will complete the show and force the IPCC to by shut down, and the chairman charged with several criminal offenses.
Who would have expected this… From Nobel winner to “Quick Hide the IPCC…”
Daniel H
Are you someone trying to generate hits to a little read blog?
Andrew30 (13:24:23) :
M. Simon (13:13:46) :
“He who controls the past controls the future.”
“He who controls the present controls the past.”
He who seeks to control the future would change the past.
There will be a live climate debate on Channel 7 Australia Sunrise. Lord Monckton versus I dont know hope somebody can save it. Im off for a coffee.
The Internet Archive site stores web pages, I find it very useful when looking up old web pages but I believe some pages do get modified, they shouldn’t but they do. Been there today to bring up an old page from The New Scientist about climate change & polar bears, that old chestnut
http://web.archive.org/web/20021014024204/www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climate.jsp?id=ns99992285
have to search around a bit but sometimes brings up little gems.
I use SnagIt to capture the page as it appears.
When the opposition is on rollerskates and getting pushed back toward the political cliff — keep on a pushing…
Fraud is unacceptable.
“all of this CO2 abatement will create thousands of jobs.”
So would the printing of trillions of $1 bills which would be used as fuel for power plants. Then more trees and cotton are planted from which more $1 bills are made and burned. So you get carbon neutral energy.
CO2 abatement I could get behind:
Collect paper and rather than recycling it, turn it to slurry and spray it into abandoned coal and limestone mines or use it for fill of strip-mined and open quarried areas. The slurry could be highly compressed as it is applied. This replaces carbon that was taken out of the ground and put into the air with carbon that was taken out of the air and put in the ground. So you fill old coal and limestone mines with the carbon that was taken out of them to begin with. And who knows, maybe in a million years, that carbon will have turned into something useful again.
Daniel H (13:30:08) :
I just made the mistake of attempting to read Chapter 5 of the Stern Report under the assumption that I was reading a document written by semi-intelligent experts. Then I came across this little gem:
“In Australia (the world’s driest continent) winter rainfall in the southwest and southeast is likely to decrease significantly, as storm tracks shift polewards and away from the continent itself.”
Huh? Even the smallest grade school child knows that Antarctica is the driest continent, not Australia. Heck, even Wikipedia knows this! What is going on here? Clearly not proofreading.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_5_Costs_Of_Climate_Change_In_Developed_Countries.pdf
[bottom of page 2]
Excellent point Daniel, well spotted!
Additionally, if the precipitation destined for oz does indeed move towards the South Pole, one conclusion is that Antarctica would rapidly increase its ice coverage!
Nice one, Lord Stern. Thanks to you it looks like Al Gore made a smart move with that beach real estate. No doubt he’ll be extending his property as sea-level drops!
“Daniel H (13:37:21) :
@DirkH
Sorry about that, try this link:
http://notin2035.com/
The discussion of the Stern Report is the first story on the page. It’s all down hill from there. All I can figure is that he somehow omitted the hyphen between 4-5 degrees Celsius by 2060. There is really no other plausible explanation for the claim of 45 degrees Celsius aside from sheer stupidity.”
Grrrrreat. Here’s the plan: Send the link to the WWF. Wait til IPCC AR5 comes out. Hilarity ensues!
What a dumba*s. Should proofread his website.
“A science journalist […]looks for the truth
”
and spreads wrong numbers. Well – not that different from other journalists.
Daniel H’s link leads to
http://failinggracefully.com/
seems to be a green activist in Pakistan of all places, maybe the link’s ‘a cunning plan’ to get us there and bring about a miraculous conversion.