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.
photon without a Higgs (13:26:38) :
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.
I have another place I discuss climate. With engineers. For the most part more technical.
The defenders of the faith have gone temporarily silent there as well.
OT but the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Australian “Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) statistics show Sydney has so far experienced temperatures almost two degrees above average for January – 27.8 degrees Celsius compared to a monthly average of 25.9.” and “minimum temperatures have not fallen below 20.5 degrees.”
Very strange since most people I know agree it has been a very mild summer so far and I’m pretty sure I saw temps as low as 16C.
D (16:52:15) :
“Lucy the royal society web page can still be found at – lot of because the IPCC says so here oh dear – there is a lot of egg and venerable institution maybe about to start wiping faces furiously.”
The difficulty is that they haven’t been treating this as a scientific controversy, they’ve been drawn into advocacy and marginalising doubters, which is the way this reads.
“This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming.”
I suppose they could discover that the “world’s leading authority on climate change” isn’t all it might be. It doesn’t feel quite so bad being conned if you’re not the only one. Maybe they’ll try to organise an orderly withdrawal with others, calculating it would be better than a rout.
Anthony, I hope you and Steve appreciate the magnitude of the effect you are having. It’s legendary….
REPLY: I think you overstate ours, and especially my, importance in the scheme of things. – A
As some one said of an officer in the civil war (approximately) who was also economical with the truth.
“It got so bad that you couldn’t even believe the opposite of what he said.”
From Campaigning with Grant
Meet Hanson the terrorist, ready to end our civilization:
This is incredible!
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/hanson-barracking-for-lawless-destruction-and-the-end-of-civilization/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+%28JoNova%29
UK TELEGRAPH CALLS FOR PACHAURI RESIGNATION
Geoffrey Lean…..I did not expect other errors to come to light quite so fast. But, as I blogged yesterday, four more have now been reported….
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100023489/pachauri-must-quit-as-head-of-official-science-panel/
“Ron de Haan (16:36:33) :
Copenhagen in a coma but still not dead.
More people should visit WUWT.
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article93870.ece?homepage=true
”
India, China won’t sign accord but reach hands out to receive 10 billion. If they would at least stop emitting evil CO2 for that (only joking, i don’t think CO2 is a problem).
“Though Australia and Canada have signed, they have not indicated the greenhouse gas emission reductions they are committing under the accord — something developed countries are supposed to do.
”
How confused can that get? And how does it save the planet? (sorry, joking again)
Mao purges AGW. It’s O’s fault.
…-
“India, China refuse to sign Copenhagen, say Dem defeat in Mass. has weakened AGW push
The Hindu ^ | January 24, 2010 | nwrep
Posted on Sunday, January 24, 2010 7:33:37 PM by nwrep
The Indian and Chinese governments have had a rethink on signing the Copenhagen Accord, officials said on Saturday, and the UN has also indefinitely postponed its Jan 31 deadline for countries to accede to the document.
An Indian official said that though the government had been thinking of signing the accord because it “did not have any legal teeth and would be good diplomatically”; it felt irked because of repeated messages from both UN officials and developed countries to accede to it.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has written to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seeking a number of clarifications on the implications of the accord that India — with five other countries — had negotiated in the last moments of the Copenhagen climate summit in December, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“That letter, and the defeat of the Democrats in the Massachusetts bypoll, has forced the UN to postpone the deadline indefinitely,” an official said. “With the Democrats losing in one of their strongholds, the chances of the climate bill going through the US senate have receded dramatically.
“So if the US is not going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, which was a very weak target anyway, why should we make any commitment even if it does not have any legal teeth?” the official said.
China also appears in no mood to sign the accord.
“With the deadline postponed, we are not going to sign now,” said a Chinese official now here to take part in the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) meeting to chalk out a climate strategy.
The meeting of the four environment ministers Sunday is likely to end with the announcement of a fund they will set up to help other developing countries cope with the effects of climate change, said an official of the environment ministry.
Only four countries — Australia, Canada, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives — have signed the Copenhagen Accord so far, though Brazil, South Africa and South Korea have also indicated their willingness to do so.
Though Australia and Canada have signed, they have not indicated the greenhouse gas emission reductions they are committing under the accord — something developed countries are supposed to do.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2436391/posts
To contact the UK Parliament select committee investigating, Bishop Hill has this thorough list.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/22/whos-on-the-select-committee.html
Bulldust (16:42:39) :
On the flipside of the debate, I wonder how things are faring at Real Climate. I go there occasionally to get a bit of a giggle at Gav trying to stick his fingers in the leaks appearing left and right. But I wonder what their exit strategy is… as the sticks are yanked away one by one from the climate science Jenga tower, at some point the whole thing is going to collapse. What are the prominent alarmists going to do then when the government/scientific Lynch mobs start clamoring for their heads?
Several options.
[1] Hari Kari.
[2] Point finger at someone else and exclaim loudly “He did it!”
[3] Keep lying
[4] Exclaim “It was already like this when I got here!”
[5] Claim “Everyone else was doing it, and I didn’t want to be left out!”
[6] Claim “I was only following orders!”
[7] Claim “Really it’s all for your own good. Really – you should thank us!”
i offer a $100 prize (subject to “added value” computations), for any U.S. politician who even mentions “climate change”, in the “near future”.
any takers?
I’m really surprised that the IPCC didn’t also make “Cold Fusion” one of it’s central planks for mitigating global warming.
Surely “Cold Fusion” would fit the bill – plentiful, cheap electricity without CO2 emissions – a sure winner.
And given recent form, papers on “Cold Fusion” would easily make the grade for the next IPCC report.
I know that research on “Cold Fusion” has stagnated… but isn’t that a sign that the science is settled.
Very suprised indeed…
u.k.(us) (17:45:03) :
i offer a $100 prize (subject to “added value” computations), for any U.S. politician who even mentions “climate change”, in the “near future”.
any takers?
Mr K Rudd, Australian PM has apparently cooled on warming… REF: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_cool_on_warming/
I have also just taken a look at the UK Met Office website and I cannot see the section debunking the myths of sceptics (it was certainly there within the past three weeks) – however they do have a FAQ section and still say at 1.8 that climate change has caused and will cause extreme weather changes (in the UK and elswhere). Very brave.
They also believe that 2010 will be the hottest year on record – though with a 50% chance that it won’t. That sounds like a heads or tails bet! £1 each way I think should do the trick.
I’m new to this site but find it fascinating.
I laugh when I heard Australia signed the agreement. Rudd just signed his own “death” warrant at the next election this year. He’s out. Obama has much longer timer so he has the opportunity to weasel out of this mess.
L Gardy LaRoche (15:48:28) :
“WWF, The IPCC’s favourite source
From Donna Laframboise’s site:”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html
Thank you for pointing that out!
Peter of Sydney (16:04:59) :
“A lot has been revealed lately about how wrong the IPCC has been. Virtually everything they have said has now been shown to be false.”
I think it is more that what has been shown to be false is the tip of the iceberg. IPCC has said a lot that hasn’t been proven to be either true or false. More scrutiny should reveal more errors real soon.
Not only is Rudd’s CPRS document without foundation, so are the proposed regulations of our American EPA. More documents and regulatory initiatives will be going down in flames soon.
Re Australia just did a calculation on the responses to The Chanel 7 Climate debate with Christopher Monckton versus Daniels this morning.
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/play/-/6716776/the-great-climate-debate/
When asked are you skeptical? answer = (78%) versus do you believe in AGW answer = (22%)? The Australian Mainstream media appears to be completely out of touch (although this may make them change their minds). This was despite Monckton being interrupted continuously by both AGW believers! LOL
Aelfrith (13:47:07) :
Daniel H
Are you someone trying to generate hits to a little read blog?
The guy does seem to be looking for the truth. Remains to be seen if his mind is open enough to recognize it, if it smacks him up the side of the head.
Twenty times, at least, every week Anthony and Team come up with compelling arguments that support the premise that AGW is but a poor and fragile thought.
And what do we do? We vent our spleen by scattershot.
I get all sorts of useful stuff from the links commenters leave.
And I also blog some of the posts put up here.
I love the informality and some of the snide remarks. Keeps up the morale.
“The moral is to the material as three is to one.” mis-attributed to Napoleon. Source unavailable.
Roger360 (17:50:39) :
“They also believe that 2010 will be the hottest year on record – though with a 50% chance that it won’t. That sounds like a heads or tails bet! £1 each way I think should do the trick”
LOL a 50% chance is no chance at all.
Either way they win.
Real committed to what their science tells them, aren’t they?
Graeme from Melbourne (17:41:34) :
“Bulldust (16:42:39) :
………………………….
Several options. [1] Hari Kari………”
should be Hara Kiri. Typo?
What’s next? Maybe “the Himalayan coral reefs are going to be gone by 2035. What? There are no coral reefs in the Himalayas? OMG, it’s worse than we thought!!!
Graeme from Melbourne (17:47:17) :
I’m really surprised that the IPCC didn’t also make “Cold Fusion” one of it’s central planks for mitigating global warming.
Surely “Cold Fusion” would fit the bill – plentiful, cheap electricity without CO2 emissions – a sure winner.
And given recent form, papers on “Cold Fusion” would easily make the grade for the next IPCC report.
I know that research on “Cold Fusion” has stagnated… but isn’t that a sign that the science is settled.
Very suprised indeed…
Actually there is something to Cold Fusion. Perhaps it will never match the hype but there is something there. I have read a few of the latest papers and they seem sound and the replication rate is not bad for something not yet understood. Among experimenters around the world the replication rate runs around 50%. And that is not 50% of the experimenters get results. It is 50% of the experiments get results.
The US Navy is looking into it.