Dr. Richard North, who does investigative journalism at the EU referendum blog, has a comprehensive analysis and backgrounder on the latest in a series of blunders by the IPCC that have been uncovered. It complements the just released story by Jonathan Leake of The Sunday Times that highlights a leading British scientist calling for IPPC to “tackle the blunders or lose all credibility”
Here is Dr. North’s introduction to the issue:
Following an investigation by this blog (and with the story also told in The Sunday Times), another major “mistake” in the IPCC’s benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.
Similar in effect to the erroneous “2035” claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.
Unlike the glacier claim, which was confined to a section of the technical Working Group II report, this “50 percent by 2020” claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri. It has been repeated by him in many public fora. He, therefore, bears a personal responsibility for the error.
In this lengthy post, we examine the nature and background of this latest debacle, which is now under investigation by IPCC scientists and officials.
===============================
What follows is a detailed investigation by Dr. North, I highly recommend reading it here:
EU Referendum: And now for Africagate
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
”””Roger Knights (20:39:03) : Unfortunately, unlike the 2035 error, it’s not a “howler,” or glaring error that should have raised a red flag.”””
Roger,
Thanks. I agree that it is not be the glaring stuff of Media reports that fundamentally condemns the AR4 scientifically, it is the unscientific process and lack of professionalism used by the IPCC and the contributors it chose to use.
Your comment does remind me of how, until ~ summer of 2009, I always thought that the mills of science ground the facts exceedingly fine. That is I thought that science finely sifts through all observations/data in infinite detail and objectivity. Given the climate science state since then, I am looking much more critically at all science, even the so-called hard sciences.
John
… so many gates… so little time.
As we have only had a fraction of a degree observed warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and none at all in the Southern Hemisphere, surely every alarmist statement the IPCC has made is suspect and worthy of examination?
Surely it is time for the vagaries and mischief embedded in the IPCC GCMs to be highlighted and exposed for all to see?
Listen to the Australians and SHUT THE BLOODY GATE
John Whitman:
Maybe Pachauri is just the fierce face of the Wizard of OZ, but many think the person(s)/group(s) behind the curtain are . . . . . well . . . ahhh. . . .
Pachauri is an ego walking on its hind legs – you are correct there are puppeteers behind the curtain and we have to go through the people like Pachauri to get to them.
The truth of who’s involved with the AGW scam is far uglier than anyone will ever anticipate – this is going to rock environmentalism to it’s foundation before it’s all done.
Can this claim actually bear much scrutiny?
How about the Ogallala Aquifer – is it back to pre-1940 levels?
.
.
It seems that there are many fewer examples of the use of the term “settled science” coming from the believers these days. And I’ve even seen some say that they would never dare use that term and deny that they ever had. Good work WUWT team.
Now to move on to the equally pernicious “overwhelming scientific evidence” phrase. I, for one, can’t seem to find this evidence. Correlation between warming based on possibly suspect temperature data and relatively solid CO2 measurement, sure. I don’t see what’s overwhelming about that.
I propose “overwhelmingly poor scientific evidence” to counter the phrase. Of course you may substitute you own adjective for poor. Scant? bad? lousy? unimpressive? flawed?
Good News for IPCC – There are so many people finally reading the IPCC’s AR4 that there cannot be any doubt that right now it is just as popular as any NYT Bestseller in recent memory.
Bad News for IPC – see above
John
referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.
=================================================
What a rickety contraption the IPCC is!
This would be par for the course for them.
Taking this from a carbon trader would be a conflict of interest. Funny that a Wall Street type who stands to make a mint from carbon credits finds disaster in co2.
Where are the 2500 scientists????
”””’It’s always Marcia, Marcia (22:24:32) : What a rickety contraption the IPCC is! . . . . Where are the 2500 scientists????”””’
Q – Can ~2500 scientists be wrong?? Which is supposedly the number that the IPCC claims where involved in their AR4 consensus
Answer 1 – mostly
Answer 2 – Latest New Report : The INTERPOL has an all-points-bulletin looking worldwide for the missing 2500 scientists. It fails to find any leads
John
Once again, like always with our IPCC friends, peer reviewed or not, it is projected, possible, maybe if, horror stories, and a complete refusal to acknowldge the known, tested and proved in hundreds of observation studies, the benefits of increased CO2 on biomass, which includes crops, irrigated or rain fed.
By the way, where did all our US droughts go?
Jaye (20:01:45)
Too funny! But right on.
Tenuc (14:58:54) :
Strange that the IPCC AR4 report will be the document responsible for the end of the CAGW scam. This is better than any spy novel!”
]Yes, but right in tune with MIchael Crichton’s State of Fear.]
Michael (15:11:55) :
Perhaps it would be a more efficient use of our time if we focus on what is not fiction in the IPCC AR4. That way we could spend more time on sharpening our pitch forks and gathering our torches.
[Party pooper!]
Once the anti-capitalists understand they are doing exactly what the big oil companies want, I think that part of the AGW movement could collapse.
That is tough. The anti-capitalists don’t believe in supply and demand. Except when it come to the dope market. The capitalists (for the most part) believe in supply and demand every where except the dope market.
It drives me nuts.
It seems that there are many fewer examples of the use of the term “settled science” coming from the believers these days. And I’ve even seen some say that they would never dare use that term and deny that they ever had.
I have had a warmist tell me that only deniers used the “settled science” term as a slur on warmists. He even pointed to a Wm. Connolley wiki page “debunking” “settled science”. I gave him 10 or 20 links to the use of the term. By our President. By his spokes person Gibbs. And lots of others.
Well that ended that particular discussion.
Re Jan (18:45:33) :
Thank you for your effort. Good luck, and any detailed breakdown of a small area like this helps the overall effort to understand exactly what is going on in this arena. If it was malajusted here, then it is a fair bet the same procedures were done elsewhere.
I don’t know the rules:
how many gates can they go through before they have to give the Nobel back?
M. Simon (23:23:37) :
That warmist had never heard Al Gore say the science is settled? Was he talking about the same Al Gore global warming thingy that everyone else has heard of? Maybe there’s two global warmings?
Considering Rodin and the burning crater in Turkmenistan, “The Gates of Hell” may not be appropriate.
There is some poetry to “The Gates of Mordor” with Pachauri as Saruman and Jones, Mann & Co as the Nazgul. But there would need to be auditions to cast Frodo and Aragorn and Gandalf.
My current preference is for “The Myriad Gates of Anthropogenic Perfidy” in the style of a good, old fashioned, Viking Saga. It would certainly be long enough and intricate enough, but it would need to be translated into Runic.
Surely it is now beyond doubt that the IPCC AR4 report is a deeply flawed document prepared with the sole purpose of creating a doomsday scenario intended to deceive and/or influence a trusting global community. It is further self-evident that is purely political in motive and dishonest in content. The exposed untruths (read lies) are not simply the result of “minor errors” of the “typo” variety, but deliberate distortions with immense consequences concerning the well-being of billions of souls. The oft cited reference to “thousands of scientists” should not bring them comfort but rather dread as these “thousands” are now tainted (through association) with the same corruption. The honest scientists (most) owe it to themselves, to their beloved science and to humanity to speak out and forever end the rape.
Gate? It’s not a gate, it’s a motorised revolving door!
It’s not that they make errors, they just lie to suit their agenda.
How about Bangladesh, as pointed out by a poster on the http://climatequotes.com/2010/02/05/ipcc-bases-claim-of-1-3-billion-agricultural-workers-on-news-article-changes-title/
link.
See this article
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world
I honestly think that there are so many Gates we are losing track, we also have Coral, especially the recent barrier reef report and the Cold killing mre coral the heat does.
more coral not mre coral.