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.
Kevin Rudd, on detailed programmatic specificity ,that’s Gobbledegookgate, says man-made climate change is “indisputable”.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudds_latest_scientific_advisor_a_six_year_old_girl/
And that is Graciegate.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/would-you-mind-saying-that-again-in-english/story-0-1225748372488
And now from Kevin Rudd we have ” Reefergate “.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/report-undercuts-kevin-rudds-great-barrier-reef-wipeout/story-e6frg6nf-1225826128644
J. Hansford (21.23.52 ) is right. All gate , no fence
DirkH (16:20:07) :
“kadaka (15:51:04) :
“AgriculturalGate” is too wordy. Could this IPCC blunder (link found at Climate Depot) be called “GrowGate”?”
agrogate.
Time for the grand consolidation of all of this.
Aggregate-gate.
Re
Richard Lawson (16:33:49) :
Surprise surprise there is even more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html
So we have the Nile Delta as well
“One unpublished dissertation was used to support the claim that sea-level rise could impact on people living in the Nile delta and other African coastal areas, although the main focus of the thesis, by a student at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, appears to have been the impact of computer software on environmental development. ”
and Nuclear Power CO2
“Estimates of carbon-dioxide emissions from nuclear power stations and claims that suggested they were cheaper than coal or gas power stations were also taken from the website of the World Nuclear Association, rather than using independent scientific calculations. “
This becomes even more interesting, when one looks at the Annual Food Production Statistics for these three countries. The stats are available at: http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx
Select Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco and get production quantities for wheat from 1960 to 2008 and start analyzing.
The report mentioned was from 2001. If you compare what production from 1994-2000 to 2001-2008, you notice that:
Algeria is producing 56% more during 2001-2008 than 1994-2000.
Morocco is producing 26% more during 2001-2008 than 1994-2000.
Tunisia is producing 24% more during 2001-2008 than 1994-2000.
I’d appreciate if someone more qualified could make a proper analysis.
From the IPCC Sythesis Report.
“By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture COULD be reduced by up to 50%.”
How do the IPCC define the probability attached to the word could.
After all “pigs could fly”.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/street-experiences/29632-how-do-you-stick-bell-wall-pics-quirky-signs-28.html#post1294948
That’s all there is left.
That has never happened (at least I think so), and I don’t think there are any ways for the Nobel committee to demand the return of the Nobel peace prize once it has been awarded. And that is assuming they actually think it should be returned.
You could always try to contact them and ask their position on the new information, but I would be surprised if you received any reply at all
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/institute/contact/
“I have done the numbers and we are all doomed”
“Why’s that phil”
“I’ve spoken to mike and he agrees too”
“Show me”
“There you go”
“Er, phil this is just a piece of paper saying we are all doomed”
“Trust me, its true”
“But phil, you cannot expect the world to ruin their economies on your word alone, where is the evidence?
“Its not just me as I said mike agrees”
“Show us the data phil, we need proof that we are all going to die”
“Oh I can’t do that,you will have to take my word for it”
“I will use an foi request then”
“You could do that but there is always ipr and I will hide behind that”
“Show us the evidence phil”
“I already did”
“No phil you showed me a piece of paper that said we are all doomed, give me the raw data and I will crunch the numbers myself”
“Fu@k off do you think I am stupidan I shredded that, I have my career to think of you know”
Everyone here is jumping to the conclusion that something nefarious is happening simply because studies, magazines and theme papers are being completely misrepresented to further the catastrophic AGW scenario.
Don’t worry Joel will soon post a response to show how absolutely innocent all of this is.
Vieras (04:26:47) :
You don’t need to be any more qualified, the number speak for themselves LOL
“Jaye (20:01:45) :
So I just scanned RC’s take on “Glaciergate”. Came across many posts that
[…]
“If glacier data is a little incorrect but helps that effort, then the data is true in all but a very narrow and clinical scientific sense.””
A typical leftist/sociologist/freudian take on the truth. Soviet DiaMat, Pol Pot and Hugo Chavez come to mind. Reminds me of this hoax:
http://libcom.org/library/sokal-hoax-transgressing-boundaries-towards-transformative-hermeneutics-quantum-gravity-
“A C Osborn (04:09:50) :
[…]
See this article
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world
”
Good point about Bangladesh there. Which reminds me of this piece of propaganda by the BBC. Terrible erosion in Monrovia, Liberia, caused by sea level rise. Except for Monrovia is at a river delta and actually begs to be flooded/eroded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8375301.stm
The wikipedia has an old map from the founding date of Monrovia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monrovia_Plan_Map_1830.jpg
This striking evidence should really make it into IPCC AR5.
M. Simon (23:23:37) :
“The science is settled” is also part of the British Government’s mantra along with the use of flat-earthers to refer to anyone who dissents..
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was specifically designed by Maurice Strong as a political vehicle to further his objective of crippling the industrial nations
IPCC Science Designed For Propaganda
By Dr. Tim Ball Friday, February 5, 2010
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19702
From EUReferendum come this bit on The beauties of blogging:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/beauties-of-blogging.html
For those interested, here’s the piece at Bishop Hill:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/7/climate-cuttings-34.html
It, in turn, links to National Geographic News:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
In reading that piece on the greening of the Sahara, there’s this little gem about a study done in 2005, two years before the IPCC Africagate-tainted AR4:
So, the IPCC got it part right, they just had the wrong continent — it’s not the Amazon rain forest that will turn into savannah, rather it’s the Sahara desert that’ll turn into savannah. Sounds like a good deal to me.
jorge c (15:42:48) :
“it is worst than we thought…”
I now believe that if we topple this weird edifice the world’s economy will suffer.
When you look into the IIGCC http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx you see several things. The vast (estimated at 4 trillion Euros) power of the pension funds invested. The involvement of, for example, the BBC (to the point where the steering committee has Peter Dunscombe, of BBC Pension Trust, as a member) who have always slated sceptics. The amount of churches on board. Fear creates strange bedfellows and conflicts of interest.
When you see the amount of verdigris growing on the world’s engines.
When you remember who created this bubble – JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc.
I remain pessimistic about our hopes of enlightenment.
ditmar (05:02:47) :
I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones contemplated suicide……has lost weight…..can’t sleep…..paints himself as victim
I guess the truth is not setting Phil Jones free.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
Anand Rajan KD (04:30:42) :,
I love the picture. It should be on the cover of AR4.
El problema NO ES PACHAURI
El problema NO ES el IPCC
El problema son los que impulsaron la creación del IPCC, pusieron a Pachauri como su presidente, y pagaron mucho dinero a los investigadores que justificaran todo eso.
El problema es POLITICO. ¿Nos atreveremos a mirar tan arriba?
Richard M (19:36:44) :
I forgot to add another reason big oil supports the cap and trade.
4) When the algae industry gets going it will become carbon neutral if not negative. They can use these offsets to eliminate paying much if not all of the carbon fees for the crude side of the industry. That would give them a big edge over coal and natural gas. It would also mean they would have a big advantage of other “green” technologies.
I often wonder if the Bush administration’s support of Patchy wasn’t pushed by some of his oil buddies. Hmmmm … another conspiracy in the making?
One hand washes the other…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177323/Climate-change-research-bungle.html
@roger Knights (20:02:01) :
‘KimW (15:02:29) :
Words like ‘Sloppy’ and “fraudulent’ might be replaced by the simple phrase “Climate Science’.
Or crimatology.’
Bravo! What a brilliant neologism.
It’s always Marcia, Marcia (07:43:46) :
ditmar (05:02:47) :
I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones contemplated suicide……has lost weight…..can’t sleep…..paints himself as victim
I guess the truth is not setting Phil Jones free.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
Read the comments, they say it all, I would suggest MP`s take note.
Vieras
I am not sure what the context of your post was about Algeria etc food productivity, so I may be out of line here. Sorry if so.
Food productivity may or may not be “climate” related. Right now, I am working on an export-development project and just last week rec’d a report on Algeria. Here is a direct quote from that report.
In 2008, Algerian Ministry of Agriculture implemented the agricultural and rural revitalization policy. This strategy is aimed at ensuring food self-sufficiency by promoting domestic production and building local capacities in the following fields: cereals, dairy, pulses, potatoes, oilseeds, irrigation and human resources capacity building. Moreover, the government has allocated US$ 18 billion to boost the agriculture sector and provided financing to more than 3,970 local development projects.
Okay this is said to have started in 2008 (the end date of your quoted figures), but governments are quite often merely updating “five-year” plans for political PR. Point is, political support (or lack or wars and conflicts) is often a major contributor to food production.
Low food productivity in many countries is not so much a function of climate and weather (obviously a HUGE factor) but usually more a function of:
1) Technical and infrastructure support, training and availability of inputs and
2) Wars, politics, corruption, greed. No surprise there. Often climate gets blamed for hunger when politics, greed and corruption are usually overriding factors.
How does politics affect food production? Here is a current example:
Crackdown on terrorists hits Algeria’s potato crop
Algeria, April 20, 2009
http://www.potatopro.com/Lists/News/DispForm.aspx?ID=2546
Again I want to reiterate that my comments my be out of context.
Best wishes,
Clive
Now that the IGCC report and the global warming science is being successfully challenged in so many quarters, I wonder whether it is time for the Prime Minister to discontinue those ludicrous T.V. and press global warming ads that we have all been bombarded with recently, all at great cost to the tax payer. And when are we going to hear from him that he has withdrawn his proposals to introduce draconian ‘green’ taxes, – at least until the science is settled one way or the other?