5th September 2010
Political science, the “science” behind IPCC
IPCC has "assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no policies on conflict of interest". (See this report).
This is not news to me. It confirms the low esteem in which I hold IPCC. I believe it is engaged in political science, or voodoo science (as Rajendra Pachauri labelled those who questioned him), not science as we know it. This is science from a political perspective, science with a vested interest, science with a view to one's personal bank balance. It is dangerous for its potential to harm the world's economies and in particular, the poor.
IPCC falsehoods and exaggerations have been, unfortunately, accepted at face value by many economists like Stern who ought to have known better. But unfortunately, 95% of economists are not trained as critical thinkers. They follow anyone in authority. They serve their leaders, they do not think independently. (Of course there are a few economists like Steven Landsburg and Steven Levitt who do know how to think!). That means you need to be a critical thinker to investigate all authorities. NEVER accept authority figure claims at face value. Investigate. Question. If you accept anyone's statements without question you are finished.
I'd be very concerned if I could clearly see that increased CO2 is likely to be dangerous for mankind. I'd be the first to jump out of my seat and claim that we ought to do something about. But I'm very relaxed about it. My views on climate change are clear, being informed by science, not voodoo science:
a) The greenhouse gas effect is real. But it is very small (being logarithmic), and it can't ever become life-threatening.
b) Increased CO2 is good for the world. It will increase crop (and animal) yields and increase the human population (The IPCC severely plays down the positive impacts of CO2)
c) The harm caused by increased CO2 is small or non-existent.
BENEFITS EXCEED COSTS. Q.E.D.
What's wrong with IPCC's 'science'?
There's so much material out there that shows what is wrong with IPCC science that I can't possibly do it justice. In brief:
- IPCC relies heavily on non-peer reviewed material. “Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was to claim that everything in its report was “peer-reviewed”, having been confirmed by independent experts. But a new study put this claim to the test. A team of 40 researchers from 12 countries, led by a Canadian analyst Donna Laframboise, checked out every one of the 18,531 scientific sources cited in the mammoth 2007 report. Astonishingly, they found that nearly a third of them – 5,587 – were not peer-reviewed at all, but came from newspaper articles, student theses, even propaganda leaflets and press releases put out by green activists and lobby groups.”
- It is prone to massively exaggerating the current changes in climate, as something exceptional. It is not. They are pretty much consistent with what has happened in the past. The medieval and Roman warming events are conclusively proven. By real scientists. Not voodoo scientists. The first IPCC report (1990) had a clear mention of medieval warming: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176321
- The IPCC is prone to grossly exaggerate sea level projections (see http://bit.ly/cqkUNy). Don't forget that sea levels have been going up and going down for millions of years and will continue doing so. IPCC has spread the myth has been spread that malaria would increase with increases in global warming. This is highly exaggerated (see http://bit.ly/aoddQ8). IPCC has spread the myth that corals would be dramatically impacted by acidification. This is false. Corals love heat. They are flourishing. And the oceans are not going to become acidic.
- Amazongate: http://www.climatechangefraud.com/behind-the-science/7266-amazongate-the-smoking-gun
- This article shows how many of IPCC's panicky predictions have been proved wrong (June 2011)
Some articles to read if you are interested
(I'll keep adding to this list as time permits. There is TONS of material out there to educate yourself should you want to think on your own)
The United Nations' IPCC reports have been regularly discredited over various exaggerations and unproven claims, most recently that Himalayan glaciers were melting, a claim that even the UN had to admit was false. (From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20101015/OPINION03/10150338/1008/Bogus-global-warming-data-hurts-real-scientific-efforts#ixzz12U4v23mI)
CSIRO predictions that don't come true: http://climatechangedispatch.com/politics-propaganda/7286-climate-spruiker-finds-debate-has-wind-taken-out-of-its-sails