Sunday, February 14, 2010

IPCC wrong again on two counts- Dutch Sea Levels & African Crops

Climate experts have been forced to admit more embarrassing errors, how many is that now?

The UN group said its 2007 report wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands lies below sea level. In fact, only 26% of the country does.

The figure used by the IPCC included all areas in the country that are prone to flooding, including land along rivers above sea level. This accounts for 29% of the Dutch countryside.
This Sea level blunder enrages Dutch minister

A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

In fact, just 20 percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.

Maybe the Dutch need the IPCC to tell them, as residents, how big their country is?

From the same article-

"Dutch researchers reporting to Minister Cramer on Wednesday said that global warming appears to be slower than had been assumed. In a brochure published by the Dutch Platform for Communication on Climate Change (PCCC) the academics say that sunspot activity was relatively low over the past decade and will continue to be low for the foreseeable future.
The lower the solar activity, the smaller the warming effect. According to the PCCC, the average temperature may even decrease by between 0.2 and 0.4 degrees.

The sun, through sunspot activity affects earths temperatures. Say it isn't so?

And still another claim bites the dust- African crops yield another catastrophe for the IPCC
One of the most widely quoted and most alarmist passages in the main 2007 report was a warning that, by 2020, global warming could reduce crop yields in some countries in Africa by 50 per cent

The origin of this claim was a report written for a Canadian advocacy group by Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan academic who draws part of his current income from advising on how to make applications for "carbon credits"

As his primary sources he cited reports for three North African governments. But none of these remotely supported what he wrote.

The nearest any got to providing evidence for his claim was one for the Moroccan government, which said that in serious drought years, cereal yields might be reduced by 50 per cent. The report for the Algerian government, on the other hand, predicted that, on current projections, "agricultural production will more than double by 2020".

The Algerian government reported agriculture would double and the IPCC says crops would fall by 50 percent?

What made this even odder, however, was that the group's
co-chairman was a British agricultural expert, Dr Martin Parry, whose consultancy group, Martin Parry Associates, had been paid £75,000 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for two reports which had come to totally different conclusions. Specifically designed to inform the IPCC's 2007 report, these predicted that by 2020 any changes were likely to be insignificant.

British taxpayers poured out money for the section of the IPCC report for which Dr Parry was responsible. Defra paid £2.5 million through the Met Office, plus £330,000 for Dr Parry's salary as co-chairman, and a further £75,000 to his consultancy for two more reports on the impact of global warming on world food supplies. Yet when it came to the impact on Africa, all this peer-reviewed work – including further expert reports by Britain's Dr Mike Hulme and Dutch and German teams – was ignored in favour of a prediction from one Moroccan activist at odds with his own cited sources.


  1. It's most entertaining watching a paradigm fall.

    I feel well vindicated.

    Though of course it's not over. The ptb will continue the 'sell'. And stupid people will parrot the exaggerists! (is that even a word?!)

    Meanwhile, REAL pollution is left unchecked and runs rampant.

    :( Grrrrr

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Had you seen the piece at Huffington post?

    The assault on science, what a spin job!!

    I think it was slozo that took Ms Huffington's opinionated authors and pieces to task previously...
    slozo if I am mistaken about that, apologies?

    "The assault on science, which seemed to have been rebuffed by the Obama victory in the 2008 election, is back in full force."

    quite the narrative, under GWB science had no place in the world, but under Obama science reigns supreme, what spin!

    What is clear is policy trumps science. Wether under GWB or Obama?
    Under GWB we saw science go the wayside in the collapse of the towers. when science failed there were always computer programs with government funded lackeys creating the required code..

    Oh wait, that sounds like the climate science

    Quoted in the article is someone who makes the claim that there are no serious flaws in the IPCC report or ethical lapses on the part of IPCC's chair, Rajendra Pachauri.

    Well from all I have read, there are very serious flaws in the IPCC report and huge ethical lapses on the part of the chair, but, hell if some talkin' head says, that is just not the case, well that dam all the errors to hell!

    Then there is the usual blame exxon.
    Never mind that this defies logic, when the oil companies stand to make out like bandits from increased pricing and carbon capture...
    But wave the boogey man around.

    What kind of a sick joke is this?

  4. Penny, there are few real scientists out there who will not admit that climate change is real.

    The problem lies in understanding the myriad of driving forces (variables). This is where the problems have started, with vested interests and so forth.

    As I said - I feel vindicated.

    I've played with similar models, it's amazing how you can fiddle with 'real' data and get the output that you want - not necessarily what is true in the natural world. Heck we killed worlds over and ovar again just by data manipulation of various variables. Come to think of it, that was a fun lab.

  5. Yeah, do you recall me in my old, well I am not sure about the man made global warming thing, remember that?


    what a silly goose!

    even the dutch admit the sun is a factor.... which should be obvious

  6. People are confusing worshipping scientists and public authorities with actual science.

    This Huffington Post article is a perfect example. They represent the anti-knowledge movement.

    These guys that write crap like that will soon need to find a new career. They will have no credibilty with readers. Even the most base moron knows that AGW is a fraud now.

  7. Yeah, I'll take the credit for giving a hip check to the great disinfo machine that is the Huffington . . . and what garbage they write!

    It's amazing the amount of rationalisation a sharp brain can suffer when discussing matters they have clearly made up their mind on. I myself have had ongoing battles with a relative of mine, a very bright fellow indeed, who believes in no conspiracies and touts science as his expertise (well, I guess he can't be that bright then, eh?). Yet he forwards the kind of articles that I can only shake my head at in disbelief, thinking about how low and base the literary writing is! Seriously riddled throughout with baseless accusations, straw man attacks, slippery slope arguments, and fear-mongering non-sequitars. And I have found that this is quite common . . . among the most supposedly 'scientific' of publications/articles, and even worse in places like the Huffington.

    People have no clue how to analyse logical versus illogical arguments any more.

    Doug is right, it's an anti-knowledge movement, and one that projects, as they always accuse those that question bad arguments as being 'unscientific'.

    We live in a world of doublespeak.