« | »

Still More ‘Errors’ In IPCC’s 2007 Report

From the UK’s Telegraph:

New errors in IPCC climate change report

The United Nations panel on climate change is facing fresh criticism today as The Sunday Telegraph reveals new factual errors and poor sources of evidence in its influential report to government leaders.

By Richard Gray and Ben Leach
06 Feb 2010

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.

But this paper [the Telegraph] has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

    * The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.

    * Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.

    * New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.

    * More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.

They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007…

[O]n Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency

The IPCC attempted to counter growing criticism by releasing a statement insisting that authors who contribute to its 3,000-page report are required to “critically assess and review the quality and validity of each source” when they use material from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources. Drafts of the reports are checked by scientific reviewers before they are subjected to line-by-line approval by the 130 member countries of the IPCC.

Despite these checks, a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power has been found to contain numerous errors.

The source of information for the diagram was cited as the website of UK-based wave-energy company Wavegen. Yet the diagram on Wavegen’s website contains dramatically different figures for energy potential off Britain and Alaska and in the Bering Sea.

When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Wavegen insisted that the diagram on its website had not been changed. It added that it was not the original source of the data and had simply reproduced it on its website.

The diagram is widely cited in other literature as having come from a paper on wave energy produced by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering in 1991 along with data from the European Directory of Renewable Energy.

Experts claim that, had the IPCC checked the citation properly, it would have spotted the discrepancies.

It can also be revealed that claims made by the IPCC about the effects of global warming, and suggestions about ways it could be avoided, were partly based on information from ten dissertations by Masters students.

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.

The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures

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

Another row over the IPCC report emerged last night after Professor Roger Pielke Jnr, from Colorado University’s Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research, claimed its authors deliberately ignored a paper he wrote that contradicted the panel’s claims about the cost of climate-related natural disasters.

A document included a statement from an anonymous IPCC author saying that they believed Dr Pielke had changed his mind on the matter, when he had not.

Why has it taken three years for all of these errors to be noticed?

And, once again, we can’t help but ask why is it that we have to turn to the British press to get these kind of reports? Aren’t there any investigative journalists left in the United States?

Meanwhile, we will once again note that British newspapers are not going out of business like so many are in the US.

Could there be any correlation?

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, February 7th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Still More ‘Errors’ In IPCC’s 2007 Report”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    It’s clear we can no longer expect real investigative reporting as long as the liberal agenda lives. They just refuse to hear/see/smell/taste it. Oddly, in the nation with the freest news reporting in the world and they CHOOSE to lie, ignore and taint their own reporting. Bloody shame, that.

  2. proreason says:

    The subversion of the media has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the people that put it in motion 60 to 70 years ago.

    It has to be the most successful stealth operations of all time.

    The current perpetrators (today’s media) would argue to the death that they are objective. Yet the magnitude of the brain washing is plain to see for even a casual observor.

    Perhaps we will be lucky, and Fox will continue its growth and actually put the MSM out of its mysery.

    It would be a great thing for the country.

  3. Chuckk says:

    It appears that the IPCC, like its president, prefers to write lurid fiction.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »