IPCC's final gasp: Africagate

By now the credibility of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 is thoroughly and utterly shot. Peil.nl (NL) shows results from a poll about climate awareness, contrasting the results to a similar poll held a little over two months ago (December 10, 2009). In that short period the number of positive responses to the question 'Are you worried about how the climate on Earth develops' dropped rather spectacularly from 63% in December 2009 to 48% this February. Strikingly, the number of negative responses increased by a similar amount (from 34% to 48%) with the 'Don't know' category only gaining a single percent (a pdf with results can be downloaded here). This would seem to indicate that the controversy around Climategate and the IPCC has radically changed the views of many a Dutch.

Thus it isn't surprising that today saw another scandal around the IPCC AR4 erupting. Richard North of EURef once again proves to be a formidable nemesis of the IPCC. Tracking back the chain of references that leads to the IPCC's conclusion (trotted out whenever a UN big-wig deems it opportune) that global warming leads to a situation where in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020. And in so doing he discovers 'Africagate'.

By now the fact that 'mistakes were made' in drawing up the IPCC AR4 report is not news any more. But reading the post on EURef is a useful exercise, in that it gives a good insight into the rotten, one-sided, unscientific way the much-vaunted 'peer-review' process actually worked out. As it turns out, the source of the claim in question is one (1) review by am obscure academic, basing its conclusion on just one out of three policy papers relating to North Africa. And even then it was highly selective (to the point of outright fraud) in relaying the main conclusion.

A couple of days ago we published a post calling the IPCC AR4 report 'a very thick pamphlet, written by activists and advocacy groups'. This latest post by Mr. North proves the truth of that statement definitively.

(picture courtesy of Joanne Nova)

2 reacties:

DP111 zei


The people may have changed their views on AGW/ACC but the governments, the EU and the UN intend to tough it out. They intend to continue with theor support of the IPCC and its claims. they may throw pPachaudi to the wolves but nothing will change. there is too much political and financial capital riding on this.

In effect they are saying to the public,"We dont give a damn what you think, just pay the taxes we set for AGW, and the hiked energy bills, and do as you are told". Frankly, they dont have any other choice as they nailed their flag to the mast long ago.

They wont listen until they are confronted by loss of power. The entire EU + governments who supported this fraud, need to be taken down.

I think that is the real intent of Dr North

DP111 zei


People revolt if they are short of food and drinks. If the rulers make sure that there is plenty of bread and circuses, and make sure that those who cannot pay their energy bills are supported from the public purse, then how does the revolt occur? What incentive is there? In fact there is non, quite the contrary as the people are now dependent on the state.

America is out of it, as the Senate will not pass 'cap and trade'. China and India are not interested. That leaves only the post Lisbon EU still pushing the AGW/ACC agenda, taxes and levies, many of them already in position.

I'm sure Dr North is giving the matter considerable thought.
Any ideas what they may be?


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...