The IPCC Goes Over the Cliff

Well, someone in the media is finally doing their jobs. Too bad it's someone in the UK and Australia and not in the US. The Sydney Morning Herald excerpts an article from the Telegraph where the authors have taken a little deeper look into the IPCC report on global warming, the document that is supposed to be the definitive paper on climate change. Ironically, it is the definitive paper on the topic, but not for the reasons the warmists had hoped. Dig these tidbits.

But the Telegraph, of London, 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;


• examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished; and


• more claims that were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.

They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the panel's latest report, published in 2007.

The panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction last month after it emerged that statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate. Little more than a week ago it was revealed the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

I've written some peer-reviewed science stuff and this is just completely inexcusable. My worst work never had any of this kind of rubbish in it. You can't be scientist and use unpublished dissertations and unsubstantiated rumors as sources. It doesn't matter how many degrees from which universities you have or how many "peer-reviewed" papers you have published or what kind of awards you've received. This is just total garbage. It is not science.

Meanwhile, the American media ignores it all.

Here's a typical MSM report on global warming. Every third yap is either the phrase, "peer-reviewed" or the word "consensus".