The Climate Research Unit

Words on Weather & Climate—February 11, 2010

February 15, 2010 // 0 Comments

More IPCC goofs by Craig James First, a quick update on the Climategate article I wrote a couple of weeks ago. The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England had many emails and documents either leaked or hacked that appeared to suggest ways of hiding data and avoiding freedom of information requests. The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office just recently released a statement that said the University did break the law but no prosecution would occur because the requests were made beyond the six month statute of limitations. However, the University has said it will now release the raw climate data requested, but oops… much of it has been destroyed. What? Isn’t that like saying we know we broke the law but you’ll just have to trust us that our conclusions are valid even though you can’t check them? Last week I wrote about some of the charges recently made about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding conflict of interests with its chairman and the ignoring of peer reviewed data skeptical of human induced warming. I hadn’t planned on writing further about this but so many additional items have come to light that I just had to do a follow-up article. This story is beginning to sound like a soap opera. The IPCC is a political organization charged with compiling peer-reviewed scientific research so that world governments can make policy regarding global warming. Not only has it come to light that much peer-reviewed information has been selectively ignored but many of the IPCC’s conclusions were drawn not from peer reviewed scientific research at all but from opinion papers from activist organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Here are a few examples: 1. A WWF report is cited twice as the only supporting proof of IPCC statements about coastal developments in Latin America. 2. When discussing mudflows and avalanches linked to melting glaciers, the IPCC relies on two sources, an unpublished paper and a WWF document. 3. When the IPCC advises world leaders that “climate change is very likely to produce significant impacts on selected marine fish and shellfish” it doesn’t call attention to the fact that the sole authority on which this statement rests is a […]