Comments on: IPCC “Consensus”—Warning: Use at Your Own Risk

By: Carlin Economics and Science » How EPA Seeks to Unilaterally Impose GHG Emission Regulations Using UN “Science” Whether Anyone Likes It or Not

Sat, 29 May 2010 14:26:19 +0000

[...] where the reports EPA relied on do not meet EPA’s requirements for such reports, and Chip Knappenberger’s summary of some of the instances where the IPCC did not follow its own procedures, to mention just a [...]

By: McHarris

McHarris — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:00:33 +0000

Excellent article and some ‘quotable quotes’! I have taken the liberty of using one today:

http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/attack-best-form-of-defense.html

By: Potpourri

Potpourri — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:59:15 +0000

[...] Chip Knappenberger has an uncharacteristically harsh critique of the IPCC. What I mean is, Chip is usually very moderate in his claims, but he lets loose in this [...]

By: Cooler Heads Digest 29 January 2010 | GlobalWarming.org

Cooler Heads Digest 29 January 2010 | GlobalWarming.org — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:58:14 +0000

[...] The Scientific “Consensus” Chip Knappenberger, MasterResource.org, 29 January 2010 [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:32:28 +0000

So, when is the EPA going to be sued for relying on a flawed report by the IPCC?

By: Richard W. Fulmer

Richard W. Fulmer — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:55:50 +0000

Charles,
I don’t believe that there is a way to fix tax-payer funded science. Such research is inherently politicized because politicians ultimately decide what research is and is not funded. Scientists bankrolled by politician-directed tax dollars have every incentive to reach conclusions that do not anger the people who control their paychecks.

By: Chip Knappenberger

Chip Knappenberger — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:11:00 +0000

Thanks for all the comments!

Perhaps I should have a follow-up post describing a few more of the IPCC problems…like Marlo’s Amazonia rain forests, or Major Mike’s Holocene Thermal Optimum.

-Chip

By: Marlo Lewis

Marlo Lewis — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:40:27 +0000

Chip, your conclusion made me laugh out loud!

Another IPCC foible has come to light. In Chapter 13 (p. 596) of the Working Group II report, the IPCC says that, “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” due to global warming. IPCC’s source for this claim is a non-peer-reviewed report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) titled Global Review of Forest Fires (http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000-047.pdf).

The IUCN/WWF report does cite a peer-reviewed study to support the 40% estimate: Nepsted et al. 1999. Large – scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, Vol. 398, p. 505. It is available here: http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs23/lecture12/Fire_nature.pdf.

However, the 40% estimate does not appear in the Nepsted paper. The IUCN/WWF paper accurately repeats Neptsted et al.’s finding that 630,000 km2 of Amazonian rain forest experienced severe drying in 1998. However, since the rain forest covers about 8.2 million km2 (http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/), it would appear that 8% of the rain forest was at risk, not 40%.

Note also that the terms “global warming” and “global climate change” do not appear in the Nepsted study.

Apparently, the IPCC recycled two claims by IUCN/WWF report that the peer-reviewed study cited did not make: namely, 40% of the rain forest is at risk, and climate change is to blame.

By: Advertência sobre o “consenso” do IPCC: use por sua conta e risco « A Grande Farsa do Aquecimento Global

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:03:28 +0000

[...] “As conclusões dos relatórios do IPCC foram desenvolvidas com antecedência e promovidas por uma seleção cuidadosa de qualquer material encontrado para apoiá-las. Em alguns casos, foi desenvolvido material de apoio ou mesmo fabricado, onde nenhum outro foi localizado. Como tal, estes resultados podem não necessariamente refletir o verdadeiro estado da compreensão científica. Use por sua conta e risco”. O post acima é uma tradução livre do post de Chip Knappenberger no blog MasterResource. Para ver o original, clique aqui [...]

By: Charles

Charles — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:21:58 +0000

Well put summary Chip which also exposes the true issue or outcome of this scam, which is the death of the scientific process by public scientists.

I feel that as more of the pre-ordained nature of these experiments and reports are divulged, we will see correlation with other fields of science, where a similar corruption of the scientific process has been going on for quite a long period, albeit in a much less sensational form.

The challenge will be how do we get science (particularly tax-payer funded science) back on track again? There needs to be top to bottom reform of how scientific investigations are conducted, and how they are funded and directed, as it is appparent the current process has been a dismal failure.