The Dog Ate my Data

Now let’s see where were we? Oh yes, the science is settled and we rely on the 2007 IPCC AR4 “peer reviewed” by “thousands” of scientists report.

Well not peer reviewed in the traditional hard core sense of E = MC^2 but peer reviewed in the IPCC touchy feely sense of “we quote from non-reviewed activist advertisements from the WWF”.

A few highlights of The Story so Far:

Prof Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann – under investigation by Penn State University.

Climategate – the “leak” is strongly suspected of coming from within the CRU and is not a hack.

Prof Phil “Hide the Decline” Jones – under investigation and stood down as head of the CRU.

Chairman of IPCC Raj Pachauri – denies Glaciergate after scientists debunk widely circulated lie in UN report that glaciers would melt by 2035 calling it “Voodoo science” and following further pressure later relents admitting “mistake” but everything else is “robust”.

Pachauri blames lead IPCC author for Claciergate “mistake”, lead author blames reviewing scientists, reviewing scientists blame 500 external reviewers. Scientist advises he had advised the panel in writing of the error prior to publication. IPCC scientist says he never got the letter. Conclusion, the Easter Bunny is to blame.

Pachauri states he will not step down as financial gains are linked to carbon fiasco through his TERI group.

IPCC report – hundreds of non-peer reviewed WWF “sources” are disclosed by skeptics as fraudulently cited prime sources.

The Times – UN wrongly links global warming to natural disasters.

For today's instalment we have:


SOURCE: EUREFERENDUM

. It is a classic.

And Now For Amazongate

The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication

Thus, following on from "Glaciergate", where the IPCC grossly exaggerated the effects of global warming on Himalayan glaciers – backed by a reference to a WWF report - we now have "Amazongate", where the IPCC has grossly exaggerated the effects of global warming on the Amazon rain forest.

The author Richard North follows the IPCC citations to the original source and what does he find? The “peer reviewed scientific literature” was authored by a journalist and a policy hack. No more comment is necessary.

Just keep repeating this, “but the science is robust”. Ummm... yeah whatever.

I suspect that there are many “scientists” currently scratching out references in their CV’s to being an IPCC “reviewer”. Good job boys and girls. It’s back to Science 101 for the lot of you.

Check out the cartoon on Richard North’s EUREFERENDUM page linked here

UPDATE: NB: See WUWT