Thursday, April 22, 2010

FAIL: Oh that impeccable IPCC!!!

Add another notch in the 2007 IPCC report on global warming...

HotAir reports that yet another of the claims issued by the IPCC has been essentially refuted. This time, it pertains to a claim that Bangladesh would face a refugee crisis and loss of coastline due to a three-foot sea level rise by 2050.

You see, the scientists forgot to note the impending counteraction of sedimentary deposits flowing from the Himalayas.



HotAir has a nice summation of the claims refuted in the IPCC report, consisting of the following:

* University of East Anglia e-mails that exposed data destruction, attempts to hide contradictory data, and conspiracies to sabotage the work of skeptical scientists
* The East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data, undermining any effort to check their work
* NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases
* East Anglia CRU’s below-standard computer modeling
* No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol
* IPCC withdraws claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035
* IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri knew Himalayan claim was bogus for months before exposure
* Amazonian rainforest conclusions not based on scientific research but on advocacy group claims
* Mountain glacier claims based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from climber magazine
* Search of IPCC report footnotes exposes ten more student dissertations presented as peer-reviewed research
* Medieval Warming Period temperatures may have been global, undermining entire AGW case
* Measurements used for AGW case were influenced by urbanization, poor location, bad data sets
* African-crop claims exposed as false
* IPCC researchers excluded Southern Hemisphere data to exaggerate effects of warming on hurricanes
* Hurricane claims further exposed as false by actual peer-reviewed research — including by some AGW researchers
* Major scientific group concludes IPCC-linked researchers “complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices“
* NASA data less reliable than faulty UEA CRU data

No comments: