The latest “climategate” scandal is unfolding. New revelations about the International Panel on Climate Change cast fresh doubts on the Gospels according to the Church of Global Warming.
The IPCC was established by the United Nations to provide information to political leaders, shaping national and international policies for the next half century. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that this body would be staffed by the foremost climate scientists in the world and rigorously following scientific principles of thorough peer review of theories and careful examination of hard research data. The reality is worryingly different.
The IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri has been described frequently as the “world’s top climate scientist” but careful research into his background shows him to be a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics, lacking climate science qualifications. Given the number of scientists available to chair the IPCC with a solid background and qualifications in climate science, it seems extremely unusual to select someone without any appropriate qualifications for this important international role. It may however explain how the IPCC became embroiled in the latest climategate scandal.
A key plank in the claims of Global Warmers has been an assertion that glaciers are melting and will be gone within the next three decades. Certainly some glaciers are melting slowly, as they have for thousands of years, but some are growing, in the same way that Arctic sea ice shows increased summer melting above the American Continent but demonstrates a lack of melting above Russia, to the point where navigation of the Russian Northern Sea Route during hte short Arctic summer is becoming more difficult.
The claims relating to glaciers are based on a report from the IPCC. It had been believed that the IPCC had conducted extensive research and that there was a strong consensus amongst climate scientists to support the IPCC conclusions. Sadly, the reality is rather different.
It seems that the IPCC conclusions were based on an article in the New Scientist that resulted from a brief telephone conversation between a journalist and Delhi-based Syed Hasnain who has since claimed that his comments to the journalist were pure speculation. Had the IPCC bothered to consultant eminent climate scientists, such as Professor Julian Dowdeswell or Peter Taylor, a different conclusion would have been reached. Professor Dowdeswell has pointed out that glaciers 1000 ft thick, melting at a few feet a year, would take very much longer than three decades to vanish. Even at 15 ft per year, well above the fastest rates observed by scientists, it would take more than six decades. Further, there is evidence that melt rates are consistent with observed cycles where glaciers melt and then grow again.
The conclusion must therefore be that the IPCC report was as accurate as the intelligence report fabricated by Tony Blair’s spin doctors to justify the invasion of Iraq to capture Weapons of Mass Destruction.
As more scientists specializing in climate studies are stepping forward to identify flaws in the Global Warming theories, it is becoming obvious that the whole Global Warming concept is based on bad science and conjecture from people who have little or no knowledge of this area of science.
The question therefore is – Why are Global Warmers so comfortable fabricating “evidence” and making unsubstantiated claims?
The answer is as complex as the subject. Early on some scientists genuinely believed that there was a problem of increasing temperatures and that this might be related to human activity. Onto these concerns were layered genuine concerns about pollution and the use of raw materials that had taken millions of years to form. At that point marketing and big business became involved and suddenly there was a whole new industry based on the Global Warming Theory. This industry is now enormous and has been dragging in politicians to protect it and profit from it.
The case is now overwhelming for a completely new look at the subject of changing climates and the science employed. It is even possible that some claims been made will be substantiated at least in part, but they can only be valid if responsible science is employed, studies subjected to peer review and further research, and all research data published rather than just those elements that are favourable to a pre-conceived theory.