UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

[toomuchtime_]

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

<snip>


Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts &#8212; but were ignored.

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters - Times Online

 

[saveliberty]

The only thing remarkable about this latest gaff is, NO ONE HAS BEEN FIRED YET.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

What a bunch of idiots. They aren't very good world conspirators if they admit to their mistakes.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't mean that there is no link only that the scientific corellation wasn't strong enough to draw a conclusion.

Of course, our resident flat earthers will claim this as a victory

 

[saveliberty]

=SpidermanTuba;1936714]

. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

What a bunch of idiots. They aren't very good world conspirators if they admit to their mistakes.

Hey cobwebs for brains, the authors were laying out the theory global warming was responsible for natural disasters. Another UN related group which you so dearly like to tout as respected scientists capable of peer review. You reveal your true nature by stating you shouldn't admit mistakes.

 

[Political Junky]

Rupert Murdoch is gloating ... he bought the Times.

 

[Big Fitz]

the IPCC is backing away from fraudulant 'scientific' reports that got them into this mess, and are being savaged by the faithful. Gotta love it.

 

[asaratis]

...is a natural happening...as is global cooling...both of which will occur no matter what we do.

It's the taxing idiots and shysters that want to prove we're doing it to ourselves.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Doesn't mean that there is no link only that the scientific corellation wasn't strong enough to draw a conclusion.

Of course, our resident flat earthers will claim this as a victory

Listen to your self. Not enough evidence but HEY it COULD be true.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't mean that there is no link only that the scientific corellation wasn't strong enough to draw a conclusion.

Of course, our resident flat earthers will claim this as a victory

Listen to your self. Not enough evidence but HEY it COULD be true.

This particular study did not provide enough evidence. There is overwhelming evidence from other sources to support global warming.

The flat earthers just won't accept it. "Hey, it still snows in the winter......there can't be global warming"

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...d-misled-over-himalayan-glacier-meltdown.html

 

[Annie]

Oh yeah. They did it ON PURPOSE. Why? To pressure world leaders...

Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

By David Rose
Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010


The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report&#8217;s chapter on Asia, said: &#8216;It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

&#8216;It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.&#8217;...

Means and ends...that is NOT science.

 

[Annie]

Again, follow the money:

Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal - Telegraph

Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal
Dr Pachauri has rapidly distanced himself from the IPCC's baseless claim about vanishing glaciers. But the scientist who made the claim now works for Pachauri, writes Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:44PM GMT 23 Jan 2010
Comments 120 | Comment on this article

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Photo: STEFAN WERMUTH/REUTERS

I can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed "Glaciergate" – the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.

What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU....

 

[rightwinger]

Yes.....

Global Warming, Cigarettes and cancer, Evolution

All liberal myths...we need more proof

 

[Annie]

Yes.....

Global Warming, Cigarettes and cancer, Evolution

All liberal myths...we need more proof

Another deep post by the believer in 'hopey & changey.'

 

[Big Fitz]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...d-misled-over-himalayan-glacier-meltdown.html

You know, they left one word out of that headline that would make it alllll the more accurate:

"The World DELIBERATELY Mislead Over Himalayan Glacier Meltdown"

 

[code1211]

. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

What a bunch of idiots. They aren't very good world conspirators if they admit to their mistakes.

Did you miss the part that said that the IPCC did NOT issue a clarification before the Copenhagen conferance despite knowing that what they had published was a lie?

Concealing the truth is part and parcel of the work of the IPCC method.

 

[code1211]

Doesn't mean that there is no link only that the scientific corellation wasn't strong enough to draw a conclusion.

Of course, our resident flat earthers will claim this as a victory

And yet they did draw a conclusion and did NOT publish the fact that the conclusion was unfounded.

Concealing the truth.

 

[code1211]

Yes.....

Global Warming, Cigarettes and cancer, Evolution

All liberal myths...we need more proof

The progression of Global Warming is not the point at issue. The point is whether or not that warming is caused by the activities of Man.

You are welcome to prove that point. Nobody else has.

 

[Annie]

Yes.....

Global Warming, Cigarettes and cancer, Evolution

All liberal myths...we need more proof

The progression of Global Warming is not the point at issue. The point is whether or not that warming is caused by the activities of Man.

You are welcome to prove that point. Nobody else has.

The argument is certainly over whether or not it's 'man made.' Those 'pro-GW' are actually pro-man caused. Looks like much of the 'science' wasn't that at all. In fact, their talking points over the past decade was always back to 'peer reviewed', which thanks to the hacked emails, it's become that only pro-man made 'scientists' were allowed to publish in and now it's acknowledged that their findings were bogus, intentionally. Just to get money and promote what they 'knew' in their guts.

Shameful.