And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree.I had little faith from the very beginning when the summary of one of the first reports included a chart showing the rise in temperatures from about 1860 onward, thereby linking it with increasing industrialization. They had purposely cut out the data from the hundred or so years prior to that, when temperatures rose at about the same rate, but with very little accompanying industrialization. I'm not an expert on the science behind global warming, and it's possible that the alarmists have a point. But the shrillness and outright fraud that accompanies much of the "science" means that I just don't trust anything that they say.
Monday, July 16, 2012
So this is settled science?
IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk. It turns out that the much-vaunted IPCC reports were not so peer-reviewed after all. In fact, much of their methodology would not pass a smell test, never mind a statistical significance test.