• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Rapidly Melting Credibility

    The Washington Post asks: “Recently, a U.N. scientific report was found to have included a false conclusion about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. That followed the release of stolen e-mails last year, which showed climate scientists commiserating over problems with their data. Is there a broader meaning in these two incidents, and should they cause the public to be more skeptical about the underlying science of climate change?”

    You can’t call them isolated incidents now that they are coming in droves.

    It is clear that global warming science has been hijacked by a subset of researchers who have crossed the line into advocacy and alarmism. The cache of climategate e-mails alone reveals a number of scandals – key researchers and institutions manipulating temperature data to gin up a bigger warming trend, refusing to allow independent researchers to see the raw data, and strategizing to keep skeptical views out of the scientific literature and official reports. Climategate is just beginning to unfold.

    Now, the UN’s vaunted 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report turns out to contain a whopper. The report describes as “very high” the likelihood that continued global warming will cause the glaciers in Himalayan Mountains to disappear by 2035 if not sooner. Amazingly, it turns out that the source of this claim is an unsupported statement of one researcher that appeared in a magazine article. Worse yet, the IPCC report’s editors knew full well that the assertion was based on speculation rather than peer reviewed science, and in fact it was disputed by several scientists when it appeared in early drafts. Nonetheless, it was left in for political reasons.

    Similar shenanigans appear to have gone on with the IPCC’s claim that damage from hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters has worsened because of global warming. Like the Himalayan glacier melt assertion, it was based on the claim of a single researcher who had not published it in the scientific literature, and who now disassociates himself from the way it was used in the IPCC report. Indeed, when he did publish the study, he concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” of a link between warming and natural disaster damage.

    There is a clear pattern with these revelations. It’s the very scariest claims — rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers threatening a billion people with flooding and then with drought, an increase in Katrina-scale disasters, and others – that are the ones on the shakiest ground. Virtually everything the public has been told about global warming that sounds terrifying is not true, and what is true falls well short of being terrifying.

    There is a reason why the gloom and doom, however dubious and unscientific, keeps getting advanced by those who support an expansive global warming agenda. Without such hype, the threat of global warming does not justify the multi-trillion dollar costs and multi-million job losses of attempts to deal with it.

    There is another lesson from Glaciergate — it is high time to retire the distinction between the “skeptics” and the “consensus science.” All along, several so-called skeptics have complained about the Himalayan hyperbole. As is typical, they were denigrated as outliers or even kooks for doing so. As recently as a few weeks ago, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, derided such critiques as “voodoo science,” until he reluctantly had to admit they were true.

    By now, the skeptics have proven to be right about way too much, and the putative “consensus science” wrong about way too much, for the labels to make any sense. In fact, if there are additional revelations like Glaciergate (and it looks like claims of global warming devastating the Amazon rainforest may be next), it might make more sense for the labels to be reversed.

    Cross-posted at The Washington Post’s Planet Panel.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to Rapidly Melting Credibility

    1. Optimus Maximus USA says:

      As many of us suspected, AGW was nothing but a watermelon….green on the outside and red on the inside….

      Rather a dramatic coincidence that the AGW scam is revealed just as the USA president tries to ram his socialist agenda down the throat of the American people, with the largest congressional liberal majorities in decades, just in time to gear up for a really good battle in the 2010 midterm elections and perhaps causing the American voter to question other elitist ideas on managing energy, health care, the economy, and various other nanny state regulatory schemes where “the science is settled” …

      God does indeed work in mysterious ways…

      Let us hope that there is indeed truth in the quip widely attributed to Bismarck that “God looks out after fools, drunkards, and the United States of America”

    2. David, York, Pa says:

      Mr. Liberman. Thank you for writing your article reporting on the deliberate attempts by some in the scientific community and the UN's IPCC to perpetuate a hoax on the world regarding global warming. In my view, the fabricators of this myth, including our own Al Gore, deserve to be charged with fraud and appropriately prosecuted for their attempt to steal public funds and shareholder resources to support their objectives, whatever they might be. We must now insist our elected officials stop wasting their time and our money on such nonsense when we have so many important issues facing our country.

      I applaud the Heritage Foundation and the few other organizations who have reported on this hoax. It's difficult to understand how a topic of such importance which has turned out to be nothing but a hoax hasn't been covered by the main stream media. Whatever happened to the journalists who sought to uncover and report the truth to keep their readers/listeners informed? Have they all become part of the public relations apparatus for the far left agenda? Frankly, I am not at all disturbed these organizations find their continued existence threatened by the internet and cable news sources. At least with those other media outlets, we seem to get more of the facts and less mind manipulation.

    3. John B. San Diego says:

      Ben Lieberman, thank you and Heritage Foundation for timely information. I and many soak it up like a sponge! I will paste an excerpt from the S.O.U. speech last week, if I might be allowed? POTUS appears to throw a bone to Republican members of Congress in the form of a promise of nuclear plants proposed and off-shore drilling permits he proposes.

      Don't believe it; IT JUST AIN'T SO! Projects will be held up in endless court battles at great cost to investors and the American People.

      I doubt savvy investors will even bite!

      BHO goes on to say that regardless of many doubters climate change is real and we should invest.

      What he is not saying is we get "Cap&Tax" with nothing else to go along; contradicting himself he makes it a “Money Issue” it was that all along the, recent dissenting scientific evidence says climate scare is rebuffed.

      He says overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change is doubted. But he obviously says he believes regardless of recent evidence ,another contradition.

      “The Left” wants to make conventional energy unaffordable to justify high green energy costs. We should seek new energy technology just not the left’s method.

      The President of the United States admits he believes in fraudulent scientific evidence. The true agenda of Obama is hidden, "One World Government"

      Here is the excerpt from the Wednesday Speech; Pres. Obama——

      "But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, and more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced befouls and cleans coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

      I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change."

      The President goes on later in the S.O.U. to talk about math and science for students; this slides directly into the slot I put forward;

      January 22, 2010.Heritage Blog;” More Global Warming Gaffes”

    4. John B. San Diego says:

      State Department Deputy Jacob Lew in budget proposals just added I.4 Billion in Climate Change Initiatives for multiple countries.

      This is "Climate Change Funding Enforcement by Executive Order"

      These Leftists will stop at nothing to bring our country down.

      They will not even reside here in the U.S. when this is done they will be hidden in some other country protected by International Powers.

      Sounds crazy; Hide and Watch!

    5. Andi Prama, Indonesi says:

      Please watch my video image

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7I_eFoIk64

      It's about climate change, earth catastrophe and our planet as we lives in.

      Thank you.

    6. Pingback: Global Warming and National Defense | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    7. Pingback: Climate Change Scientific Consensus Cloudy as Ever | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    8. Pingback: Climate Change Scientific Consensus Cloudy as Ever | Conservative Principles Now

    9. Jude Richardson says:

      Andi: What is your point? That cuddly polar bears swim, or warming causes earthquakes and hurricanes? Or. Are you just being facetious to make a backdoor contribution to this discussion?

    10. Con Michael; Austral says:

      The rigors of scientific discipline demand,inter alia,that a theory imply the kind of evidence that would prove it wrong.Predictions based on the theory are checked against the facts.If something occurs which hsould not have,and vice versa,the theory is discarded.The principal AGW alarmists themselves lament that they cannot explain the lack of warming.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.Einstein said that it does not need 100 scientists to prove him wrong.One fact alone would suffice.The comprehensive rejection of theEmissions Trading Scheme in the Australian Parliament clearly demonstrates that the public has had enough of the lying,cheating,filibuster.spin and obfuscation.

    11. facepalm says:

      a lttle update:
      http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/04/penn-state-… Mann vindicated
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/201… Jones vindicated (… no case to answer…)
      http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstat… Jones vindicated II

      And for the different ~gates, e.g. Amazongate:
      http://www.climatechangefraud.com/images/stories/
      The Story about the “bogus rainforest claim” is mainly … a bogus claim.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×