• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Climate Change Scientific Consensus Cloudy as Ever

    We’re a few days before a massive snowstorm whitewashes the District of Columbia, but the Climategate and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change storms are already here and as fierce as ever. Earlier this week, The Guardian shed a little more light on the flawed and hidden data from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit:

    The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN’s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

    Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair. It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.”

    The Environmental Protection agency heavily relied on the IPCC report to suggest there was a scientific consensus on global warming. The Himalayan glacier gaffe is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to flaws in the IPCC report. Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman expands,

    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.”

    Further, the IPCC’s assessment of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa came from two sources. One was from a magazine that discussed anecdotal evidence from mountain climbers and the other came from a student’s dissertation. The student was pursuing a master’s equivalent in geography and used interviews with mountain guides for his research.

    Some are suggesting the Climategate storm is subsiding with the recent exoneration of Penn State University professor Michael Mann, one of the notorious climate researchers at CSU involved in the email threads. But the university’s internal investigation is being called into question by the Commonwealth Foundation who feels an independent investigation would provide more credibility. Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has serious issues with Penn State’s initial report of the Mann investigation.  

    And Congressman Issa (R-CA) is leading a charge to freeze the $500,000 grant in stimulus money Mann received.  Don’t worry, that money was put to good use.  The grant has generated 1.62 jobs.  The more pertinent question is: were those jobs saved or created?

    We’re not sure what’s worse: The fact that some Members of Congress want to implement a cap and trade policy based on these reports that would result in $4.6 trillion in higher energy taxes, job losses exceeding 2.5 million and nearly $10 trillion lost in gross domestic product (GDP). Or, the reduction in carbon dioxide from a cap and trade bill (and the economic pain that comes with it) would not make a dent in the earth’s temperature. You can decide.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Climate Change Scientific Consensus Cloudy as Ever

    1. Robert, Canada says:

      Right wing thinktanks are not experts on climate, so stop citing them? If you want to talk about independance than take your information from groups not affiliated with oil companies or green industries. I think you have no right, or intellectual capacity to dictate to others the effects or existance of climate change. IF you would like some real information, you have my email. Otherwise dont post if you're incorrect. Why mention the Himilayan gaff? You do realise the IPCC was incredibly wrong in assuming that the antarctic ice losses wouldnt exist. Why not talk about that mistake? and how antarctica is now joining greenland as the leading contributors to sea level rise. What a shock that would be omitted. Not surprising that you would show one side of an argument.

    2. John B. San Diego says:

      Mr. Loris, I have decided.

      After reading many of the links provided in this and other articles. If the (Anthropogenic Global Warming) proponents want to discredit skeptics of their theory, here is what they should do and accomplish this with true scientific accuracy and flawless documentation.

      Fund and recognize on a totally level plane, the skeptics themselves.

      That says equal acquisition to grants, equal access to current data and documents, put the media on notice too, give equal time on both sides of the scientific debate, and encourage the researchers (Scientists) to quit throwing daggers at each other.

      They (Scientists) are now equal and should not be influenced by the anticipated funding from powers that be for their science endeavor, or the politics of recognition coming in to play with regard to the documented findings of research.

      They should be familiar with "PEER REVIEW" it is not new, it’s scientific…

      You understand there is a built in bias with regard to real credible climate research because the political and media entities are fixated on a goal.

      For God's sake Mr. Loris on our best day National Weather Service using the "GFS" ,the "ECMWF"&"NAM” Models ; current observations, aircraft soundings , current radar images, spotter reports on the ground, ships reports and the forecasters routinely will not lock in forecasts in a specific area any more than three days out.

      So, there are some variables rational minds should contemplate before we jump off the cliff on either side of this Grand Canyon of differing interests, political persuasion, or scientific evidence, and last but not least economic consequence; whether the is consequences are "Intended or Unintended!”

      I'll shut-up and go away now, but before I do, I must remind everyone on both sides the fate of one skeptic we all know well, he was placed under house arrest for being a skeptic…."GALILEO GALILEI" 1564-1642!

      The TRUTH is out THERE…FIND IT!

    3. TonyfromOz Coomera Q says:

      In all this debate about the melting of 'Sea Ice', has everyone forgotten 'Archimedes Principle'.

      All the 'Sea Ice' can melt for all its worth. It will not raise the levels of the oceans.

      Only melting ice that is already on a land mass can add to the level of Oceanic waters.

      If the Average temperature in the Antarctic never reaches 0C or 32F, then that ice cannot melt. The outer levels of the ice sheets are already in the water, as they are in the Arctic. As the ice melts, it cannot raise the level of the water it is already in.

      That's not 'Deep' Science'. It's High School Science, that somewhere along the road, we were all told.

    4. Bobbie Jay says:

      Robert, my goodness, don't you see? This country is entering into a government induced free fall! There is absolutely nothing mankind can or has done to change the earth's climate! The sky is not falling. But if there's a chance, nothing mankind puts money into is going to stop it!

    5. Neil Craig, Glasgow, says:

      Robert, or indeed naybody like minded, if you claim the consensus is real you should be able to answwer this. I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

      There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it would, with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

    6. david==goergia says:

      climate change is another debacle perpetrated by this idiotic potus. obumbler is a frog out of his environment.

    7. david==goergia says:

      cap-n-trade my bootie;; where is grease-man "al gore"?

    8. david==goergia says:

      climate change is a progressive euphemism for daily events that are a part of the natural phenomenon of creating a climate by amassing a continuum of collective relative data to draw a scientific conclusion; which is exactly what the scientists in england [UN ] DID NOT DO.

    9. Pingback: The Science Behind Global Warming Not So "Irrefutable" | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    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.

    ×