Feb
Raingate splashes across the London Times
The London Times today reports on a story that has been circling the blogosphere in recent weeks as either “Raingate” or “Africagate.” The respected British mainstream newspaper exposes yet another example of what peer-review means in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2007 Fourth Report. A paper described as “consensus science” about severe drought affecting African crop production turns out to be nothing more than hyped up speculation from a single study, put together by a lone researcher.
The revelation was overlooked first time round by the mainstream media as it broke during the deluge to cover the Pachaurigate and Glaciergate stories. The London Times reports:
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.
“The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.”
The fabrication was discovered by the UK group Climate Resistance as it was fact-checking an Oxfam publication.
In a guest post at Roger Pielke Jr’s blog, Ben Pile explained,
There is only limited discussion of “deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture” in that paper, and its focus is not ‘some’ African countries, but just three: Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria. It is not climate research. It is a discussion about the possible effects of climate change.
This will no doubt again make no impression on IPCC’s head honcho and the “world’s leading climatologist” Rajendra Pachauri, who has more important tasks in hand such as peddling his latest soft porn offering, Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India last month.
This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team told the Times:
“I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines.”
But as a devastating twist, we can add a postscript to the plot as reported by that superb blog, eureferendum:
Unlike the glacier claim, which was confined to a section of the technical Working Group II report, this “50 percent by 2020″ claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri. It has been repeated by him in many public fora. He, therefore, bears a personal responsibility for the error.
Possibly related posts:
These patheticos who have been repeatedly proved to be dishonest liars only interested in feathering their own nests and have been shown to have no regard for the harm they do to mankind are still clinging to power.
One of the conclusions to be drawn from this is as long as their resignation is not DEMANDED by the 5 countries-US,England,Australia,New Zealand and Canada- which are the strongest supporters of NEW WORLD ORDER-Raj and Banki feel well protected because they were toeing the line of their powerful and wealthy masters.
Is there a procedure for removing Banki from UN so his bunkum ceases to find a world audience.
DISSOLVE THE UN THE SUBSERVIENT AND SUBVERSIVE BODY ACTING AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE MAJORITY OF WORLD POPULATION.
Since the concensus response to climategate by the greenwiener choir was a booming incantation of “it’s all based on peer reviewed science” we should have lots of video to play with. I’ll bet we have some of the most vocal deniers out there shouting peer review in early December 2009. That footage would make a nice fast paced sequence leading to-except when it’s not and an explanation of the various gates since. Based on personal observation and a little on polling data I would say we have properly reintroduced doubt into many minds regarding global warming. That is a great accomplishment on behalf of scioence and every person on the planet. Listening again, people are ready to be shown the evidence that they alarmists are the true deniers and low-life liars. I’ve said it before… it’s 1989 all over again.
Isn’t there anyone out there that can fire this guy? He has shown himself to be inept on many an occasion. I don’t agree with the ad hominem attacks on him, however, they make the argument against him seem less credible. If he wants to make a porn novel, he can. That has nothing to do with his “scientific” research. People usually only make ad hominem attacks when they don’t have much to go with. Politicians do this a lot. In his case there’s no need. There are way too many mistakes relevant to his work he’s screwed up on. We don’t really need anything personal to attack him on, there’s enough out there already.
All these so called ERRORS ,misprints ,mistakes,are actually deliberate attempts to introduce a climate of Uncertainty and Fear in the public ,to make them quiescent to the warming agenda