AGW Today: Add Wavegate And Africagate To The IPCC Hit List

Seriously, how can anyone even pretend to support the UN IPCC anymore? The feckless response from the climate alarmists has become tedious, repetitious, and absurd as the days go by and yet more incompetence from the IPCC, dare I say reckless, deceptive, deceitful, misleading, and blatantly untruthful (with forethought), continues to see the light of day.

First up, the UK Telegraph exposes Wavegate

The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company. (snip)

…..a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power has been found to contain numerous errors.

The source of information for the diagram was cited as the website of UK-based wave-energy company Wavegen. Yet the diagram on Wavegen’s website contains dramatically different figures for energy potential off Britain and Alaska and in the Bering Sea.

When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Wavegen insisted that the diagram on its website had not been changed. It added that it was not the original source of the data and had simply reproduced it on its website.

The diagram is widely cited in other literature as having come from a paper on wave energy produced by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering in 1991 along with data from the European Directory of Renewable Energy.

Experts claim that, had the IPCC checked the citation properly, it would have spotted the discrepancies.

In other words, the UN IPCC included a changed version of the graph which was meant to support their climate alarmist ideas.

On to Africagate

Following an investigation by this blog (and with the story also told in The Sunday Times), another major “mistake” in the IPCC’s benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.

Similar in effect to the erroneous “2035” claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.

At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.

This claim was included in the IPCC’s Synthesis report, considered to be the most important part of the IPCC report, and was the personal responsibility of Dr R K Pachauri, the chair of the UN IPCC, who also seems to have a *surprise!* financial stake in pushing climate alarmism.

We’ve seen the IPCC use student dissertations (some unpublished), flagrantly false studies, changed data, newspaper and press releases, and reports from environmental pressure groups, among others. They make claims that it is hotter than ever, but won’t let anyone check the data. Yet, we are supposed to listen to people who are involved in fantasy, rather than science? People who have a financial stake in making sure that people believe in the worst case.

Come on, climate alarmists, step away from Jim Jones, and come back to the place where real science is done.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “AGW Today: Add Wavegate And Africagate To The IPCC Hit List”

  1. Reasic says:

    While you all are making up new bogus “scandals”, real journalists are cleaning up your prior messes. As it turns out, the “ClimateGate” stolen email scandal was the result of a biased quote mining effort by deniers, who took several crucial statements from thousands of emails out of context in order to create a controversy:

    http://www.reasic.org/2010/02/climategate-exposed/

  2. manbearpig says:

    So what you are saying in your link is that the data was adjusted to account for inaccurate correlation between temperature and the tree ring data. However, my question would then be, why are we throwing out some data and not all of it. If some data of the set is determined to be flawed, how can we just assume that the previous data on the tree rings that supposedly does correspond to the temperature readings is accurate and not flawed as well? We are just supposed to blindly believe that these “scientists” can just throw out data they determine to be flawed because it doesn’t correspond to their hypothesis and we won’t have a flawed result. That doesn’t seem to be sound scientific practice.

  3. Reasic says:

    manbearpig,

    We have recorded temperature measurements to rely on for recent temperatures. Before that, we must use various proxies, one being tree ring data. Many other proxies have been tested in several independent studies, and the results are in general agreement.

    Besides, the issue at hand is the context of the quote from the email: “hide the decline”. Many deniers have claimed that it meant hiding the fact that temperatures haven’t risen considerably in recent years. However, the email was in reference to handling the issue of divergence, when it came to creating a graph for a presentation.

    Do you have anything to say about the fact that these statements were taken out of context, and were therefore incorrect?

  4. TFMo says:

    Yes, and that proxy data has been proven largely cherry picked, when not fabricated. Data that contradicted the desired outcome was discarded, regardless of its prevalence.

    Thus, the only remotely reliable data we have is from the actual temperature readings. Oh, wait, they discarded some of that too, because it contradicted the desired outcome.

    THIS is the hidden decline, dipstick. THIS is why we can not consider the CRU results acceptable, because the results were skewed to fit a desired outcome.

    That’s not science. That’s propaganda at best, brazen fraud at worst.

    And since the IPCC and other climahysterics relied so heavily on the CRU data, THEIR findings are also tainted, and therefore unacceptable.

    And since the claimed motivation behind Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cap and Tax, and all the other socialist greenie nonsense are these same reports, the “need” to pass these ridiculously expensive is likewise unacceptable.

    But by all means, keep sucking down that Kool Aid, Reassic. Keep trusting the words of people who’ve repeatedly proven themselves liars and fraudsters. Keep insisting that it’s a heatwave when it’s snowing outside. And by all means, continue producing vast amounts of of that deadly, awful, icky, horrible, nasty CO2 that’s killing our planet because of your refusal to stop breathing.

  5. reasic says:

    Are you serious, TFMo? You do realize that the CRU data set has been independently verified by completely separate sets, compiled by NASA and NOAA, as well as by satellite data, right?

    You can talk about the travesty of acting to stop global warming until you’re blue in the face, but when you’re basing it on erroneous information, you’re being nothing but a complete waste of time for everyone involved, including yourself. As I’ve said before, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.

  6. TFMo says:

    And like the CRU, both NOAA and NASA have been caught in their own screw-ups on this.

    Not so much corroboration, more like a circle-jerk of CYA.

    Glug glug glug, sunshine.

  7. Reasic says:

    lol. Got any proof for those blatantly false assertions, TFMo? Please, PLEASE, show me your evidence that all temperature data sets at NASA, NOAA, and CRU are bunk.

    Oh, and you didn’t address the fact that they agree with satellite data.

    I find it hilarious that you claim I’m drinking the Kool-aid, when YOU are the one making baseless assertions, which contradict the facts.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8600 access attempts in the last 7 days.