Article: "The Great Global Warming Collapse"

The link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/

" But the claim [that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035] was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. "

Let's distill that down: That now infamous shock claim was based on an anecdotal report, not on peer-reviewed science. The head of the IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shrugged it off as a one-time error, a "one-off."

" “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” " said Walter Russell Mead.

Does anybody else remember Alex Jones and others talking about the global carbon tax? The intrusion of UN rules into American politics?

It turns out that this wasn't just a "one-off."

" For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”

" Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits. "

" Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC. " (emphasis (and colour) added)

Oops.

So let's review: Several of the IPCC's "shock" claims are based not on peer-reviewed science but on anecdotal reports, some of which came from the WWF, which has a conflict of interest if ever there was one.

The claim about the rain forests was made by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. Another conflict of interest.

The leaked emails have shown that the global body kept contradictory evidence from being published, withheld information from skeptics, and made bad data appear to look better. All this from a body that was supposed to be based on rigorous scientific standards.

They look more like school-yard bullies.