The Economist Doesn't Think The Science is Settled
After the crooks who flogged to the world their shop soiled junk science known as 'The IPCC Report" on which they would then found their global scam called various names but boiling down to an international ponzi scheme in which citizens of gullible wealthy nations are forced to buy dirty little pieces of paper when enable venal citizens of other countries to buy free lunches forever were sprung by climategate, the Dutch government organised a report into the report by its own environmental agency.
The report was issued a couple of days ago and it is scathing.
John Key and Nick Smith should read it because it goes as far as civil servants dare to go in its language which leaves the reader in no doubt that the whole IPCC report was a disgraceful travesty. Here are some choice selections:-
But they did find a number of things to take issue with, most of which they thought minor but eight of which they classed as major; and their work seems to bring out a systemic tendency to stress negative effects over positive ones. This tendency can be defended. But a reading of the report suggests there may also be broader and potentially more misleading bias....
and a little later:-
......But the PBL also identified seven statements, which, while not errors, it thought were deserving of comment (for which read criticism).
Perhaps the most striking relates to Africa. The table in the summary for policy makers reads: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.” The evidence on which this is based says only that yields during years in which there are droughts could be reduced by 50%. Furthermore, the relevant reference applies only for Morocco—and it cites as its source an earlier paper that the PBL says no one, including the IPCC authors, now seems able to find.....
....Other criticisms turn on a tendency to generalise. Research showing decreased yields of millet, groundnuts and cowpeas in Niger becomes a claim that crop yields are decreasing in the Sahel, the strip that separates the Sahara from the savannah in Africa, rather than that the yields of some crops are decreasing in some parts of the Sahel. The results of research on cattle in Argentina are applied to livestock (which would include pigs, chickens, llamas and the rest) throughout South America. The expert authors do not provide a compelling reason for their claim that fresh water availability will decline overall in south, east and southeast Asia, or that the balance of climate-related effects on the health of Europeans will be negative.....
Hang on a minute, there's more:-
......Another problem identified by the PBL analysis is that, in general, negative impacts are stressed over positive ones.......... Thus the evidence base from which an assessment of impacts has to start is to some extent skewed....
Oh yes, nearly forgot this one:-
.....Perhaps the most worrying thing about the PBL report, though, is a rather obvious one about which its authors say little. In all ten of the issues that the PBL categorised as major (the original errors on glaciers and Dutch sea level, and the eight others identified in the report), the impression that the reader gets from the IPCC is more strikingly negative than the impression which would have been received if the underlying evidence base had been reflected as the PBL would have wished.........A large rise in heat related deaths in Australia is mentioned without noting that most of the effect is due to population rather than climate change. A claim about forest fires in northern Asia seems to go further than the evidence referred to—in this case a speech by a politician—would warrant.......
But the panel set up to look at the IPCC’s workings by Dr Pachauri and Mr Ban should ask some hard questions about systematic tendencies to accentuate the negative.
And they call this science?