Editorial: Climate flaws dent the scientific cause

Last updated 05:00 02/02/2010

Relevant offers

Editorials

Editorial: Some advice really is worth following Editorial: Clock ticking on Christchurch mayor Editorial: Don't let drunks spoil Sevens fun Editorial: Euro clouds Key's sunny optimism Editorial: Opposition to sale has whiff of racism Editorial: Aussie benefit rethink overdue Editorial: Spy car's usefulness in the balance Editorial: Phoenix fans must turn up Is the Fonterra worm about to turn? Editorial:Question mark over pay rises

OPINION: In recent years those who have had the temerity to question the evidence for human-made global warming have been labelled as naysayers, Luddites and members of the Flat Earth Society. Now it is the ethics and integrity of climate scientists that is being called into question.

First it was the publication of hacked emails suggesting that leading climate change scientists conspired to keep data out of the hands of global warming sceptics and to play down the importance of information that did not fit their theories.

Then it was the revelation that there was no scientific basis for an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning that the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt by 2035. The Times revealed last last month that the prediction – contained in a 2007 IPCC report that won the Nobel Peace Prize – was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist; a glaciologist who has since said he never made such a specific forecast.

Now it has been revealed that another IPCC warning – that global warming could wipe out 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest – was extrapolated from an unsubstantiated claim by two green campaigners who had no scientific expertise. The pair suggested in a 2000 World Wide Fund for Nature report that up to 40 per cent of Brazil's rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in rainfall because drier forests were more likely to catch fire. By the time their claims were regurgitated in the IPCC's 2007 report, Brazil's rainforests had become the whole Amazon and all mention of fire had been removed.

Students who made such elementary errors of scholarship would find themselves resitting their papers. That a panel of so-called experts could allow their names to be attached to such flawed analysis beggars belief.

Nevertheless, the weight of scientific evidence still suggests that human activity is contributing to global warming. So does common sense. In those circumstances, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

If humanity overestimates the impact of global warming, the cost will be higher energy prices and lower standards of living. If it underestimates the impact, and does not do enough to slow it, the cost will be global catastrophe – drought, famine and the swamping of entire nations.

However, the IPCC has just made it that much harder for governments to win support for measures to reduce carbon emissions. Why trust a panel that confuses opinion and fact, wrongly attributes that opinion, tries to shout down critics and displays a determination to make the facts fit the theory rather than the other way around.

Ad Feedback

The IPCC should leave the spin to the politicians and get on with its real job – establishing the facts. By glossing over inconvenient truths and misrepresenting opinion as scientific fact, it has undermined its credibility.

It now has a great deal of work to do if it is to persuade peoples and governments that its findings should be taken seriously.

- © Fairfax NZ News

16 comments
Post a comment
Kai   #16   05:12 pm Feb 04 2010

It's a shame 'Climate scientists will have to work hard persuade people their findings are credible' after doing just that over a period of decades - only to hit a solid wall of public incomprehension built on combined bank accounts of the massive oil lobby.

I've read the leaked emails, I've read some of the science, I've even heard an interview with one of the scientists who complained.

There's a real risk to believing everything we're told.

Actually hearing the interview though, with one of the scientists whose email was 'leaked', FIRST HAND he made it clear that his objection was not to theme ie that there is global warming trend and this appears to be caused by human activity, but only to particular statistics mistaken from his research.

In this case the 'spin' is convincing people that the 'leaked' email and flawed report mean that there is no general consensus amongst the scientific community.

Some disingenious scientists and self-proclaimed experts amongst our media claim that such a community is even attempting to mislead us - an implausible claim when the real money is in oil.

The only real questions in the scientific community are as to the exact impacts the warming trend and associated human activity will have.

For some basic proof people only need look at photographs of sea ice - taken at various points across decades - covering, or shrinking, in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Paul   #15   01:42 pm Feb 03 2010

The consequences of pursuing policies based on manifestly flawed "science" will be visited on the hapless residents of Palmerston North if the CO2 bully boys get their way.

Phil   #14   06:15 pm Feb 02 2010

Global warming is actually caused by radiation from a huge hydrogen fusion reaction a couple of billion kilometres north of Wellington.

Drew   #13   04:41 pm Feb 02 2010

Nurse fetch the screens. It's time for Don and Steve to take their pills.

steve   #12   03:59 pm Feb 02 2010

That's right Don. Those pesky Norse with their power stations, SUV's, steel mills,pumping all that CO2 in the air five hundred years ago in Greenland. No wonder the ice came. (er did I get that logic wrong -shouldn't the palce have got warmer not colder - shome mishtake surely?)

Ayrdale   #11   03:21 pm Feb 02 2010

Emeritus Professor Phillip Stott summarises it all very well here...

http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com/2010/01/clamour-of-times.html

Wally Woolly   #10   01:43 pm Feb 02 2010

The thing I don't understand about global warming, is that the carbon released by the burning of fossil fuels is the same carbon that was locked up when ancient plants absorbed the carbon out of the atmosphere and then was eventually buried beneath the ground. The likelihood that we have a change in climate would then most likely be similar to one found during the Jurassic period. This at the very worst. (If all the worlds oil and coal deposits are mined).

However by developing sustainable forest plantations, whereby carbon is absorbed by young growing trees into celluose which is then converted into wood, which is then harvested. The carbon is then locked away once more, this time in terms of timber, we then are actually rectifying that balance.

Maureen   #9   11:42 am Feb 02 2010

Well done Dominion Post, it has taken a long time but at last a newspaper is willing to question, now we just need to convince Nick Smith and John Key to do the same.

Brian   #8   11:30 am Feb 02 2010

Well done, at last, another journalist who has broken ranks, a hard thing to do, it takes guts. Exposing the lies and false hypothesis that man made CO2 creates "runaway dangerous global warming" will take time as the propaganda machines have been working overtime with taxpayers money. So many scaremongers have a taxpayer funded lifestyle and will deride those of independent thinking, and especially those with the temerity to publish their thoughts. Now we have Dr Nick Smith wanting to modify how our animals digest their natural foods. What will the unintended consequences be?

Don Miller   #7   11:11 am Feb 02 2010

Ian McKinnon #1. Thanks for the compliment, as I believe I have at least a minor amount of intelligence. I sincerely hope you are not the person of that name associated with Victoria University and the Wellington City Council. I suspect you aren't, but a disclaimer would be welcomed all the same.

Jack #4. No doubt the highly successful Norse settlements on Greenland also took a view similar to yours - until it was too late....


Show 1-6 of 16 comments

Post comment


Required

Required. Will not be published.
Registration is not required to post a comment but if you , you will not have to enter your details each time you comment. Registered members also have access to extra features. Create an account now.


Maximum of 1750 characters (about 300 words)

I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately. Please direct any queries about comment moderation to the Opinion Editor at blogs@stuff.co.nz
Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content