Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Bias in the IPCC?

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which was established to evaluate the risk of climate change bought on by humans, has declared a 90% probability that climate change has been bought on by humans (smart decision, otherwise I guess they would all be out of a job).

So their conclusions are hardly surprising, I would expect nothing else. Would a teachers union declare that teachers were not necessary for teaching students?

If there was the opposite of the IPCC, for example the IPNHCC (the international panel on non human induced climate change), and they reported that they are 90% positive that humans are not the cause of climate change, should we believe them or the IPCC?

Of course there isn't an IPNHCC, but there is plenty of peer reviewed scientific research that concludes that greenhouse gases is a very very small factor in climate change, and that other factors, like changes in the sun, are far more influential. I guess it all comes down to picking and choosing the research that suits your cause best.

In jan 2005, Christoper Landsea withdrew from the IPCC's 4th report claiming that the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns. Landsea does not believe that global warming has a strong influence on hurricanes: "global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 percent or 2 percent". He strongly questions the accuracy of the historical global hurricane database for comparisons with current observations, citing an uncounted, catastrophic 1970 storm as an example.

Of course Landsea does believe that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming, but what percentage this is is debatable amongst the scientists.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hang in there laddie. The CO2 tide is turning and the socialist rabble is getting nervous.