The melting glaciers were a major talking point for AGW alarmists. Their argument was backed up by the IPCC report citing their demise, and, of course, the science was irrefutable because the IPCC only puts out quality, well researched reports.
Eh, not so much.
Turns out the 'report' was the product of a quote from a scientist during a media interview that wasn't backed in any way by studies or science. It was basically hysterical ravings that were taken as proven fact and published by the preeminent panel for AGW. It was just a mistake, the IPCC explained.
Then came the revelation that it was put in the report for purely political reasons. Apparently the lead author of the 2007 report knew that the claim was false but included it anyway in order to pressure world leaders to take stronger action on AGW.
“We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” In other words, Rose says, Lal “last night admitted [the scary figure] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”
James Delingpole of the UK's Telegraph has the scoop on the latest. In the 2007 report, the claim is made that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest is in danger of a drastic reaction to changes in precipitation due to climate change. The report asserts that the reaction would be a change from a rainforest environment to a tropical savannah. The report cites Andy Rowell and Dr. P.F. Moore's 2000 report on global forest fires.
The problem with Andy Rowell and Dr. P.F. Moore and their report is that they are affiliated with WWF and IUCN. The World Wildlife Foundation is an environmental activist group focused on conservation, as is the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Dr. Moore is not an Amazon specialist, he is a policy analyst. As for Andy Rowell, he is a green activist and a reporter for the UK's Guardian newspaper. Their non-peer-reviewed paper is apparently just the tip of the iceburg. It turns out there is a long list of non-peer reviewed WWF papers that have been cited as evidence in the IPCC report. That violates the IPCC's rules for inclusion - all papers must be peer reviewed. And, one would assume, based on some sort of science, not some scientist spitballing a what-if scenario to illustrate their alarmist visions.
Let's not forget, too, that the chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachuri, is in hot water himself. Mr. Pachuri has been investing heavily in companies that are being recommended by the IPCC. He has shrugged it off, of course, as has the other champion of AGW, Al Gore. There are those calling for his resignation, but he refuses to step down, naturally.
The 2007 IPCC report that has all of the flaws I have been discussing is also the one that won the shared Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Since the report is being shown daily to be filled with false information and supposition, not science, does that mean the prize will be rescinded?
Oh, if only.....
Global warming is now dead last on the list of priorities for Americans, so at least it seems people are paying attention instead of just blindly believing the AGW hysterics. It's a start. When the Europeans start wising up, I'll breathe easier. But at least people are wising up to the scam, and it's happening before our governments sink trillions of dollars into it and cede our sovereignty to some global government.
So when do we get to bring Gore up on charges? How about taking away his Oscars and all the other prizes his fraudulent 'documentary' garnered?
Heck, I'd just be happy if they would stop peddling this AGW crap in the schools - I'm getting tired of having to deprogram my kids every year.