Recent months have brought to light data that has (or should have) reduced fears about some of the dramatic effects of global warming. It seems we no longer have to worry about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035–the IPCC just got it wrong. It appears that the Amazon, African agriculture, damages due to hurricanes and floods and the continued existence of the polar bear are also at lower risk due to global warming than previously thought. Hallelujah!
It now appears that another cause of worry has been exaggerated. The computer models on which so much of the concern regarding global warming is based have always predicted that ice would melt quickly in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. Indeed, ice did melt quickly in the Arctic, reaching a low in 2007. The ice there has recovered dramatically, however, and it looks like we’re going to have to stay tuned for further developments regarding it.
But ice in the Antarctic has been increasing, not decreasing. A lot of different ways of looking at this have come to the same conclusion. The ice is increasing. However, the IPCC, in their famous AR4 assessment of global climate, minimized the increase to the point where those who live and die via climate models didn’t have to change their thinking about it.
But it looks like the IPCC authors cherry-picked the reports and the data they used to minimize the increase in Antarctic ice. The full story is here, and I strongly suggest you go there and read it all–my capsule summary is sure to miss some important detail.
This minimization of the increase in Antarctic ice was only possible by using an outdated calculation from a scientist named Cosimo. His revised calculation showed the growth to be greater. The IPCC authors had to ignore the NASA calculations, which showed the same robust growth, and Cosimo’s revised calculations to get the results that were politically acceptable, using an earlier version of Cosimo’s algorithm found in a book.
This could not have happened by accident. It shows that they wanted a certain result, and fished around until they found a way to do it. They had to change their calculations from monthly to annually to reduce statistical confidence in the increase they showed, and they used outdated calculations to get the answer they wanted.
This comes from the vaunted Work Group 1 of the IPCC AR4 team. Most of the other criticisms have revolved around Work Groups 2 and 3, working on mitigation and adaptation with access to much less science. But this error from the people assessing actual climate change is pretty damning. They had to close their eyes to the truth and change the science to get a wrong answer–and the fact that this allowed them to keep pointing to computer models as reliable is the only logical reason they would do this.
The only real question is, as we dispose of these manufactured worries one by one, what new ones will they come up with to continue trying to scare us?
As was mentioned during the recent inquiry by the UK House of Commons, Steve Mosher and I have written a book about the leaked emails that have caused so much controversy. The title is Climategate: The CRUtape Letters. It is available on Create Space here, Amazon here, Kindle here and Lulu here. One Amazon reviewer wrote, “Mosher and Fuller do a good job putting the ClimateGate documents in context, and the book is a riveting read. I received my copy yesterday, and find the book to be faithful to the climate war events that I have followed over a period of years. It reports actual email communications of a small group of paleoclimatologists and their roles in perhaps the biggest scientific hoax since Piltdown Man.”