Pontificus » IPCC

Oops. Time For Another Climate Fairy Tale…

pontificus — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:54:13 +0000

James Taylor of Forbes has reported on new NASA data in an article titled “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism“¹. Basically it shows that all the climate models put forth by global warming (aka climate change) alarmists are faulty. For those inclined to read the underlying scientific paper titled “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance“, it is available from the peer reviewed journal Remote Sensing².

Time for a new theory, or in this case fairy tale, Church of Man Made Global Warming folks. I bet Prince Charles feels pretty stupid right now, or should anyway. And algoracle still laughs all the way to the bank. There sure are plenty of suckers out there.

One More IPCC “Fact” Gone Wrong — India Quits

pontificus — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:29:35 +0000

Netherlands
(dark green below sealevel)

As if the IPCC doesn’t have enough egg on its face from basing predictions on manipulated weather data and just lying about the future of glaciers in the Himalayas.

Now it’s becoming ever more obvious that nothing the panel has stated can be relied on. This inevitable conclusion is derived from the IPCC not even getting basic geographical data points right, as it has now surfaced that the IPCC claims that more than half of the Netherlands lies below sea level, when in fact only about 26% does.¹

The Indians have clearly had enough of the IPCC circus, and has effectively quit by creating it’s own climate change monitoring body. Reportedly this was because the country can’t rely on what the UN IPCC produces.² This is particularly embarrassing for the head of the IPCC, Dr R.K Pachauri, who is from India.

IPCC Spreading More Misinformation

pontificus — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:21:55 +0000

It seems that the IPCC has more egg on its face for the “scientific” conclusions that it claims to present in the name of all “scientists” in the world.

This one is about the IPCC statement as to a 90% probability that the Himalayan glaciers will be reduced by 80% or entirely gone by the year 2035.¹

Now it turns out that the IPCC was basing its “scientific conclusion” on no research what so ever. Instead, the IPCC quoted an opinion piece, that itself quoted another opinion piece, finally tracking back to an interview about a decade ago.

More details can be obtained from a very good article describing how incredibly bad and inaccurate these IPCC conclusions are.²

If IPCC maintains the same standards in the future, we can expect the next report to include a weather prediction by the chairman’s wife’s third aunt’s best friend, published as a scientific consensus with a 90% probability.