In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol to prevent climate changes and global warming runs out. At the conference in Copenhagen 2009 the parties of the UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – met on government level before the climate agreement needs to be renewed.
Quote from the Conference Website: “An important part of the scientific background for the political decisions taken on the conferences is made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, based in Geneva, Switzerland. The IPCC is established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In 2007 the IPCC received the Nobel Peace Price.”
The reason for the Nobel Peace Price was a 2007 IPCC report that supposedly contained all the evidence on climate change and was seen as a major step forward. After the failure to reach agreement at the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen voices emerged that showed that serious flaws are in the report. Those were now seen as responsible for a lack of acceptance in Copenhagen. Let me ask you why it takes three years and a whole list of scandals (Climategate emails?) to finally discover that the report contains several obvious ‘errors’. I would however call most of those ‘errors’ unfounded claims and scare tactics. The IPCC should be forced to return that Nobel Prize in shame!
The IPCC says that its most important activity is the interpretation of scientific studies and translating them into a format that the public will understand. That is rather strange. If the outcome of a scientific study is not understandable by a layperson then I recommend not to trust it. It is questionable to interpret findings until they fit some political agenda. The climate research community says that the errors do not reduce the overall result that humans are causing climate change. It was that interpretation process that supposedly produced the errors and not the science. Who is not surprised? Should it not have been exactly that scientific community to point out the errors in the interpretation? How can they leave those errors in the report for three years – just because they were conveniently errors in the right direction? That again makes the scientists much less believable.
What are those errors?
1) The report stated that 55 percent of Netherlands are below sea level. The correct number is 27. First one has to ask how that can happen. Second, I wonder why that is mentioned at all? Reclaiming land from the sea was a choice that the Netherlands made and it is not a consequence of rising sea levels. If climate change would really bring rising sea levels, then the levels proposed now (one foot or 33 cm in 100 years – if that is still en-vogue) might have little effect on Netherlands. Twenty years ago the guesses were in the several meters (5-10ft) range by the SAME scientists.
2) According to the report, glaciers in the Himalaya will disappear by 2035! There is no such scientific finding. The panel claims source errors or a typo as the reason for the wrong statement. Once again, why has not one scientist come forward to say that this has to be corrected since 2007?
3) The IPCC also wrongly sourced a statement on the negative effect of reduced rainfall on Amazon rain forests to a report by the WWF, instead of going backward to the scientific discussions around the subject that are by no means conclusive but simply state the possibility. That wrong reference points to the work of the IPCC being obviously done by activists and not by scientists.
4) There is no evidence in regards to the IPCC claim that increased insurance payouts in the US are related to worsening weather extremes and thus caused by climate change. The reasons for these higher payouts could easily be less-stringent zoning laws in danger areas, lower building quality, different insurance models and people simply being better insured than before. Even if it would be the weather causing them, there is no conclusive evidence yet that links some weather extremes of the last decades to climate change. This year’s harsh winters around the globe are immediately dismissed by climate change pundits as local weather patterns that don’t link to a lack of global warming, but when there is a hot summer, it obviously is proof. Isn’t that strange?
5) In an attempt to make the Western world feel guilty about hurting the hungry people in Africa by CO2 emissions, the report sidelines a complete statement about a possible drop in crop-yields in Northern Africa due to several reasons and simply states that climate change will be responsible for it.
Finally, it is certainly not appropriate that the chairman of the IPCC is financially related to a green-energy foundation which creates a serious conflict of interests. Good that the Climate Conference took place in Copenhagen, because at least we can now quote Shakespeare’s Marcellus in Hamlet to say: ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.’