The "Science" Behind Global Warming

Since the revelation of the Hadley CRU's e-mails leaked to the public a growing number of "errors" and "inconsistencies" have been discovered in the IPCC reports and the supposed "scientific" consensus for global warming.

Here is a blog posting by the blog EU Referendum out of the UK that points out how the horror story of destruction of the Amazon rain forest in the IPCC reports is backed up by the "science" of a policy hack and a green activist's "investigative" journalism. In theory the IPCC's reports and policy recommendations for world leaders was supposed to be based on sound science and reflect the consensus of science. But in reality it reflects the picking and choosing of fanatics desperate to find whatever flimflam they could to sell their viewpoint:

The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication

Thus, following on from "Glaciergate", where the IPCC grossly exaggerated the effects of global warming on Himalayan glaciers – backed by a reference to a WWF report - we now have "Amazongate", where the IPCC has grossly exaggerated the effects of global warming on the Amazon rain forest.

This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the "Glaciergate" claims are made.

...

In all, then, the IPCC claim is a fabrication, unsupported even by the reference it gives, which it should not in any event have used as it is not a primary source.

The significance of this cannot be understated. Together with polar bears and melting ice-caps, and melting glaciers, the Amazon rain forests are iconic symbols for the climate change industry, and their potential loss was fully exploited at December's Copenhagen summit.

There, the dire predictions from the IPCC were treated as a baseline, and then expanded upon by others and reported widely, adding to the sense of doom and crisis.

Well sourced reports, however, put logging and farm expansion as the major threat to the rain forests, climate change being just another factor which exacerbates the damage. But this was not good enough for the IPCC, which wanted to hype up crisis. And, as with melting glaciers, it did so using exactly the same technique of making an assertion unsupported by the "science" it holds as so important.

Read the posting to get the details of how a "policy advocate" and a "green activist" wrote a WWF pamphlet that became a referenced "scientific" source for the IPCC reports, a reference which is supposed to be a peer-reviewed scientific publication, which the WWF pamphlet certainly is not.

Here is a related video: