Climate Change Scandal?

Ah, the blogosphere is still alive with climate change drama. There is more than just the minor math errors in peer reviewed papers published by both sides of the debate, the Climategate brouhaha caused by the leaked CRU emails and programming code, now there is yet another potential scandal. What a joy it is to live in a era where science and politics merge.

The latest is that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth annual report included non peer reviewed estimates on Himalayan glacier retreat. The glacier blurb stated that the glaciers could disappear by the year 2035. The actual date is closer to the year 2350. So what is a few centuries among friends? So was there a dyslectic stenographer working for the IPCC or something more diabolical?

Well the lead author of that section has allegedly stated that the blurb was included to add a sense of urgency for action to be taken! If this is indeed true we may have the scandal of the millennium on our hands. Luckily, the head of the IPCC 4AR has admitted the error and cast blame on others involved in compiling the data, not himself, of course. Unluckily, the same is apparently involved in a major conflict of interest where millions of research dollars may head his way to study the not so quickly retreating glaciers. Imagine that?

The paper that was used to create the sense of urgency was a non peer reviewed opinion piece published by the World Wildlife Federation. I find it humorous that the Climatology in crowd's mantra that idiot bloggers that seem to find so many errors in their work should publish peer reviewed literature instead of just blogging, when the publication that is meant to save the world from ourselves includes non peer reviewed bovine excrement.

Also new to the debate is verification that Rodger Pielke Jr's projections of increase hurricane damage due to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), was included in the 4AR with a factor of 10 error. The number 1.3% has magically been changed to 0.13%. Imagine that! Another minor typo? Pielke is not very well liked by the climate in crowd, by the way. The brainiacs that seem to have difficulty proof reading during the peer review process have egg on their face for ranting about Pielke after quoting him out of context. They also like to pile on the political scientist.

More WWF non peer reviewed opinion pieces may also have been included in the most peer reviewed scientific compilation in the history of mankind. It would be nice to live in less interesting times.

This article has not been peer reviewed by Associated Content.