Posted by
BLOGASSAULT on Monday, February 08, 2010 10:53:49 AM
A report in Sunday’s London Times highlights new humiliations for the IPCC.
The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
There is however one teensy-weensy little problem. As Professor Chris Field, the lead author of the IPCC’s climate impact team has now told reporters that he can find “no evidence” to support the claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report.
How much more of this can the IPCC take before they come out and retract the whole fourth assessment, and admit they haven't a clue.
Obviously, you wouldn't want to hold your breath, because as
Mark Steyn points out, it is still the same old business in the MSM's.
Like all the poodles of the environmental beat, Margot O'Neill repeats those magic words "peer review" every couple of paragraphs like a talisman to ward off evil deniers. But, in the course of invoking the phrase "peer review," she never bothers to look at whether the IPCC actually does it. By contrast, without benefit of the resources of a national TV news operation plus salary and benefits, lone blogger Donna Laframboise did a couple of text searches on the IPCC report and discovered multiple predictions of doom — on Himalayan glacier melt and much else — resting not on peer-reviewed science but merely on activist groups such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace.
Investigative reporting in big media is undeniably missing. But it is being revealed in new media; blogs and other internet based journalism. The days of NBC, CBS, ABC and others are numbered and the new media is taking control. It is exciting! But, as with the O'Keefe story, you have got to be smart. MSM stil has some power, and they won't go down without a fight.