Archive for February, 2010

Links for Today

Texas takes the EPA to court over “Clean Air Act”
Companies Begin to Pull Out of Climate Change Partnership
Supreme Court decision “blocks” global warming efforts

Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy.

The Netherlands are a bit confused.  They have to be, there is no way to explain this away and still maintain any validity in the IPCC.

According to the 2007 IPCC Report, 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level.  You can even see people who have been members of the Church of Global Warming referencing this since 2007. (here, here, here… it goes on, just do as Rosie O’Donnell says and “google it”)

The Netherlands however is a bit miffed, you see because only 26% of their land is below sea level.  Or 29% more than the IPCC said.

According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.

The incident could cause further embarrassment for the IPCC, which recently admitted a claim in the same report that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was wrong.

IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level — 26 percent — to the area threatened by river flooding — 29 percent — Vallaart said.

“They should have been clearer,” Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.

My favorite line in this article shows the contempt still for those who dare to question these people:

Glaciologists have discredited the Himalaya claim, which is being withdrawn, and the controversy has given fresh ammunition to climate skeptics.

Mother fracking seriously??  “given fresh ammunition to climate skeptics”?  No one else is questioning this crap but the “Skeptics”?

Oh yea, that’s right.  That’s why they call it faith.

No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF, who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.

You have the IPCC here referencing “peer-reviewed” stuff that referenced the World Wildlife Fund.  Tell me… Isn’t a scientific journal referencing an Environmentalist group report be akin to the kind of bias they yelp about if a scientific journals were to reference a company like, oh… Exxon?

Science is supposed to be objective.  So what the crap would you call a peer-reviewed report that references the WWF that is then passed along as acceptable material to the IPCC?

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wordpress themes