© ThePeoplesCube.com
To wit: How could it possibly get the amount of land in the Netherlands that's below sea level wrong by a factor of more than 100%?
The relevance for Canadians is that this is such a basic, stupid, mistake, it raises concerns about what else the IPCC has wrong.
Pointing out the growing list of IPCC blunders isn't some climatic version of Trivial Pursuit, as warmists claim.
The IPCC has enormous influence on politicians poised to spend billions of our dollars, allegedly attempting to "fix" man-made global warming.
IPCC reports on climate change are a major reason Canada and the U.S. plan to set up a cap-and-trade market in carbon dioxide emissions, despite the fact it's been a disaster in Europe that has (a) raised the cost of living for ordinary people (b) funnelled undeserved profits into giant energy corporations and hedge funds (c) incubated massive frauds and (d) done nothing to help the environment.
The IPCC, assuming it ever was a scientific body, has now become a lobby group whose "science" advocates central planning run amok and massive wealth redistribution from the developed world (us) to the developing one, using schemes, like cap-and-trade, we already know don't work.
So, given all that's at stake, how did an error on something as basic as sea levels occur in the IPCC's last major report to policy makers in 2007, which, we were assured, summarized the world's best climate research?
In 2007, the IPCC said: "The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level."
Problem is, it's really only 26% while 29% is susceptible to river flooding, not the same thing, as the IPCC has since clarified, along with other errors, such as absurdly predicting Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
(The inaccurate sea level data originally came from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, meaning, apparently, nobody checks this stuff.)
Remains 'robust'
The IPCC responded to this latest blunder, as it has all of them, by arguing: Hey, stuff happens, but the science remains "robust," so no biggie.
Except former IPCC chairman, Robert Watson (1997-2002) says the growing list of IPCC errors is worrisome, suggesting an inherent bias.
The problem, he told the U.K. Times, is that all the errors uncovered to date exaggerate the problems of man-made climate change. If they were all innocent mistakes (as claimed by IPCC apologists), some would likely understate the problem.
"The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact," noted Watson, now chief scientific adviser to the U.K.'s environment department.
"That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
He said the IPCC should adopt a more open position towards climate skeptics in future reports, and verify its source material.
Then again, as the former chair of the IPCC, what could Watson possibly know about IPCC problems compared to say, some warmist pundit in Canada who thinks a heat wave in August proves global warming?
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter