A pamphlet by activists

Last Monday I wrote: 'At this rate the IPCC's AR4 report will be completely and utterly  discredited/destroyed by the end of the week.'. It is Friday now. Let's take stock.

EURef have a post up about the life and times of the '2035'-prediction that is central in the Glaciergate affair: The glacier show – a comedy in many parts. Touted by warmists as a mere typo used all too gleefully by skeptics with nothing better to support their case, the EURef post gives evidence that it was, and always has been, a malicious piece of alarmism paraded around by Dr Sayed Hasnain, evidently for attention-whoring purposes. The lie (for that is what it is) is even more astoundingly bold-faced as even when the 2035-claim was first making headway, there already had been a considerable research project (in 2001), who's members had concluded that the Himalya glaciers were not in peril at all. Yet the IPCC preferred to incorporate an unsubstantiated (and as it turns out: unfounded) claim over the conclusions of a genuine scientific study, apparently because the former suited the members if the IPPC better then the latter.

Then there is 'Referencegate'. This one is fall out from Amazongate: The claim that global warming would cause 40% of the rainforest to disappear. As it turns out, this claim was based on a reference to a World Wildlife Fund report that itself is based (so loosely as to be fraudulent) on a study into "Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire" – i.e., not about climate change.

Be that as it may: The larger question is the appearance of that WWF reference in the IPCC AR4 report. The document referred to is produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. What's more, it is a non peer-reviewed paper. Inclusion of this reference is flaunting the IPCC's own rules for producing texts (and BTW: Doesn't this make the psalm-singing by warmists about the sanctity of 'peer-review' sound just a tad hollow?).

Once an avalanche starts to move it becomes unstoppable. WUWT points us to a pair of posts by a blog that is investigating the literature that is referenced in the AR4. As it turns out both the WWF and Greenpeace (both of them activist advocacy groups not in the business of producing 'peer-reviewed' scientific reports) are referenced heavily in AR4. This pair of NGO's both of them have absolutely no scientific authority, and both of them absolutely have a vested interest in maintaining the global warming myth.

If the IPCC AR4 is such a paragon of robust scientific effort, it should not have to rely so heavily on non-scientific NGO's producing non-peer-reviewed work. Or, to turn the argument around: Because IPCC AR4 relies so heavily on such questionable sources as the WWF and Greenpeace, who have an interest in perpetuating the 'green' agenda, it can not be viewed as an scientific report. Rather, is is a very thick pamphlet, written by activists and advocacy groups.

And thus the IPCC AR4 report has become worthless. It is now Friday. With the revelations of the last few days, I think it is safe to say that the destruction of the IPCC's AR4 credibility is complete.