The IPCC is hiding ANOTHER ‘mistake’?

How many times does the IPCC have to screw up before they are brought up before the World Court and disbanded??!!

“Global warming: Some errors are more important than others–especially when money is involved”

February 15, 1:11 PM Environmental Policy Examiner Thomas Fuller

The IPCC, through their propaganda arm, Real Climate, has acknowledged a major error in their report. This was the often-repeated prediction that Himalayan glaciers would lose 80% of their mass by 2035.

However, they acknowledged this in 2010, after being first informed of their error in 2004.

The IPCC continued to trumpet this mistake until January of this year, as it was a magnificent piece of propaganda–the majestic glaciers, the poor who depend on the moisture locked within, etc.
Why did they wait 6 years to acknowledge their mistake? Obviously, because it was useful to them.

The IPCC is sitting on another mistake, just as large and just as important. It has been called to their attention, there is no ambiguity–the IPCC is in error–but they cannot acknowledge it yet. Nor has their house organ, with Real Climate repeating the error yesterday and refusing to correct it when the scientist involved called it to their attention.

For years, activists have claimed that global warming would cause more damage, death and injury due to more violent and frequent storms and increased flooding. Because property damages are covered by insurance, it’s fairly easy to measure and in fact property damages have climbed steadily throughout the historical record.

It turns out that property damages have climbed for other reasons, however.

All of the increase is explained by socio-economic factors. People have been building expensive homes along the sea, and increased population has caused settlement of river deltas. Those two factors explain all of the rise in property damages (loss of life due to storms has plummeted dramatically, mostly due to satellite weather forecasting).

Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist who has studied this extensively, and has published peer-reviewed papers that show it emphatically. His work is supported by countless other papers. There is no controversy, no dispute in the halls of academia. There is no evidence of global warming contributing to a rise in property damage due to floods or hurricanes.

So when the IPCC report in 2007 made the claim that there was a historical record of an increase in property damage due to global warming, this was strange. When they invented a graph that purported to show this, it was stranger. When they took an unpublished paper and lifted a quote from it that seemed to support their position, it was bordering on the bizarre, especially as the published paper contradicted their position. And when they baldly lied about Roger Pielke Jr.’s opinion on the subject, it crossed the border into agit-prop.

Why would the IPCC baldly state a proposition that is contradicted by the entire scientific record?

The answer is financial. ………… the reinsurance industry has been a very vocal backer of the IPCC, and adjusting their actuarial predictions of projected loss claims (and, umm, their rates) in accordance with IPCC publications, while providing very useful private sector backing for the IPCC. If conservative big money institutions like insurance companies are making decisions based on global warming, it must… be… true…

But it isn’t.

One reason why the IPCC might be reluctant to admit error is that the embarrassment would fall on them, but financial impact from wrong estimates would fall on their supporters in the insurance industry.

The IPCC’s poor recent record on climate change reporting has had a devastating effect on carbon traders, who are fleeing the industry in droves because support for Cap and Trade is disappearing in the US and Australia.

The IPCC obviously doesn’t want to be the kiss of corporate death for another sympathetic sector–at least not in the same month.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m2d15-Global-warming-Some-errors-are-more-important-than-othersespecially-when-money-is-involved

Dent Arthur…… I tried it again and got right in. You may be having a connection or security problem??

While we’re disbanding the IPCC, perhaps we could do away with the entire UN. Den of spys, thieves and people who don’t pay parking tickets.