The IPCC, Sea Levels and Flooding - An Underlying Credibility Issue

The IPCC is acknowledging that they erred when they stated that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level.

See U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw

The 2007 report included the sentence: "The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea level rise and river flooding because 55 percent of its territory is below sea level."

"A preliminary analysis suggests that the sentence discussed should end with: 'because 55 percent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding'," the IPCC note said.

So what drove the need to have the original erroneous sentence in the initial IPCC report?

Was it included because like the Himalayan Glacier Melt farce, it was meant to advance a political agenda?

Given all of the other problems that the IPCC report has been shown to have, given the revelations from the CRU email dump that brought to light the attempts to manipulate data and rig the peer review process, how can we believe that it was anything other than politics?

The whole peer review process needs to be reformed. No more secret data. No more secret software. If they can't tell us how they arrived at their conclusions including showing us the raw data and the underlying programing that they used to derive them, then they should not be taken anymore seriously then we should take the Discovery Institute "Intelligent Design" creationist.

Its time to scrap the IPCC in its entirety and start from scratch with data and programing that they can show us.

Rigged From The Start

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal that points to the heart of the problem of the Climate Debate and the Leaked Emails.

But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

I think it has been rigged from the start.

From Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, to Rachael Carson's Silent Spring, to the great AGW hoax, too many people have had vested interests, both spiritual and financial, in keeping the cons going.

The integrity of the scientific method has taken a terrible drubbing of late. Those that felt it was alright to lie a little bit for the good of the cause have made a farce of science.

Which relates directly to the problem of the Discovery Institute's abuse science.

Every time that we hear someone bitch about the Discovery Institute's abuse of the scientific method, we need to suggest that they take a look at the tree in their own eye before they fuss about the splinter in another's. You can't rebuke the one group without also rebuking the other. It is hypocrisy to even try. They both do the same thing for the equivalent of the same reason; "The Good of the Cause."

The Discovery Institute would be the ignorable laughing stock it deserves to be if it were not for the AGW crowd validating fraudulent science for the good of the cause.