Climate flaws dent the scientific cause -Dominion Post Editorial

2 February 2010

OPINION: In recent years those who have had the temerity to question the evidence for human-made global warming have been labelled as naysayers, Luddites and members of the Flat Earth Society. Now it is the ethics and integrity of climate scientists that is being called into question.

First it was the publication of hacked emails suggesting that leading climate change scientists conspired to keep data out of the hands of global warming sceptics and to play down the importance of information that did not fit their theories.

Then it was the revelation that there was no scientific basis for an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning that the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt by 2035. The Times revealed last last month that the prediction – contained in a 2007 IPCC report that won the Nobel Peace Prize – was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist; a glaciologist who has since said he never made such a specific forecast.

Now it has been revealed that another IPCC warning – that global warming could wipe out 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest – was extrapolated from an unsubstantiated claim by two green campaigners who had no scientific expertise. The pair suggested in a 2000 World Wide Fund for Nature report that up to 40 per cent of Brazil's rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in rainfall because drier forests were more likely to catch fire. By the time their claims were regurgitated in the IPCC's 2007 report, Brazil's rainforests had become the whole Amazon and all mention of fire had been removed.

Students who made such elementary errors of scholarship would find themselves resitting their papers. That a panel of so-called experts could allow their names to be attached to such flawed analysis beggars belief.

Nevertheless, the weight of scientific evidence still suggests that human activity is contributing to global warming. So does common sense. In those circumstances, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

If humanity overestimates the impact of global warming, the cost will be higher energy prices and lower standards of living. If it underestimates the impact, and does not do enough to slow it, the cost will be global catastrophe – drought, famine and the swamping of entire nations.

However, the IPCC has just made it that much harder for governments to win support for measures to reduce carbon emissions. Why trust a panel that confuses opinion and fact, wrongly attributes that opinion, tries to shout down critics and displays a determination to make the facts fit the theory rather than the other way around.

The IPCC should leave the spin to the politicians and get on with its real job – establishing the facts. By glossing over inconvenient truths and misrepresenting opinion as scientific fact, it has undermined its credibility.

It now has a great deal of work to do if it is to persuade peoples and governments that its findings should be taken seriously.