After thousands of emails between advocates of man-made global warming revealed that they were squelching scientific debate and cooking data, the world was reassured that these isolated incidents didn’t undermine the supposed scientific certainty that man is causing the Earth to warm.  Then we learned that some of the most hyped claims about the affects of global warming-such as that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035-were pure conjecture, not based on rigorous scientific research at all.


Now Christopher Booker reveals that more IPCC claims are merely the parroting of environmental alarmists, without any basis in scientific fact. He writes:



The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report, again citing the WWF as its authority, that climate change could endanger “up to 40 per cent” of the Amazon rainforest – as iconic to warmists as those Himalayan glaciers and polar bears. This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain’s two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging.


A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC’s report which cite similarly non-peer-reviewed WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority, and other researchers have been uncovering a host of similarly dubious claims and attributions all through the report. These range from groundless allegations about the increased frequency of “extreme weather events” such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, to a headline claim that global warming would put billions of people at the mercy of water shortages – when the study cited as its authority indicated exactly the opposite, that rising temperatures could increase the supply of water.


How many times are we expected to look the other way when we find evidence that the supposed arbitrators of scientific fact are propagandists? If the science is so absolute, why are they using all this bad data? Booker concludes: “Bereft of scientific or moral authority, the most expensive show the world has ever seen may soon be nearing its end.”