More on IPCC

In regard to my recent posts, there's some good timing on a new Washington Times article concerning the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The article explains how the IPCC has not held up well to scrutiny and many of its findings have been found to be quite questionable if not outright wrong. This tidbit from the article is particularly amazing:

Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs, Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

Pretty amazing stuff, considering the possible trillions of dollars that could be spent in the next 10 years mitigating this perceived threat. If the world's governments are going to spend this insane amount of money and pass laws further restricting our lives, then wouldn't you want them to base these actions on hard scientific fact, rather than political agendas? It's incredibly disconcerting that so many have said that this debate is over and if you dare to question it then you are deemed an ignorant denier. A controversy popped up last year when a forecaster at the Weather Channel named Heidi Cullen said this, "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval." She was essentially saying that "deniers" should not be allowed to be meteorologists. She got bombarded on her blog in the comment section for that statement and posted several responses that backed away a little from her original position, but you can see the danger in branding those who are skeptical a denier and trying to shut them up.

The funny thing is that the founder of the Weather Channel is a hardcore global warming skeptic and just recently said that Al Gore should be sued for misleading the public and profiting off of it.