# India abandons IPCC **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874 "2010-02-06T02:00:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/61 "2010-02-08T08:35:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > China doesn’t care about Global Warming. They’re building coal fired plants at a tremendous rate. Look at the pollution problems they had with the last Olympics. They’re making money off of Global Warming like a $cientologist. Simplistic interpretation of events driven not by analysis but by an emotional reaction. I wanted to address the above claim particularly. Believe it or not, China cares about pollution, global warming, and the environment - certainly enough to realize that they have a serious problem. China is suffering badly because of everything from toxicity to gigantic sandstorms, and the LAST thing the government wants is popular unrest (for any reason). As an authoritarian regime, you would think China would be ideally suited to tackling pollution problems by instituting wide ranging and effective anti-pollution laws, without all the squabbling that happens in democratic countries. In fact, that has already been happening, from [banning plastic bags](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/world/asia/09iht-plastic.1.9097939.html?_r=1) to investing in sustainable development and the environment as part of the [2008-2009 economic stimulus plan](http://www.eeo.com.cn/ens/finance_investment/2009/03/07/131626.shtml). The government, although all-powerful, has a certain momentum and so do industry and the economy. I am not excusing the shameless and idiotic ways in which China has let down its people and abused its environment for decades. That is not in question. However the mistakes of the past are being addressed and China is a leader in number of green energy industries. Plus there is a high level of corruption among communist party officials, and no shortage of money for them to accept. Polluters in China traditionally got a stack of free passes as long as they paid the right people and followed the correct song and dance routine. This is a discussion that has NOT been ignored in China and has resulted in some pretty dramatic action, including the execution of [Zheng Xiaoyu](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_Xiaoyu), the head of the agency controlling the safety of food and drugs. Here is an [article in TIME](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1931616,00.html) that provides a summary of the situation, the challenges, and of course the problems. China has an enormous demand for energy and they can’t just stop using coal because that is a primary source of electrical power. But they are taking steps to minimize dependence on fossil fuels. Here is a [summary which compares China](http://planetark.org/wen/53958)’s goals and progress with those of the US (the latter are not quoted): > [@](#): > > - China’s latest five-year plan calls for a 20 percent cut in energy intensity by the end of 2010, from 2005 levels. Chinese authorities estimate this would cut the country’s carbon dioxide emissions by roughly 1 billion tons. However, the effort has fallen behind schedule. > > - Beijing also has set a goal for about 15 percent of the electricity it generates to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. > > - China’s fuel economy standards for its rapidly growing passenger vehicle fleet are more stringent than those in Australia, Canada and the United States. Average fuel economy for new vehicles was projected at 36.7 mpg in 2008. > > - Some energy-intensive products for export no longer qualify for special tax breaks in an attempt to encourage energy efficiency. > > - At a recent summit in Italy, China joined rich and poor countries acknowledging that global temperature increases should be limited to 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels, a goal that would force deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. > > - But in a disappointment to environmentalists, China was among developing countries that would not commit to a goal of cutting world carbon emissions in half by 2050. > > - Environmentalists also worry that China plans to significantly expand the number of coal-fired power plants that contribute to global warming. There is good and there is bad, but whatever your opinion on the effectiveness of these measures you have to admit there is a heck of a lot more good than is usually acknowledged during finger-pointing sessions. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/62 "2010-02-08T08:42:51Z")
Well if China has banned plastic bags I’m convinced. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/63 "2010-02-08T17:00:07Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I seriously doubt that any amount of money that Exxon spends is going to seriously dent the public’s perceptions about Global Warming at this point. The only thing that will do that is if new data comes out that contradicts the Global Warming hypothesis…and even then I think it will take a long time to do. How long? ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/64 "2010-02-09T04:01:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > There was another thought that you made me realize **xtisme**. > > It is that there is another pattern that the climate truthers and anti-evolutionists will share. Among anti-evolutionists, no matter how many decades or even centuries will pass, scandals like the Nebraska man and Piltdown man are still mentioned. There is another disturbing pattern, that of calling anyone who questions the science being done a denier or a truther. Guess what, questioning the science does not make one a denier, it makes one a skeptic. More information that I came across today. [Link](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece). Short story. The IPCC included a claim that global warming would cut African crop production by 50%. It turns out that this claim, which made it into the Synthesis Report released by the IPCC, was originally made by the Institute for Sustainable Development. It was not peer reviewed. Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, said that there is no support for this claim. Then there is another issue, the apparent cherry picking of the Russian climate station data used by HadCRUT. [Linky](http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/iea1.pdf)(warning, PDF) According to the Met office this data [underpinned](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091208a.html)the IPCC assessment reports. Is it a conspiracy? I don’t think so. Is it good science? I think not. I am willing to bet that within the next year more information comes to light where either the CRU or the IPCC based reports on non-peer reviewed or just bad papers. Slee ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/65 "2010-02-09T04:23:09Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > There is another disturbing pattern, that of calling anyone who questions the science being done a denier or a truther. Guess what, questioning the science does not make one a denier, it makes one a skeptic. Not in this case, you are avoiding dealing with the fact that the sources you use are misleading in the extreme. As it was shown already India is not leaving the IPCC. > [@sleestak](#): > > More information that I came across today. [Link](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece). > > Short story. The IPCC included a claim that global warming would cut African crop production by 50%. It turns out that this claim, which made it into the Synthesis Report released by the IPCC, was originally made by the Institute for Sustainable Development. It was not peer reviewed. Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, said that there is no support for this claim. And? do you notice that it was a scientist from the IPCC that did that? Shouldn’t that mean that indeed they are making amends and accepting responsibility? In fact the report does mention that the IPCC needs to “tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.” Indeed, that is what they are doing. > [@sleestak](#): > > Then there is another issue, the apparent cherry picking of the Russian climate station data used by HadCRUT. [Linky](http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/iea1.pdf)(warning, PDF) According to the Met office this data [underpinned](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091208a.html)the IPCC assessment reports. And it seems clear that you are basing this on what the frauds at Climate Audit are telling you. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian\_analysis\_confirms\_20th.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php) > [@](#): > > Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures > > The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by novelist James Delingpole and is based on an analysis (translated here) by a right-wing Russian think tank. Delingpole quotes from a news story: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. > > > > The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. > > > > ``` > > Delingpole adds: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock. > > > > ``` > > **The problem here is the IEA report does not support the claims made in the news story. I’ve reproduced the final graph from the report below. The red curve is the temperature trend using the 121 Russian stations that CRU has released data for, while the blue hockey stick is from a larger set of 476 stations. I’ve put them on top of the CRU temperatures for northern extratropics. The red and blue curves agree very well in the period after 1950, thus confirming the CRU temperatures.** Well done, IEA! > [@sleestak](#): > > Is it a conspiracy? I don’t think so. Is it good science? I think not. I am willing to bet that within the next year more information comes to light where either the CRU or the IPCC based reports on non-peer reviewed or just bad papers. > > Slee **You already lost that bet**. Sources like climate audit are indeed Climate Thruters. No matter how often they have been shown to be absolutely wrong regarding the proxy “hockey stick” research they continue to mislead people like you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/66 "2010-02-09T05:57:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And? do you notice that it was a scientist from the IPCC that did that? Shouldn’t that mean that indeed they are making amends and accepting responsibility? > > In fact the report does mention that the IPCC needs to “tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.” Indeed, that is what they are doing. I have to say here that this was a former IPCC scientist, so I have to take this back, but as I noticed on the Stoat comments regarding this, it is not quite clear what the critics are reporting here. Not to mention that the reporter there even admits that it “\*\*could \*\*be even more embarrassing”. [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/02/anatomy\_of\_ipccs\_mistake\_on\_hi.php](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/02/anatomy_of_ipccs_mistake_on_hi.php) So far I agree with the author of the post dealing with the early IPCC error and also with this one. > [@](#): > > [I mean, he didn’t say “Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.” **The Times just made that up** -W] > > … > > [Ah, no wonder I didn’t understand you. I assumed “TS.6 9.4.4 was a reference to section 9.4.4 of the TS.” Now I know what you mean, I’m still baffled. Section 9.4.4 says: > > “Other recent assessments using the FAO/IIASA Agro- Ecological Zones model (AEZ) in conjunction with IIASA’s world food system or Basic Linked System (BSL), as well as > climate variables from five different GCMs under four SRES emissions scenarios, show further agricultural impacts such as changes in agricultural potential by the 2080s (Fischer et al., 2005). By the 2080s, a significant decrease in suitable rain-fed > land extent and production potential for cereals is estimated under climate change. Furthermore, for the same projections, for the same time horizon the area of arid and semi-arid land in Africa could increase by 5-8% (60-90 million hectares).” > > That, very clearly, does give you extra info. It tells you that the 5-8% is coming from 5 GCMs under 4 SRES scenarios. In turn, F will tell you those models are HADCM3 ECHAM CSIRO CGCM2 NCAR-PCM. > > So, I’m really not sure what you point is. Unless it is “IPCC carefully refs everything”? -W] > > … > > [I don’t think we should pander to the black-helicopter people. Not that IPCC is really UN; it is really a hard core of a few competent scientists; the political layering doesn’t do too much damage -W] The IPCC guys used also “could” in their 50% and they refer to “ **deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture** ” not exactly all “African crop production” as you said. Also, it was not just the only cite as the report said. I would still have to go for “could be embarrassing” until I see what other sources say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874.md?page=3)