This so-o-o-o-o complex topic continues to confound. Today, as our federal government recognises that its support for solar roof panels is stopping the development of other renewables it is reported in London that
“The two most influential advisory bodies on climate change are planning independent reviews of their research to regain public trust after revelations about errors and the suppression of data.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to appoint an independent team to examine its procedures after admitting having made errors that exaggerated the severity of the impact of global warming.
Britain’s Met Office, which supplies the global temperature trends used by the IPCC, has proposed that an international group of scientists re-examine 160 years of temperature data. The Met Office proposal is a tacit admission that its previous reports on such trends have been marred by their reliance on analysis by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Two inquiries are being held into allegations that the unit tried to hide raw data from critics and exaggerated the extent of global warming.”
“According to a new report in Nature, glaciers are getting thinner all around the perimeter of Greenland, and in western Antarctica as well. It’s not so much that they’re melting, says lead author Hamish Pritchard, of the British Antarctic Survey; it’s that their seaward motion is accelerating. And, says Pritchard, “that’s a much more rapid way of losing ice than through melting alone.”
Some years ago now Rupert Murdoch’s approach was:
“Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction”
The Weekend Australian 27-28 February 2010 reported that IPCC scientists say that:
“they sometimes faced an institutional bias toward oversimplification”
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails answers a BBC News Q & A session here.
The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA’s press office.
The science is undeniably important but while we await the IPCC review is it possible to we take the Murdoch approach?