3/8/2023 0 Comments The few institute![]() ![]() "Overall the summary conclusions are considered well founded and none were found to contain any significant errors. In addition to the two known errors within the regional chapters - those relating to the Himalayan glaciers and the portion of the Netherlands lying below sea-level (which the PBL itself has acknowledged responsibility for) - one error was found related to the productivity of anchovy fisheries on Africa's west coast. It found no errors that undermine the IPCC's conclusions, but acknowledged that some summary statements could be more clearly referenced. At the request of the Dutch Parliament, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) studied the alleged errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report's regional impacts chapters and summaries."The disclosure of the private communications of a few individual scientists, among the hundreds of scientists that have participated in the development of the IPCC reports and the thousands that have developed the literature that was assessed, provides no evidence that contradicts the key conclusions and basic science underlying climate change." EPA has also assessed the e-mails and found no reason to doubt the validity or robustness of the climate data in question nor of the IPCC's assessments. This thorough investigation found that the researchers' "rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." Importantly, the Review " not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers." Yes, the review panel criticized the scientists for their lack of openness when dealing with critics, but also pointed out that it was able to replicate the scientists' key results with publically available information in less than two days. The Independent Review of the stolen e-mails, led by Sir Muir Russell, has cleared researchers of misconduct and given climate science a clean bill of health.In truth, it's pretty simple: the hyped-up allegations made against climate science crumple under dispassionate scrutiny. We're not clairvoyant for having predicted these conclusions. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said, "many of the concerns about the emails appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the importance of certain issues and how concerns raised about a specific issue or study relate to the fundamental conclusions reached through the assessment of hundreds of scientific studies in other words a misunderstanding that results in an exaggeration of the importance of these issues." In line with the earlier investigations summarized in our backgrounder, the more recent reviews find that the allegations made about the "climategate" stolen e-mails affair or errors in volume II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) are either baseless or have no bearing on the case for urgent reductions in greenhouse gas pollution.Īs the U.S. There have been several new developments since then, so we thought it would be useful to summarize the main ones. Earlier this year, we published a backgrounder assessing recent controversies and claims surrounding the integrity of climate science. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |