The "death by a thousand cuts" of climate alarmism's credibility continues, with the Dutch agency that got its own homeland's below-sea-level percentage wrong acknowledging other errors in last year's United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Predictably, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency maintains none of the errors invalidate IPCC "conclusions" blaming mankind for global warming. Yet how many more such "minor" cuts can scientifically suspect climatology suffer before it's utterly drained of its credibility lifeblood?
The Dutch agency says these "latest" errors -- regarding anchovy fisheries and risk of severe water shortages in Africa, among other things -- resulted from boiling down the full IPCC report for policymakers. It recommends the IPCC "be careful making generalizations."
If it did, the IPCC would have little to say. So shaky is the IPCC's scientific basis -- from the Climategate e-mails that showed improper data manipulation to conform to preordained blame-mankind conclusions, to simple errors of fact -- that generalization is its default mode.
Word of still more IPCC errors will further diminish the public's already crumbling confidence in climate alarmism -- and well it should.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.