How well_meant environmentalism damages it's own cause...

[Skybird]

... by sloppy work and unsound standards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ntingPage=true

The email-row imo was no row at all, but was a fabrication. And that with a project as huge in size as the IPCC reports, mistakes and typos can't be avoided (like dividing a number not by 121 but by just 21), is only human. The size of the project puts it's value into question, imo, but we currently see an era of drives from many interest parties and career politicians, the UN as one example, the EU as another, to centralise power and decision-making and to establish as big and huge organisational contexts as possible, and creating tyrannical forms of governments and command that are no longer free or demcratic, but nevertheless refuse to give up these labels. Hardly a trustworthy approach if the control at the centre is left to such questionable institutions like the UN or the EU, and is left to economic lobbyists, politicians and powerseeking interest-groups.

Now, let's not draw wrong conclusions from the glacier report. The scandal is about a quite specific issue, the object is limited to certain claims being made about the withdrawal of Himalaya glaciers - and only Himalaya glaciers - , and the speed of their retreat until 2035. This neither allows conclusions on glaciers around the world, nor about the future developement of world climate. I have repeatedly linked photo comparisions from glaciers in North and South America and Europe with a separation of several decades, up to almost a hundred years, and I have linked data material on glaciers and ice as well. The Himalaya I have excluded, although unintentional - I simply had not strolled over such photo material. the difference on these photos available is telltaling.

That the ice at the poles is not only just changing, but in the total summary is decreasing, and that glaciers in North and South America and Europe are not only shriniking but many already have almost dissappeared over the past 70-100 years, is beyond doubt, and can be proven photo-ink-on-white.

The damage of the Himalaya data scandal lies not in that the general direction in conclusions the IPCC is aiming at necessarily is wrong, but that here a known, intentional data forging has been accepted in order to drive a political agenda, and by this all information on climate change and warming is brought into general discredit. This is a high price. But maybe it is also a necessary damage that copuld serve as a warning - in order to remind us that monster organisations and giant projects like the IPCC reports that try to bring so many voices from so many sources and directions together, almost never have a realistic chance to succeed.

In the end, mankind will only change by any of two principles: by pain and suffering that locally has become unbearingly intense, leaving man no other choice than to change, and by this example of natural, slow growing chnage convince their immediate neighbours one by one. The risk is, and it is very big risk, that this kind of chnage simply will come too late. But this centralised monopole on command-giving as is desired by the UN or the EU or comparable international bodies, hardly will lead us anywhere different than lobbyists protecting their special interests, and trying to design political agendas to serve economic special interests.

All this is academical anyway. As long as we are 7 billion people on this planet, counting, and do not bring our numbers to somewhere below 1.5 or even just 1 billion, all our efforts or non-efforts to change and adapt in the end will lead us into the same biospheric dead end sooner or later.

We are far too many people on planet Earth.