Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Options
  • 17-01-2010 5:34pm
    #1
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭


    A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

    Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

    In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

    It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

    .....

    The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: "Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

    "Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif."

    The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

    When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

    The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

    However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    A severe blow to the climate change theory.


  • Options
    #3
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    gizmo555 wrote: »

    ... so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

    When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%...

    If the report is accurate, it says a lot about the IPCC, and seems to highlight what many now think that the IPCC is a political body which is less than rigorous about the science behind its pronouncements and more interested in pursuing a political agenda.
    Confab wrote: »
    A severe blow to the climate change theory.

    Actually only time will tell that. While many might agree that this sort of thing should be an embarrassment to the IPCC and those who are pushing that agenda, and to any independent observer it does appear to pose all sorts of questions, I'll bet that it's more likely to be ignored and the IPCC will continue regardless, and those who have decided to believe the agenda the IPCC are pursuing are unlikely to be swayed by evidence which appears to call into question their honesty.


  • Options
    #4
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Could we have possibly have some reaction from the OP please?
    Confab wrote: »
    A severe blow to the climate change theory.
    How so?


  • Options
    #5
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    The melting of Himalayan glaciers was cited by, for example, Stern in his report as a threat to water supplies for large parts of the world. Melting glaciers was one major potential impact taken into account by Stern in his analysis of the economic costs of global warming.
    Melting glaciers will initially increase flood risk and then strongly reduce water supplies, eventually threatening one-sixth of the world’s population,
    predominantly in the Indian sub-continent, parts of China, and the Andes in South America.

    http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executive_Summary.pdf

    If the Times report is accurate, it appears the risk of near to medium term melting of these glaciers is greatly exagerrated.

    If the report is accurate, it would also in my opinion cast severe doubt on the overall quality of the IPCC's work and resulting reports.


  • Options
    #6
    Heroditas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,450 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    Confab wrote: »
    A severe blow to the climate change theory.

    I'd be more inclined to say it's a severe blow to the IPCC's credibility rather than a blow to any climate change theory.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,915 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Originally Posted by Confab View Post
    A severe blow to the climate change theory.
    How so?

    Well, if we take your own pronouncements on the subject and give them some credence - not that I am suggesting we should - then we have to totally disregard the opinion/s of any scientist - no matter how distinguished - if they make the slightest faux-pas in relation to glaciers.

    To quote you:
    djpbarry wrote: »
    So Bellamy is a “true scientist” because his opinion happens to agree with yours? Personally, I’d question Bellamy’s “scientific integrity” based on the content of his now infamous letter to Nature in 2005 (in which he claimed, without supporting evidence, that “555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980”) and, the following statement, taken from an opinion piece written for The New Zealand Centre for Political Research:
    The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century.
    Anyone who comes out with a statement that is so obviously false is not deserving of the title “scientist”.

    So by your own criteria, the section of the IPCC report that relates to glaciers should be disregarded as it was obviously cobbled together by someone "not deserving of the title "scientist"."

    Since the IPCC report on climate change is the de-facto magna carta of climate change theory, any obvious defect in it is a blow to the theory.

    In terms of the integrity and soundness of the IPCC report, and the theory it peddles, I found something else in that article of interest. It was the revelation that the entire section of the report relating to glaciers was compiled by someone who knows next to nothing about glaciers.
    Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said.

    Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science".

    Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

    I hereby propose a new official theme song for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming:


    Ten green bottles hanging on the wall
    Ten green bottles hanging on the wall
    And if one green bottle should accidentally fall
    There'll be nine green bottles hanging on the wall


  • Options
    #8
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cnocbui wrote: »
    So by your own criteria, the section of the IPCC report that relates to glaciers should be disregarded as it was obviously cobbled together by someone "not deserving of the title "scientist"."
    It’s a pretty serious blunder, and it will cost the IPCC credibility. But more specifically, it will cost Professor Lal credibility.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Since the IPCC report on climate change is the de-facto magna carta of climate change theory, any obvious defect in it is a blow to the theory.
    We’ll have to disagree on that – one false pronouncement does not undo all climate science. The glaciers are still melting, are they not?


  • Options
    #9
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Well, if we take your own pronouncements on the subject and give them some credence - not that I am suggesting we should - then we have to totally disregard the opinion/s of any scientist - no matter how distinguished - if they make the slightest faux-pas in relation to glaciers.

    If only it were just one scientist who is putting his weight behind this. Remember, it was the IPCC, as a body, who was making these exaggerated claims, based on incredibly flimsy evidence.
    cnocbui wrote: »

    In terms of the integrity and soundness of the IPCC report, and the theory it peddles, I found something else in that article of interest. It was the revelation that the entire section of the report relating to glaciers was compiled by someone who knows next to nothing about glaciers.


    As it is becoming more and more apparant that the IPCC appears to be pursuing a political agenda, and the quality of the science behind it seems to be irrelevant, it would be more surprising if they, or those who have decided to believe anything they say and avoid critical analysis of anything they say, were to express any degree of shock that the IPCC should base its opinion, and put its weight behind, something with such "evidence".


  • Options
    #10
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    As it is becoming more and more apparant that the IPCC appears to be pursuing a political agenda, and the quality of the science behind it seems to be irrelevant, it would be more surprising if they, or those who have decided to believe anything they say and avoid critical analysis of anything they say, were to express any degree of shock that the IPCC should base its opinion, and put its weight behind, something with such "evidence".

    The IPCC in my view and in the view of many others who know much more about the issues than me, has extreme credibility issues. Here, for example, is Richard Tol, research professor at the ESRI and professor of the economics of climate change in a Dutch university in today's (18/01/10) Irish Times:
    The IPCC summarises the science of climate change, its impacts, and possible countermeasures. It enables politicians to make informed decisions. The IPCC is not allowed to recommend any course of action. Dr Pachauri has increasingly used the platform he was given as the chairman of the IPCC to act as an advocate for climate policy.

    This is deplorable. It degrades the IPCC from an honest broker of the scientific facts to yet another advocacy. Climate policy creates very substantial business opportunities for new energy companies. If the allegations of a conflict of interest are true, Dr Pachauri’s relationship with such companies is too cosy to be appropriate.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0118/1224262564923.html

    For me personally, the Sunday Times report is the last straw, and I wouldn't take any of the IPCC's pronouncements seriously after this. Yet its reports are the foundation of global governmental policy on climate change.


  • Options
    #11
    patgill
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭patgill


    As important elections draw near in many places throughout the developed world, opposition parties are making political capital from the embarassment caused to governments, by the over zealousness of the extreme AGW fraternity, so called AGW deniers are in a confident mood, hopeful now that the CO2 debate may be over or at least moderated, for human civilisation that may not be such good news, because our problems are still there waiting to be solved, lets pretend for a moment that the CO2 debate had never even begun, the other problems are still there slapping us in the face every morning, population growth and the effect that this will have on our energy supplies, this is the elephant in the room, sometimes whispered about in the CO2 debate, ( the one we are pretending didn't start ), we already know that the quality of life we enjoy in the first world has been built on the cheap energy we derive from burning oil and natural gas.

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4277708824_24b459c564_o.jpg

    This may be the most important graph in the world, and the measures we take now will greatly influence whether the standard of living trend continues to climb, levels off or plummets.
    4277708824_24b459c564_o.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,480 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Are the glaciers melting?

    If so then why?

    More than likely it's due to climate warming which is more than likely related to human activity.

    Just because we can't give a exact date as to when they will disappear doesn't mean its not going on


  • Options
    #13
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Just because we can't give a exact date as to when they will disappear doesn't mean its not going on

    This is true, but the point is that the IPCC on the most tenuous basis claimed there was a 90% chance that the Himalayan glaciers would have melted entirely within 25 years. It would appear that there is in fact no chance of this happening.

    Whether one believes AGW is happening or not (personally I am agnostic, although in a finite world with finite resources, I accept many of the steps proposed to deal with AGW make sense for other reasons anyway) the IPCC is as far as I can see one of the skeptics' best friends.


  • Options
    #14
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    ... the IPCC is as far as I can see one of the skeptics' best friends.

    A sceptic, we have to remember, is someone who does not believe something without evidence.

    A believer is someone who believes it without the necessity for evidence

    A cynic is someone who will not believe even when faced with evidence.

    All scientists should be sceptics, and any scientists who are not sceptics should be treated with suspicion.


  • Options
    #15
    patgill
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭patgill


    One thing about the global warming debate that I find amazing is the implication that it is happening somewhere out there, and yet Ireland has been experiencing more energetic weather for the last ten years and we are still taken by surprise year after year, I would suggest we could leave the Himalayan glaciers to the people in that region and start doing something about our small part of the world and the people who live in it.


  • Options
    #16
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    patgill wrote: »
    ...Ireland has been experiencing more energetic weather for the last ten years ...

    Even if it's true ( for which you have not provided any evidence), what could we do?


  • Options
    #17
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    patgill wrote: »
    One thing about the global warming debate that I find amazing is the implication that it is happening somewhere out there, and yet Ireland has been experiencing more energetic weather for the last ten years and we are still taken by surprise year after year, I would suggest we could leave the Himalayan glaciers to the people in that region and start doing something about our small part of the world and the people who live in it.

    It's called global warming for a reason . . .


  • Options
    #18
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It's called global warming for a reason . . .

    Actually, it's now been rebranded to be called climate change, and some unkind person said that was when it became apparent the global warming wasn't happening. :D


  • Options
    #19
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    Actually, it's now been rebranded to be called climate change, and some unkind person said that was when it became apparent the global warming wasn't happening. :D
    Ah, so that's why the IPCC was formerly known as the IPGW?

    Let's restrict this discussion to the role of the IPCC, rather than another discussion of the underlying science (so far as it possible).


  • Options
    #20
    patgill
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭patgill


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    Even if it's true ( for which you have not provided any evidence), what could we do?

    I could I suppose spend a few hundred euro on Met Eireann records to PROVE my thesis, however for now I will simply point out that we have had 3 once in a lifetime weather events in the last Four years, and we could do a lot. Improve our flood defences, even better design those flood defences to be multi functional.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It's called global warming for a reason . . .

    Are you seriously asserting that global warming will have no local effects and that local measures are not needed to to both counter and remediate those effects.
    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    Actually, it's now been rebranded to be called climate change, and some unkind person said that was when it became apparent the global warming wasn't happening. :D

    Neither term in fact deals with the problem they both merely refer to different aspects of one of the symptoms, excess energy in the atmosphere, of the problem. And that problem is our increasing need as a civilisation, for usable energy.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ah, so that's why the IPCC was formerly known as the IPGW?

    Let's restrict this discussion to the role of the IPCC, rather than another discussion of the underlying science (so far as it possible).

    The IPCC was set up to promote a pre-agreed diagnosis and have spent their time since then seeking evidence to fit that diagnosis.

    By the way this is what New Scientist, the science journal referred to by the IPCC, has to say on this matter.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527432.800-sifting-climate-facts-from-speculation.html


  • Options
    #21
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    First Climategate and now this, how are we supposed to believe anything from the IPCC now?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    SLUSK wrote: »
    First Climategate and now this, how are we supposed to believe anything from the IPCC now?

    Being fair, the analysis done on Mann's hockey stick graph by McIntyre & McKittrick, conclusively showing that the hockey stick graph was inaccurate and non replicable, was an early warning sign that the IPCC was less interested in truth and accuracy and seemed more interested in pursuing its own agenda.

    The "climategate" emails, and now this, merely confirms again, with more evidence, that the IPCC is less interested in truth, and more interested in pursuing its own agenda in spite of any evidence to the contrary.


  • Options
    #23
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Are the glaciers melting?

    If so then why?

    More than likely it's due to climate warming which is more than likely related to human activity.

    Just because we can't give a exact date as to when they will disappear doesn't mean its not going on

    If this is the same story that I linked to a few months back then the glacier melt data was not mis-interpreted or anything like that it was a simple case of someone reading a number and changing it be it by accident or design from 2350 (the estimate in the original report) to 2035 so yes there is melt but not at anything like the rate claimed by the IPCC.


  • Options
    #24
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    i think the questions being raised here, are not whether there is Global warming manmade or other, but whether the body responsible for directing and informing many government policies around the world can be trusted to be accurate and impartial....

    personally in my opinion they can't and the IPCC needs to be disbanded...


  • Options
    #25
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    mike65 wrote: »
    If this is the same story that I linked to a few months back

    The story is similar, but not the same.

    The IPCC does no original research - as it says on its website:

    The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. (my emphasis)

    We are entitled, therefore, to expect it to use as the basis of its reports only scientific research which has been validated in the usual ways, such as peer review, replication through experiment, etc. If this issue was merely a result of a typo in a bona fide scientfic paper, one could regard it as a genuine mistake and treat it as such.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

    However, what has apparently actually happened is that it has taken a speculative press report, which it obtained at second hand from another speculative and campaigning report by the WWF, and dressed it up as a purported scientific fact.


  • Options
    #26
    patgill
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭patgill


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Are the glaciers melting?

    Yes I believe they are, slowly.
    If so then why?

    Because there is more heat energy in the atmosphere.
    More than likely it's due to climate warming which is more than likely related to human activity.

    And this is where science is joined in an arranged marriage with politics, with a lot of scientist's now wishing for a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable difference's. A lot, not all, of the increased heat energy in the atmosphere is derived from our efforts to release the usable energy from hydrocarbons, an equal amount is released from the inefficient use of that energy in the attainment of our standard of living. Now consider the different approaches to that problem which would come from an engineer, change the energy source and then make all its possible end uses more efficient, to that of a politician, search for the most efficient administrative response i.e taxes and then there is the fundamentalist brigade, mankind is bad, lets go back to a medieval standard of living.
    Just because we can't give a exact date as to when they will disappear doesn't mean its not going on

    Correct, therefore we must choose between the three approaches outlined above. Or a properly debated fusion of those response's.

    Note there is no need to mention _ _ _


  • Options
    #27
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    The story is similar, but not the same.

    The IPCC does no original research - as it says on its website:

    The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. (my emphasis)

    We are entitled, therefore, to expect it to use as the basis of its reports only scientific research which has been validated in the usual ways, such as peer review, replication through experiment, etc. If this issue was merely a result of a typo in a bona fide scientfic paper, one could regard it as a genuine mistake and treat it as such.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

    However, what has apparently actually happened is that it has taken a speculative press report, which it obtained at second hand from another speculative and campaigning report by the WWF, and dressed it up as a purported scientific fact.

    In fairness, the IPCC claims, on its own behalf, to be a scientific body. But looking at the way it (a) ignores any scientific evidence which it does not like, such a s McIntyre & McKittricks work on Mann's hockey stick graph, or (b) the way it uses non scientific evidence which it does like, such as that outlined in the OP's post, how can it be judged to be scientific by any independent observer?

    It's interesting to note that, when challenged by these revelations, the attitude of the IPCC is revealing. Most scientists would welcome new evidence, as most scientists are searching for the truth. The IPCC appears to ignore any evidence to the contrary and continues to promote the claims it likes, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Which is revealing in itself.

    We have to remember that Michael Mann said, in the climategate emails, "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." , which seems also to be the position of the IPCC.


  • Options
    #28
    patgill
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭patgill


    We can therefore conclude that the IPCC is a political organisation and our response's to it should be political.


  • Options
    #29
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    In fairness, the IPCC claims, on its own behalf, to be a scientific body. But looking at the way it (a) ignores any scientific evidence which it does not like, such a s McIntyre & McKittricks work on Mann's hockey stick graph...
    It was “ignored” because it was published in a social science journal (I believe it was rejected by Nature).
    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    We have to remember that Michael Mann said, in the climategate emails, "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." , which seems also to be the position of the IPCC.
    Let’s keep the email quotes in the relevant thread please.


  • Options
    #30
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

    Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

    But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

    “I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”
    ......

    But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”

    He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.

    It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

    A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.

    The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.

    An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.

    It is in my view highly disingenuous of the IPCC to characterise this fiasco as a result of "error". It was rather a result of authors writing on subjects far outside their area of expertise and competence and taking information for their report from sources which had no scientfic basis, because it suited the argument they wanted to make. And of course, the IPCC is not supposed to argue for any position, but to sift and present the expert scientific consensus in the field of climate change, insofar as such consensus exists. The IPCC should be disbanded before it does any more damage.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It is in my view highly disingenuous of the IPCC to characterise this fiasco as a result of "error". It was rather a result of authors writing on subjects far outside their area of expertise and competence and taking information for their report from sources which had no scientfic basis, because it suited the argument they wanted to make. And of course, the IPCC is not supposed to argue for any position, but to sift and present the expert scientific consensus in the field of climate change, insofar as such consensus exists. The IPCC should be disbanded before it does any more damage.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

    Its not just your view, but the view of anyone impartial who assesses the evidence. And we all know what Michael Mann said, who is a member of the IPCC, that he doesn't think that truth is important. the fact is the IPCC doesn't think the truth is important, as this thread demonstrates, and most who assess teh evidence now accept and realist that to be the case.

    Doubtless there are still those who have now argued so often for the IPCC that they feel it's impossible to look at the evidence impartially, and who feel the only course open to them is to continue to argue that the IPCC is impartial and of the highest integrity and so on, for feat of losing face. It's a shame they can't do as george monbiot did and admit that, in the past, they have bene mistaken as new evidence shows that the IPCC is not honest.

    I earnestly hopw they can look at the evidence ( evidence as opposed to opinion) and see it for what it is.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement