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
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    djpbarry wrote: »
    what you are attempting to do is imply that something altogether more sinister is taking place. That is, that the IPCC, under the direction of Dr. Pachauri, is deliberately making false claims in order to mislead people.

    On the principle that one is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, the IPCC by assigning people to report on fields in which they were unqualifed and allowing them to draw for their reports on information sources which had no scientific basis, did deliberately make false claims in order to mislead people.

    To characterise this as an "error" is as much of a misnomer as it is to call a car crash where the driver was speeding while drunk an "accident".


  • Options
    #63
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SLUSK wrote: »
    The IPCC claims that so called man made climate change leads to more frequent and more serious natural disasters.
    No they don’t – the IPCC’s position on hurricanes in particular is relatively non-committal.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    On the principle that one is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, the IPCC by assigning people to report on fields in which they were unqualifed and allowing them to draw for their reports on information sources which had no scientific basis, did deliberately make false claims in order to mislead people.
    Then considering that Dr. Pachauri himself is not a climate scientist, that suggests that the entire IPCC’s raison d'être is deception ... which is branching into conspiracy, quite frankly.


  • Options
    #64
    probe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭probe


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Without evidence to support such a theory, yes, it is.
    I'm still not sure where you're going with this? The nature of Dr. Pachauri's qualifications is hardly a secret?

    It might not have been a secret but it is relevant. If someone is highly qualified in civil engineering, meteorology, cardiology, accountancy, electrical engineering etc - you are unlikely to pull the wool over their eyes in any matter that relates to their qualification and expertise. They will have studied the theories and know the basic fundamentals inside out. And they will have their professional reputation in that field to protect.

    If you put a highly qualified cardiologist or electrical engineer in charge of a climate related research programme, they won't have the relevant experience to bring to the table. It is easier to fool them.

    The same applies in virtually every walk of life. One can think of teachers who made good ministers for education in various countries - but performed less well in other portfolios.

    There are exceptions where people are naturally gifted in a discipline and make good judgement calls - with or without the qualifications - but these people are the exception.


  • Options
    #65
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Then considering that Dr. Pachauri himself is not a climate scientist, that suggests that the entire IPCC’s raison d'être is deception ... which is branching into conspiracy, quite frankly.

    That's your suggestion, not mine. I generally prefer not to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Either way, Pachauri is self evidently not fit to hold the position he does and is doing the IPCC more damage every day he clings to office.


  • Options
    #66
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    ah but Pachari is more than qualified for his position

    he does hold an Economics Degree;)

    and thats what its all about


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ask questions of the post, not the poster.

    The elevated status attributed to moderators on boards.ie never fails to amuse.

    but the question is related to your recent posts and overwhelming show of support for the IPCC and refusal to accept they have done anything wrong intentionally or accidentally..


    with all due respect, it has nothing to do with your mod status... it is often asked of posters, mods or not, to declare their interests upfront...


  • Options
    #68
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    but the question is related to your recent posts and overwhelming show of support for the IPCC and refusal to accept they have done anything wrong intentionally or accidentally..
    I’m not sure what thread you’re reading. That’s hardly a fair assessment of my position.
    robtri wrote: »
    ... it is often asked of posters, mods or not, to declare their interests upfront...
    No it is not. If it were, I would expect such posts to be reported. It is not required of any poster on this forum that they “declare their interests” (by which I presume you mean personal/professional background).

    Now, back on topic please.


  • Options
    #69
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I’m not sure what thread you’re reading. That’s hardly a fair assessment of my position.
    .
    this is on topic...


  • Options
    #70
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I’m not sure what thread you’re reading. That’s hardly a fair assessment of my position.

    Perhaps none of us is best qualified to judge the impression we give of ourselves to others.

    While not wanting to labour the point, I would have to agree that the impression you give, from the evidence of your posts, is that you support the IPCC through thick and thin and won't tolerate a word of criticism.

    I can think of numerous threads where I can point to many posts where this is the impression I have received. As this is not a fair assessment of your position, maybe you could point us to links where you have criticised actions of the IPCC, as I would love to have my impression corrected in the sense of fairness and balance.


  • Options
    #71
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Folks, this is getting far too personal. Stick to the issue at hand.

    And again, no in-thread discussion of moderation. Find out where the 'Report Button' is and learn how to use it, if you have an issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Oh sweet mother of god, how the heck did this even become a long thread?

    IPCC overestimated something and scientists called their attention to it? Big deal! They've also underestimated many things that scientists called their attention to. Though we don't mention those now do we? Anyone who thinks the (peer) review process is perfect has got their head stuck in sand - Mistakes are often made, the important thing though is that they are usually caught as time goes on.

    Citing the WWF and not checking their source, was a mistake but it doesn't detract from the overall message of glaciers retreating at faster than expected paces.


  • Options
    #73
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Oh sweet mother of god, how the heck did this even become a long thread?

    IPCC overestimated something and scientists called their attention to it? Big deal! They've also underestimated many things that scientists called their attention to. Though we don't mention those now do we? Anyone who thinks the (peer) review process is perfect has got their head stuck in sand - Mistakes are often made, the important thing though is that they are usually caught as time goes on.

    Citing the WWF and not checking their source, was a mistake but it doesn't detract from the overall message of glaciers retreating at faster than expected paces.

    The real issue he is not just scientists overestimating something. it is non scientists (ie Dr Pachauri) having a conflict of interest.

    He is Chairman of the IPCC and director-general of a company called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).

    In his capacity as chairman of the IPCC he promoted the idea that the climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. This was challenged by specialist glaciologists in the area, and Dr Pachauri, in his position as chairman of the IPCC, ridiculed and belittled anyone who actually had evidence that this claim he was making was false, and his claim not supported by either evidence or by the specialists (glaciologists) in the area.

    Quite why he felt able, or qualified, to do this, remains a mystery, and quite why he felt at liberty to abuse his position as chairman of the IPCC to ridicule and belittle scientists and their evidence, is also curious.

    It must be remembered, Dr pachuari had no evidence to support his claim, and the IPCC now accepts that there is no evidence to support his claim.

    In his other capacity, as director-general of a company called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Dr. Pachuari then used this bogus claim (which he had been told was bogus by experts) to obtain grants for his company of up to €3 000 000.

    The scandal is one of a conflict of interest on the part of Dr Pachuari, and of appearing to fradulently obtain money for his own business, based on the claim by himself, and at the time backed by the IPCC, who chose to ignore the evidence by the glaciologists).

    What is interesting is that, when it is exposed, Dr Pachuari doesn't even seem embarassed by it, but merrily carries on as if he has done nothing wrong.

    The IPCC, in the meantime, also does not seem to express concern about this conflict of interest, and that tells us more about him, and them, than they might like to reveal.


  • Options
    #74
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Malty_T wrote: »
    IPCC overestimated something and scientists called their attention to it? Big deal!

    As has already been spelled out in this thread this was not just a simple mistake but gross incompetence compounded by petulant name calling on the IPCC chairman's part when they were called on the nonsensical claims they were making.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Citing the WWF and not checking their source, was a mistake but it doesn't detract from the overall message of glaciers retreating at faster than expected paces.

    Faster than who expects? According to this blog by Madhav Khandekar, a former research scientist from Environment Canada and expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents:

    The depleting ice cap on Mt Kilimanajaro (in east Africa, near equator) is often cited as an “evidence” of global warming, however an excellent paper by Kaser et al ( 2004, Int’l J of Climatology) documents how the peculiar geography of the Mountain together with gradual decline of moisture at mid-tropospheric level since the late nineteenth century has resulted in depletion of its ice cap. These authors discount recent temperature increase as the cause of ice cap shrinking. In case of the Himalayan glaciers, precipitation patterns, especially snow precipitation and its intra-seasonal variations, seem to be an important parameter. Heavy late winter snow precipitation seems to improve the health of some glaciers in the Himalayas (Koul & Ganjoo Climatic Change 2009).

    . . . . .

    In summary, the glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating, but NOT any faster than other glaciers in the Arctic and elsewhere. The two large and most important glaciers of the Himalayas show very little retreat at this point in time. The primary reason for retreat of some of the other glaciers seems to be lack of adequate winter snow accumulation. This depletion of winter snow could be due many factors like inter-annual variability of winter precipitation or possible southward displacement of the sub-tropical jet stream which straddles the Himalayan Mountains over a long 1500 km path.

    It is premature at this stage to link global warming to the deteriorating state of Himalayan glaciers at this time. The Indian Environment Minister MR Jairam Ramesh has correctly observed “let us not write an epitaph on Himalaya glaciers at this time”

    In other words, such reduction in size of Himalayan glaciers as there is may in fact have nothing to do with rising temperature.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/global-warming-and-glacier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/


  • Options
    #75
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    In his other capacity, as director-general of a company called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Dr. Pachuari then used this bogus claim (which he had been told was bogus by experts) to obtain grants for his company of up to €3 000 000.

    The scandal is one of a conflict of interest on the part of Dr Pachuari, and of appearing to fradulently obtain money for his own business, based on the claim by himself, and at the time backed by the IPCC, who chose to ignore the evidence by the glaciologists).
    You’re still a very long way from demonstrating that anyone is guilty of fraud. May I remind you of something that was posted by a certain someone earlier in this thread:
    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    A sceptic, we have to remember, is someone who does not believe something without evidence.


  • Options
    #76
    Pembily
    Registered Users Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭Pembily


    This thread is quite funny - the IPCC being the bad guy here is a conspiracy theory (IMHO) - conspiracy theories crack me up!!!


  • Options
    #77
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Generally when people lie and cheat to alter peoples perceptions they can be considered to have Conspired against those people.

    the IPCC Lied, it lied repeatedly to strengthen its position when there was grant money being allocated

    Unqualified people hoodwinked organisations and then Bullied people into submission
    (thats called a coverup, tis different to a conspiracy as its mostly an after the fact situation)

    but you think its funny that the people who were put in charge of finding the 'Truth' did just that, however it didnt agree with their World view so we gewt their 'version' instead.


    serioulsy if incompetnat unqualified liars amuses you Oreachtas report must crack you up.


  • Options
    #78
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    The real issue he is not just scientists overestimating something. it is non scientists (ie Dr Pachauri) having a conflict of interest.

    I stopped reading here..

    A non scientist with a qualification in economics and engineering is unheard of. Economists are scientists. Engineers can be scientists too and ,unless you're really pedantic about it, engineers are scientists.

    One of the criticisms of Mann's hockey stick graph was his failure to consult statisticians to help statistically analyse the data. Yet here you are arguing that the IPCC shouldn't have someone with an understanding of economics and statistics are the helm of a largely statistical phenomenon - that's he a non scientist. If I may say so that argument is just plain weird.


  • Options
    #79
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Generally when people lie and cheat to alter peoples perceptions they can be considered to have Conspired against those people.

    the IPCC Lied, it lied repeatedly to strengthen its position when there was grant money being allocated

    Unqualified people hoodwinked organisations and then Bullied people into submission
    (thats called a coverup, tis different to a conspiracy as its mostly an after the fact situation)

    but you think its funny that the people who were put in charge of finding the 'Truth' did just that, however it didnt agree with their World view so we gewt their 'version' instead.


    serioulsy if incompetnat unqualified liars amuses you Oreachtas report must crack you up.

    Unqualified liars? That's quite the statement to make. The IPCC reports were reviewed by experts who were more than qualified in their respective disciplines.

    Just out of curiosity does any anti-climatologist here know what the actual review process of IPCC here is? It would help if you could detail the how it was blatantly lying on the part of the reviewers and the authors.

    Anyways, I' haven't had time to review to this thread, so apologies if it has already has been covered. Here's how the rather silly error came about.
    From the second draft.

    Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in other any part of the world (see Table 10.10 below) 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 getting warmer at the current rate. The glaciers will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035.

    This was followed by the review comment.

    I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding - and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in precipitation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.'s 2005 Nature paper here - this seems very similar to what they said. (Hayley Fowler, Newcastle University)

    Reply:

    Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version

    So they erroneously cited the WWF.

    "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high".


    The WWF's error was that they took a quotation from an author of the WGHG report. The IPCC error was laziness and failure to scrutinise the source.

    Conclusion: citation Laziness.


    Many thanks to deltoid for the excellent blog. It seems we are really going to need a Talk-Climate.org


  • Options
    #80
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Malty_T wrote: »
    The IPCC error was laziness and failure to scrutinise the source.

    Conclusion: citation Laziness.


    So you agree, that the IPCC used incorrect information in their report...

    As A secientific body charged with putting information together on climate and its effects, thats not laziness, thats lying through your teeth....


  • Options
    #81
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    As A secientific body charged with putting information together on climate and its effects, thats not laziness, thats lying through your teeth....
    No, because you have yet to prove that it wasn't an honest mistake.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Conclusion: citation Laziness.

    What conclusion do you draw from these comments by the IPCC chairman after this "citation laziness" was drawn to his attention?
    London, January 9 (ANI): Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has described the Indian government report that criticized the claim by IPCC over the faster than expected melting of Himalayan glaciers, as “voodoo science”.

    .....

    But, according to a report in New Scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as “voodoo science” lacking peer review. He adds that “we have a very clear idea of what is happening” in the Himalayas.

    Mine is that Pachauri has slandered his fellow scientist, and lied about having "a clear idea" of what is happening with regard to Himalayan glaciers. The hypocrisy in claiming the government report lacked peer review is particularly breathtaking. Leaving aside the clear conflict of interest he has between his work for the IPCC and his own business interests, on this ground alone the man has to go and even friends of the IPCC must see that by now.
    More at : Pachauri calls Indian govt. report on melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”


  • Options
    #83
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Conclusion : Twistin Evidence to suit an agenda


  • Options
    #84
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    What conclusion do you draw from these comments by the IPCC chairman after this "citation laziness" was drawn to his attention?

    I'd be very very surprised if the IPCC chairman's comment were just referring to that Indian Government's report dismissing the 2035. The report, which severely lacks citations, has made a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Which isn't surprising when you consider that India's "scientific" Health Dept. has just started endorsing homoeopathy. I'm sorry but can you blame me if I'm skeptical of the Indian Governments reports?

    If you can show that his comments were specifically aimed at the claim about 2035 being wrong. Then I'll agree with you, he's in for some major humiliation and was an arrogant ass.


  • Options
    #85
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    Malty_T wrote: »
    I'd be very very surprised if the IPCC chairman's comment were just referring to that Indian Government's report dismissing the 2035. The report, which severely lacks citations, has made a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Which isn't surprising when you consider that India's "scientific" Health Dept. has just started endorsing homoeopathy. I'm sorry but can you blame me if I'm skeptical of the Indian Governments reports?

    If you can show that his comments were specifically aimed at the claim about 2035 being wrong. Then I'll agree with you, he's in for some major humiliation and was an arrogant ass.

    Is your argument that everything the indian government says or does is invalidated because theur health department has made some endorsement of homoeopathy? If so, (and that appears to be what you are saying) then it's not a very good argument.

    I agree that homoeopathy is bogus and a lie (as proven by the evidence available and the science available), just as I can see that Dr Pachuari and the IPCC are wrong with their pronouncements about the Himalayian's being ice free by 2035, again based on the evidence and science available.

    Even the IPCC now says that it was wrong to make that claim!


  • Options
    #86
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    Is your argument that everything the indian government says or does is invalidated because theur health department has made some endorsement of homoeopathy? If so, (and that appears to be what you are saying) then it's not a very good argument.

    Nope my argument is that the Indian Government report is unsubstantiated and lacks citations. The fact that it claimed the IPCC were wrong about the 2035 claim, does not validate the Indian Government's entire report.
    My point about the homoeopathy is that Government isn't following a scientific agenda anywhere. For this reason I'm skeptical of any report it publishes.
    (Using the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit I have no choice in this matter. :))


  • Options
    #87
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Nope my argument is that the Indian Government report is unsubstantiated and lacks citations. The fact that it claimed the IPCC were wrong about the 2035 claim, does not validate the Indian Government's entire report.
    My point about the homoeopathy is that Government isn't following a scientific agenda anywhere. For this reason I'm skeptical of any report it publishes.
    (Using the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit I have no choice in this matter. :))

    I agree re homoeopathy as one of the greatest con jobs perpetrated on the greatest number of people. Not only is there no evidence for it, there is a plethora of evidence to suggest it is nonsense, and the billions made by the homoeopathic industry are a testament to the stupidity of so many of us.


  • Options
    #88
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Malty_T wrote: »
    If you can show that his comments were specifically aimed at the claim about 2035 being wrong. Then I'll agree with you, he's in for some major humiliation and was an arrogant ass.

    According to this report in the New Scientist, Pachauri's voodoo comment was made in respect of this discussion paper by Vijay Raina, who is described by the New Scientist as a "a leading Indian glaciologist". Raina's paper states that contrary to the IPCC's claim that "glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world", there is no abnormal retreat of Himalayan glaciers.


  • Options
    #89
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    The homeopathy angle is just a non sequitor, the fact remains that one guy made a random statement and then ...... read taconnols sig.............
    Bias, towards one particular POV is not Science


  • Options
    #90
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    The homeopathy angle is just a non sequitor, the fact remains that one guy made a random statement and then ...... read taconnols sig.............
    Bias, towards one particular POV is not Science

    In fairness, I don't think even the credulouists would now claim that the IPCC is a scientific body.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    In fairness, I don't think even the credulouists would now claim that the IPCC is a scientific body.
    In all seriousness, the name-calling is getting a little childish.

    It's clear to me the IPCC failed to follow its own rules in only including peer-reviewed research.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement