Slashdot Mirror
Claims of Himalayan Glacier Disaster Melt Away
Hugh Pickens writes "VOA News reports that leaders of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have apologized for making a 'poorly substantiated' claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Scientists who identified the mistake say the IPCC report relied on news accounts that appear to have misquoted a scientific paper — which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035. Jeffrey Kargel, an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona who helped expose the IPCC's errors, said the botched projections were extremely embarrassing and damaging. 'The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority — as indeed they should — and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact.' Experts who follow climate science and policy say they believe the IPCC should re-examine how it vets information when compiling its reports. 'These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected,' write the researchers."
What the UN lies to support global warming hoax? That's strange almost like there is a conspiracy of scientists to trick the 1st world public. Huh. Go figure.
But, I'm sure some East Anglia "scientists" can "prove" that global warming is real.
Oh, what's that? Temps are declining for the past 10 years? INCONCEIVABLE!
But, mod me down you are the one denying the truth.
I would be shocked if this doesn't reach -2.
--------
get jiggy w/ ayn rand!
The person believing a story from a source (The Daily Mail) who has shown time and time again to have a vested interest in tearing down the IPCC by misrepresenting quotes and/or science?
The Daily Mail? That's the one with the cover article of: 'Name the Devil Boys, we must not let them hide', and whose cover photo is 'End of Brangelina'? Oh, dear. Yes, I'll assume they didn't quote anything out of context, shall I?
There are anthropogenic global warming skeptics, and there are also deniers.
Skeptics say while there is non-trivial linkage of CO2 to warming, and increased CO2 is being caused by humans, and the current trend of climate data shows a warming, there is unlikely to be catastrophic change in climate, and efforts to prevent a catastrophic change are likely not well spent for their own sake.
Deniers claim the science is wrong and there is a conspiracy among climate scientists/the left/whoever else they think is involved. They use one way hash arguments like "cherry picking data" that sound correct, but are misleading to the point of being wrong.
Also, please reconsider posting Costella's "work". He's a physics PHD who seems to like feeding conspiracy theorists, usually of the JFK variety. Don't mistake his work for scientifically reviewed papers.
Finally I fail to see the point of you mentioning you're a liberal, you're ideology should have nothing to do with the science. This coupled with phrases like "faith", "junk science", and "neo-creationists" sounds like you're just using buzzwords to support your argument without actually understanding what you're railing against.
it continues to amaze me that those who have no explanation for climate change think that ad-hominem attacks will assist us in determining its cause.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!