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."
If you think that's bad, for each of these errors that gets publicized, vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever, including support for man-made global warming.
stuff |
Gpasp, there was a TYPO in a summary report, and the editing process didn't catch it.
A typo.
In a summary report. Not in an actual scientific paper. Not even in the _science_ summary (which is IPCC working group 1 report, "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change"-- this was the WG-2 report.).
Yes, it's an annoying typo-- 2350 is significantly different from 2035. Nevertheless, note that the error is NOT in any of the science papers-- it was in a summary report. It should have been edited better (especially as, it turns out, one of the reviewers actually pointed out the error, but his correction didn't make it in), but bad editing in the summary says absolutely nothing about the science. And, in fact, the scientists pointed it out and published the correction in a major venue.
The problem is, the deniers believe that even one error in a summary report means that the science is wrong, while the scientists are all aware that, yes, it's a bitch, but indeed, sometimes typos creep through.
All of you who have never had a typo show up uncorrected, feel free to kvetch.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The scientists who caught this error are scientists who support the consensus that global warming is a real problem. The distinction between good science and bad science is the ability to be critical of theories and colleagues that you agree with. In that regard, while this is an embarrassing snafu, it shouldn't alter our overall confidence that anthropogenic global warming is real and a serious threat to both environmental and economic health. I'm tempted to make a comparison to Piltdown man, a fossil hominid which turned out to be a hoax. Creationists like to point to it a lot but ignore that it was scientists who realized that Piltdown man was a hoax, not creationists. I don't think that global warming is in the same category, in that there are good scientists who disagree. But the general consensus is pretty clear. And events like this show that the general scientific community is still doing good, careful science on this matter, and engaging in careful critical analysis of their own claims. This event underscores that claims by global warming denialists that climatology is a cultish echo-chamber are simply without basis.
There is something absolutely wrong with the kind of media coverage. You're telling me that a transposition of digits within a report full of otherwise solid information is "highly damaging"? This is a false sense of even-handedness at best.
How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps not highly damaging? The hard empirical fact that we've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~280 parts per million to over 370? The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2? The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact?
The question that will matter to all of us in coming years is not whether the IPCC had, in the midst of a large report of substance, accidentally transposed numbers when discussing a real and dangerous trend. It's not about whether or not you like Al Gore. It's not about the way scientists chattered in their emails while creating and testing computer simulations. This coverage of personality cult or anti-cult, the minor gaffes in an overwhelming body of documented evidence being treated even-handedly as if it thwarts all the rest, it is responsible for promoting complacency or belligerency in the face of a severe environmental threat.
Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?
It took four years because global warming is a hot political issue. Anything that doesn't support imminent disaster is heaped with scorn. I don't know if the earth is heating up or not. I'm not a scientist. I do know that a huge number of the people running around screaming about global warming aren't scientists either. It's too bad that there can't be a quiet, sensible discussion on the subject thanks to all the political baggage.
And anything that dares to contradict the AGW-believers is treated with derision and actively attacked, instead of investigated. You know, exactly the opposite of science.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
It's too bad that there can't be a quiet, sensible discussion on the subject thanks to all the political baggage
And that's the problem. No one (or at least, no one in the general population) had heard of global warming / climate change until we had politicians saying "If you don't elect me so that I can pass X laws to stop GW / climate change, we will all die!" - and right from the beginning it was all a matter of politicians using it to get elected so that they can pass other laws that suit their personal views. The fact that as it gets more an more political we have more "evidence" is easily explained by 1) politicians paying people to find "proof" so that they can get elected and 2) people realizing that there's easy money in "proving" global warming.
Yes, I know many will mod me a troll for being skeptical - I don't care one way or another if the temperature is changing or not. However, since only about 4% of daily CO2 output is from man-made devices and we have plenty of proof of temperatures changing long before the industrial revolution, the claims of man-made global warming are a bunch of bullshit being used by people who want to pass laws to change society to how they feel it should be. The issue is not "are temperatures changing", the issue is "is this caused by human behavior" and there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I think perhaps you understate the issue, or just don't understand what's going on here. Refer to my post on the 3 million euros given to the guy and organisation who made the claim to study the issue further. I doubt that a 2350 figure would have warranted 3 million euros. It's a happy coincidence for the researchers that this "typo" was made.
Whoever moderated this as Troll is being disingenuous in the extreme.
/. in the last 5 years or so - seems to be inhabited by
There is absolutely NOTHING troll-worthy in what amiga3D said.
See, this is what I've noticed about
people who can't subscribe to any anti-anthropogenic cuased global warming argument. So, anything
which is said against the AGW argument gets modded down.
FACT : AGW *IS* heavilly politicised.
FACT : anti-AGW arguments and reasoning appear to be met by insult,ridicule, and attempted censorship.
Honestly, people, if you can't simply argue your case for and against, in a reasonable manner, and have to
resort to insults, and censorship, then you have already lost the argument.
Probably the same way it took four years before they fixed that bug you reported in [software package of your choice].
Some of those glaciers have retreated more than 16 miles! If you want my opinion, it's very possible some of those glaciers could disappear by 2035.
Let me summarize:
Random person: Hey, Scientists! You're wrong!
Scientist: How exactly? Do you have any evidence?
Random person: Look! They're not being scientific because they don't research my claims!
*Far, far away, the scientist suddenly face-palms, and doesn't quite know why*
^---[citation needed] YES they are bad. ANY and ALL scientific pieces of work should be able to stand up on the merits of their reserach and reasoning alone. Yes, scientists are also human and have human emotions - but as soon as they resort to insult they bring themselves down to the level of this alledged unscientific criticism, and hence open themselves up to doubt in the listener's mind.
And the great thing is that the lies and deceit are now in the public domain and next to NO LEGISLATURE will enact the Alice in Wonderland these crooks wanted.
This is the Club of Rome, Act 2.
When the speculators had the oil price at USD 168, the IOCs were making a profit at USD 22.50.
I approve of looking for alternative energy sources, but geothermal, fusion and solar MUST be made to work, far too little money is spent on geothermal, which is effectively infinite and the same is true on fission and both are not even science but engineering. If these were targeted effectively then we could afford to synthesise hydrocarbons and this boring nonsense could go away.
Let me add that the REAL solution is to get into space, so all our eggs are not in one fragile basket, and I am pleased people like Hawking firmly agree. If the UK government had either sense or balls they would ask someone like the emeritus Lucasian Professor at Cambridge to look into Phil Jones and Mann's calculations.
True science is self-correcting. That is, when some scientists came in with claims based not on observation, but rather the need to satisfy certain political and financial agendas, they should have been shut down immediately.
It should never have gotten to the point where it is now, where absolutely pathetic mistakes like this are made.
Then again, science and the UN are complete orthogonal to one another. The UN is the epitome of pure political bullshit, while science should be absolutely apolitical. A body like the UN should never have any involvement with science, because their methods are completely contradictory to those of science.
Nice try, but you have it completely wrong.
...ad nauseum...
Let me pick a random website to cite an example...
www.climateaudit.org
<climateaudit> Hey guys, I noticed something a bit weird about your figures - here's what's weird...
<Scientists> PREPOSTEROUS! LIES! DENIER! SCUMBAG! IDIOT! MORON!
<climateaudit> Er, ok. Lemme recheck..... yep gone over the figures again. Say, could you send me the raw data you used for your research?
<Scientists> DENIER! DENIER! LIES! I"D RATHER ERASE ALL THE RAW DATA THAN SEND IT TO SCUM LIKE YOU!
The IPCC calling this FUD a "typo" is like Hillary Clinton saying that she "misspoke" when she made up a story about running from sniper fire in Bosnia.
Someone should take back the Nobel prize from Al Gore (he should not be difficult to track down, just look for a big SUV, for a private Jet or for a mansion that needs a dedicated power plant).
lucm, indeed.
Correction of errors is what separates science from religion.
But I wonder if the press will tell people this strengthens the case, not weakens it? (ie. evidence was scrutinized and corrected)
No sig today...
The general population isn't as stupid as you think you are.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
As a resident of Nepal, I can tell you we don't believe these reports anyway. In a city where there are more NGOs per captia then people (a slight exaggeration), it's easy to see what the business is all about anyway. For example, why has WWF Nepal gone from protecting Rhinos and Dolphins to protecting the "climate"? Follow the money trail...
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
simplistic i know but it has to make you think maybe they have it wrong?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
And you think your maths and computer knowledge makes you an expert on climate change ?
For the record i have a comp science degree, it has nothing to do with climate change, i dont believe it makes my opinion any more qualified than the next person.
I know enough about science to give scientists the benefit of the doubt, i believe them unless i have a reason not to.
There is nothing wrong with being sceptical. There is something wrong with being sceptical and ignorant, demanding that other people conveniently show you the truth in a manner you request.
I tell you what, if they come to me and tell me I have to pay umteen thousands of dollars a year to follow the agenda of the environ whackos, they better have it fucking laid out song and verse and if I have questions they damned well better not call me names. If the don't and then do, they and you can go fuck yourself.
For that matter, before they try the bullshit cap and trade, they should be advocating nuclear energy. Because if everything they say is true, that is the only way out. Not fucking windmills or wave generators. Not solar or geothermal. The fact that they are not advocating this and want us to live in the fucking stone age means they are probably gaming the whole thing.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.
Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called "crackpot" by the IPCC. So in fact there were other groups that pointed it out, but as is par for the course with AGW any questioning, no matter how scientific, is treated as heresy and ridiculed. Which leads to to wonder what other views currently being labeled as "crackpot" are actually just as valid.
Just how and why do you think the IPCC admitted to this error? It's not because they did any research into the claim themselves beyond the initial production, they had to be shown the door and then led through it. It was only when the embarrassment could not be contained further they were forced to make a statement.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While peer review is better than unquestioned authority, it does have a remarkable blind side. The adage of mutual back-scratching and the fox guarding the hen house is all too appropriate.
The problem is that genuinely independent review of science is hard to come by. Consider for example how science treats dissenters such as Michael Behe. When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution, he's villified as a creationist. And the interesting part is that his objections are entirely scientific, which incenses the Darwinists even more. Instead of pointing out that his critical analysis makes evolutionary biology a better, more rigorous discipline, his university publishes a disclaimer against him.
The IPCC scandal and Behe controversies have illustrated quite clearly that modern science is more about consensus than critical thought. While I agree that science *can* provide us with solutions to environmental problems of today and tomorrow, I'm wise enough to realize that it *often* fails to do so for reasons which have nothing to do with science.
People are starting to realize that calling something "science" doesn't make it true, nor does it make it science.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I am pro-AGW in the same manner as I am pro-evolutionary biology, pro-heliocentric theory and pro-general/special relativity. The evidence that we have very strongly supports these scientific theories.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
If you can sort of wade through the homophobia and hatred of former American colonies, he's right: you will soon be charged the full price for your lifestyle. You're going to live in a smaller dwelling and I doubt everyone will be driving a 6 liter V8. Red meat will be very expensive because it uses an enormous amount of water and staple crops to generate, which will really get expensive once it's not legal to pollute local waterways to the point where they create thousands of square miles of deadzones in the ocean. There will probably be an international treaty on overpopulation, since that's the number one threat to long term human survival.
If this sounds like hell to you, hop in your El Camino, crank up the Metallica, and head to McBurgerndy's-Fil-A-Bell. Buy three triple whopper chicken bacon cheese towers, a SuperJumbo Coke, a sixty ounce curly mayonnaise french fry bucket, and of course thirty dozen cinnamon twisters. (Don't forget your blood sugar! Your kidney dialysis isn't until next week.) Stuff two of the burgers into your mouth, gorge on the fries and the cinnamon treats until you feel like you're about to vomit, and what the hell, pour half the soda all over your head to soak in the corn syrup and caffeine. Hit the highway at rush our, breathe in the smog, gaze in awe of the faint outline of bank and insurance buildings, and while you sit thinking about how awesome Lars Ulrich is and how they can't ever top Unforgiven: The Threequel, spike the last burger on your erection for the God Damn American Way of Life. Take a good look in the mirror. As a single tear unsuccessfully tries to crest your fat cheek, remember this moment for the poor future generations who will never have it this good.