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."
Five errors from what I've read. Makes one question it all. As one should.
Global Warming's a sham and does not matter. Pollution matters. Gore and his ilk hurt the issue because they are such big polluters and hypocrites. The biggest thing Gore could do to help is stop breathing.
Yes...there it goes. I didn't even have to dispute global warming at all. Just mention something that is less than fully supportive and I'm labeled troll. All the global warming zealots out there that attack vehemently anyone that dares say they aren't fully convinced about the subject should be happy. They are the reason for the backlash in the media. Scorning and attacking with foaming mouths anyone who dares to mention that politics is involved at all in the global warming issue doesn't make the undecided think you're right. It makes them think you're crazy. Call me troll...I don' t give a shit you are your own worst enemies.
There is now just NO CHANCE of saving this self serving, lying fiasco.
... the list goes on, and on, and on. The scope of the stupidity never ends from the BBC looking for a new forecaster, since the MET is so bad, (I know I use 'eurometeo.com') to CRU writing and then loosing code that just fudges the data for a pre-wanted conclusion (ClimateGate).
The HAD-CRU (East Anglia) MET (Reading) NASA and NOAA have all been exposed as a bunch of lying, self serving innumerate jerks, whose analysis and data is fatally flawed at so many levels.
The tree-ring scam, disgarding 75% or Russian data, with no reason, the proxies, Ice cores, bad chemistry
Now some of the smarter politicians, starting with Obama, may begin to see the light and back away. What amazes me is that so many were duped for so long.
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
Um, no. You get to be viewed as an "authority" when at least some of your predictions come true.
Can anyone name one specific, numerically-quantified prediction made by IPCC researchers that has actually come to pass, by means other than obvious coincidence or luck?
TFS is a nice apology for politicaly and economically motivated bureaucrats who are keen to exagerate to sew fear.
Dont feel bad. Being in search of truth often is confused with having sold out to some evil force
When I have asked in previous posts, what about the North American glacier (you know, it was there 10,000 years ago) and the "land bridge" (actually, ice bridge) the first humans used to cross from Siberia into the Americas, I have been labelled a troll..
Im told that the "global warning" which started 10-12 thousand years ago is accelerated by human action, I ask, accelerated compared to what? How do you know what the normal comings and goings of climate bahave? And I get another troll metamod.
So I come to the conclusion that global warming, now "climate change" because it is actually not getting warmer, is the new religion and one should not question it.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
You know, I was going to mod you overrated, seeing as you're modded up because the liberal idiot group-think-bots bought into your BS. You might even buy into your BS (I suspect you do). But I'll reply instead.
/sarcasm
I think your reply, which is based on a complete fabrication, nicely shows how these movements gather steam. You see, you made something up (which was a complete lie), and because others share your viewpoint, they mod you up. So it must be true!
Hmmmm, I wonder if this happens in the "real world"....
Other ways to get to -2 are to suggest that you believe in God
Nerds (typically logical, scientific-method minded folks) not believing in a sky wizard that there is no proof of? SHOCKING!
"I'm wise enough..."
I used to think self praise was worthless, after reading your defense of a well known creationist I now believe it to be a good indicator of gullibility.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
oh dear. not this canard.
scientists with an agenda?
you sure got their number! these climate scientists are not perfect, soulless automatons. Unlike Supreme Court judges or radio talk show hosts or the british press, these men and women have biases that affect their personal judgement.
I always thought that climate scientists were chosen by a supreme entity to perform this work. But now I realize that they do climate research because they care deeply about the effects that human actions have on our planet. That concern only biases them to "discover" ways that human activity is hurting the planet. And we don't want scientists "discovering" things, do we?
You know, now that I realize they aren't perfect humans, it seems to me that this deep concern for the future of the planet we live on makes them anxious that their work be heard and understood by influential people. Considering that they believe that humans are causing catastrophic damage they are going to want their efforts to result in some sort of action. And so they might put inflammatory statements to get people to pay attention to what they're saying.
How perverse! I've never heard of such a thing!
There's really only one conclusion to draw from the use of one flawed factoid in a 2000 page report. And that is that the whole body of scientific evidence produced by thousands of accredited researchers over several decades is just a near perfect conspiracy to defrauds governments of several million dollars a year.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I'm saying that a Daily Mail "quote" is no more reliable than Fox News. Go look at their website for examples of the poor quality of their reporting, then look at the quote and see just how badly it could have been misrecorded or twisted by the Daily Mail writer.
The GP seems quite vocal in his views about Socialists supposedly pushing some agenda through global warming, and the response to it points out exactly why the political bias appears to be very deeply rooted on the right side of the political aisle in this matter -- IMO it's fair.
On American terms, I am certainly Socialist, but I sure as hell would hope that AGW didn't require countering, as that would help my "Socialist agenda" much much more. Alas, just hoping doesn't make it so. Right-wingers, as usual, turn even this issue to a chance to bash the left, oblivious to any rational evaluation of the evidence, because obviously it's a red conspiracy...
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.