Today, the IPCC has apologized for being wrong in a study from 2007 about the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035. They are apologetic, yet don’t seem to quite understand why this would reflect poorly on them. Or on the fact that it was this report that won them the Nobel Prize with Mr. Personality Al Gore. Bastards.
From CNN:
In a statement released Wednesday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said estimates relating to the rate of recession of the Himalayan glaciers in its Fourth Assessment Report were “poorly substantiated” adding that “well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly.” Despite the admission, the IPCC reiterated its concern about the dangers melting glaciers present in a region that is home to more than one-sixth of the world’s population. [...]
“Theoretically, let’s say we slipped up on one number, I don’t think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what’s happening with the climate of this earth,” he said, according to Agence France-Presse.
Here’s how these “scientists” got their numbers in the first place — an international game of telephone:
But is has recently emerged that the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers, which was based on information from a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund, was in turn gleaned from an article that appeared in the popular UK science journal, The New Scientist in June 1999. In the article, “Flooded Out,” Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain speculates that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming. A glacier expert interviewed by CNN explained that the data published was flawed.
Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service said: “There are simply no observations available to make these sorts of statements.” Zemp says that the figures quoted in the report are not possible because 500,000 square kilometers is estimated to be the total surface area of all mountain glaciers worldwide.
Now, let me share with you a few findings from the flawed 2007 Fourth Assessment Report released by the IPCC in 2007.
According to Forbes at the time of the study’s release, here is one of the main conclusions of the “study”:
Unequivocal evidence. Climate system warming is “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and a rising global mean sea level. Numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. [...]
Yep, the IPCC called their conclusions unequivocal, in part based on the glacier assessment. Let me take this opportunity to share with you the definition of unequivocal from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: un·equiv·o·calPronunciation: \ˌən-i-ˈkwi-və-kəl\Function: adjectiveDate: 1784
1 : leaving no doubt : clear, unambiguous
2 : unquestionable
All we had to do in this case was wait a few years for someone to question the numbers and notice they were wrong. Climategate is now Glaciergate. Thank goodness. I will remember that what the IPCC calls “unequivocal” one year, they might admit its “poorly substantiated” the next. Gives me hope for the future.
Related posts:
- IPCC Chairman: Flying Is Irrational (Unless You Want to Go Somewhere) Rajendra Pachauri is the homeless guy Director General of the...
- And If You Need Even More Evidence That PETA Is Stupid and Insane… More details keep coming out about their absolutely demented anti-McDonald’s...
- Pachauri Reveals the Softer, Smuttier Side of Climate Change Warning: If the mere sight of Dr. P already makes...
- Wait. The Sun Can Make Things… Warmer? I know, that doesn’t sound right to me either. Whatchoo...
- Bill Nye, Gullible Smoke-Blowing Guy A note from your friendly Oversneer: Deceiver reader “Barney Snakes”...
Unreal that it took this long for the hoax to be exposed. Speaks volumes about the IPCC’s biases. They took as gospel anything that was convenient but were fast to dicredit anyone who questioned their ‘facts’ and models. This is a religious crusade not science.
Well you have to realize that the studies from 2005 and 2007 were done while Bush was president, so they can’t be trusted.
I read that the scientist interviewed for the original article admitted that his estimate was speculation, and not actually based on any data. The data apparently indicates that the quickest melting is two to three feet a year, but the glaciers are hundreds of feet thick. Three feet times 30 years equals 90 feet melting by 2035. Hundreds minus 90 equals at least more than 100 feet left. Basic math, people!
Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1243963/UN-science-report-stated-Himalayan-glaciers-melt-25-years-guess.html
I wish that I could do my college papers the way the IPCC and “climate” scientists do theirs. Sadly, that would get me failing grades and likely expulsion for falsifying information. Pretty bad when a community college has higher standards than international and scientific communities.
So, when it was made plain that Milli Vanilli were lip-synchin’ extra-groovy fry cooks, their Grammy was yoinked. Dollars to doughnuts, though, THIS award will be allowed to stand. Bastards, indeed. But enough about the Nobel committee.
NPR was running a segment on this as I drove home today. It was such a transparent piece of damage control that I had to laugh. The ‘reporter’ (i.e., reader of talking points) and anchor commiserated with each other over the way ‘deniers’ were using this ’single mistake’ to attack AGW, and repeatedly assured listeners that ‘multiple lines’ of ‘peer-reviewed’ evidence supported the melting of the Himalayan glaciers (though the rate of melting was somehow never touched on) and that everything else in the IPCC report was perfectly reliable, being ‘peer-reviewed.’ Pure progaganda!
This is a religious crusade not science.
———————————————————-
The left and its hippie brethren have denounced all forms of religion and reverted back to paganism. That said, can I now start a campaign to eliminate the showing of “An Inconvinient Truth” from public schools, since it is about as fake as Britney Spears British accent circa 2007?
Speaking for Al Gore, “the data doesn’t matter, skeptics are not allowed to question. Oh and can I have a couple dozen cheese burgers…..”
Forget the award, I want Big Al to get up and admitt he was wrong and apologize. Milli Vanilli had to apologize remember? After Big Al we can deal with Dumb Charles. Well, naw we can wait ’til his dooms day comes and goes and then we can just laugh.
mEEE, are you EVER right. Everybody’s religious; it’s just a matter of choices. And I, for one, want THAT religion as separate from the state as all the other religions are supposed to be.
Oooh “deniers.” Oh, we are heathens. How dare we use this ONE THING to question the ethics of scientists who’ve already been shown to have altered data?! Why can’t we have more FAITH?!
Let the door-to-door climate proselytizing begin!
This makes me wonder how many climate Marranos there are out there. Probably more than we realize. I’d say we need to worry about being burned at the stake as deniers, but wouldn’t immolation mean a larger carbon footprint? Or could you buy indulgences by enduring a Sheryl “One-Sheet” Crow concert?
BEIGE IS A…wait, not witch…..SEAL-CLUBBER! BURN HER!
Now hold the phone – leave us Pagans out of this. Not all of us are gullible enough (or fluffy bunny enough) to believe that humans are able to affect the Earth by the magnitude that the global warming idiots say we do. That being said, I never believed this global warming crap. The Earth has been here long before us, will be here long after us, and everything that is going on with the weather is part of the natural cycle that we have nothing to do with. Not to mention the fact that the people who want us peons to reduce emissions do nothing to reduce their own. We’re just expected to do so in order to save the “carbon” for their jets, homes, cars, etc. This isn’t “religious” – it’s pure, unadulterated greed on the part of wealthy assholes who think that we should suffer so they can have more.
OMG. Lilly is a pagan AND a global warming denier.
My head just asploded. Someone get me a Super Soaker full of holy water!
Whoever said environmentalism is the new communism is a genius.
Peer review is only as good as the peers doing the reviewing. We now know that the peer review process is as unbiased as having my work reviewed by my family and friends.
If the environment was truly the only agenda of AGW adherents, you would think they would be be releived to know that AGW is a farce and Gaia is safe on that front. Instead they become more rabid as there mission to end capitalism and weaken western economies is exposed.
So, Lilly: Rare or well-done?
I’m a well-done sort, myself. Smoking more and enjoying it less, that sort of thing…
Lilly….I did not mean to offend any real pagans out there (I’m areligious) and yes the issue is not of “religious” nature, but you have to admit that these ultra-environmentalists behave as if it was.
Beige..are you aware that “marranos” means pigs in spanish? Why do you have to insult such a delicious magical animal in such odious evil ways?
That was entirely my point mEEEE. These environments have promoted and protected AGW with a zeal that many a religious fundamentalist would envy. It was a metaphor.
Jenn, I completely agree with your point and my point of using “paganism” as a metaphor was to equate these ultra-environmentalists with a very perverted version of earth-based spirituality. I love my planet as much as the next fella (except for Republicans if the left is to be believed), but I just dont sit well with the idea that we must revert to living like cave-dwellers in order to save the planet. Scratch that…I mean that you and I must live like cave-dwellers while the left’s elite still maintain their lifestyles….isn’t that right Mr. McMansion owning Al Hore? (typo, but I’m keeping it!)
To add to the irony, the fellow on the other end of the garbled phone conversation that started all of this now heads up a team what was awarded a $500,000 grant to study glaciers.
Clicky
So this means my soon-to-be-beach-front property in that one-yak town outside Katmandu is now totally worthless?
Damn it, I spent a whole sixteenth of a dollar on that 90 acre tract.
Hey, UN! I want my rupee back!
Sorry…Point taken. Should have said “conversos” instead.