The New Scientist magazine has asked the IPCC to explain how a speculative statement that most scientists disagree with became an IPCC "finding" that has been vigorously defended by the IPCC chairman. The statement has led to a large number of factually incorrect claims, such as found in the article pictured above from the Daily Mail. See the image below from the New Scientist, courtesy Bishop Hill.
I discussed this situation last month in a post in which I argued that the problem here is not that the IPCC made a mistake. That is just troubling. The greater problem is how the IPCC has responded to having a mistake pointed out:In the case of melting glaciers in the Himalayas, the IPCC 2035 claim has led to, in Nielsen-Gammen's words, an egregious mistake becoming "effectively common knowledge that the glaciers were going to vanish by 2035." Like the common (but wrong) knowledge on disasters and climate change that originated in the grey literature and was subsequently misrepresented by the IPCC, on the melting of Himalayan glaciers the IPCC has dramatically misled policy makers and the public.Unfortunately, the glacier error is not unique. The IPCC contains a number of other egregious errors that also deserve some answers.
That the IPCC has made some important mistakes is very troubling, but perhaps understandable given the magnitude of the effort. Its reluctance to deal with obvious errors is an even greater problem reflecting poorly on an institution that has become too insular and politicized.
21 comments:
In the first sentence, should "because and" be "became an"?
-1-roa
Thanks, fixed
It's worse. Pachauri even attacked recent research that disagreed with the received "wisdom".
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/pachauri-calls-indian-govt-report-on-melting-himalayan-glaciers-as-voodoo-science_100301232.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers
The defensive behavior of the IPCC on the dyslectic glacier melting date is consistent with their “never give an inch” approach revealed in the Climategate e-mails. It’s also consistent with their pervasive appeal to authority arguing style. If the hockey team starts admitting errors they cannot be considered the “trusted authority”.
However; consistent makes me curious not convinced.
Don't forget the ridiculous claims about mosquitos and malaria. Lots that's sloppy. Lots that's silly. If it was about science, it would be fixed.
Political campaigns, however, don't work that way.
Proof by circular reference is a problem.
I'm a volunteer in a small group that tracks the capabilities of a certain countries Army. Last week we believed we had received confirmation for a piece that we hadn't been able to really nail down to 'fact'. After reviewing the sources for the confirmation, they were all using our estimates as sources.
Proof by circular reference is not proof.
Unfortunately, in many areas circular reference occurs. Climate Science is in no way immune.
It's part of human nature and needs to be guarded against.
I would note..with no disrespect intended or malignant intent implied that the preceding post references a work referencing the author of the preceding post.
I believe in the context of this post, the "Himalayan Glacier" myth is the result of a typographic error. Those seeking 'confirmation' of their theories failed to go thru even the most cursory inspection of the source of the data. Once it was published in a 'respected source' it became part of a circular proof.
And I believed it when the IPCC told us they were perfect and their reports were error free because they followed the most strict peer review process.
Well I'll be darned if a "little" oopsie hasn't slipped through their perfection facade.
You cannot expect a man to see the real world when his job, income, and family security depends on his not seeing it.
Cut the funding of the IPCC and you will lift the veil from their vision.
Not to be outdone by the IPCC, NASA claims the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2030!!!
Yes, 5 years before the 2035 date of IPCC!
"Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, an may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030"
This is from http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ , about halfway down the page. This is used by NASA as part of the "evidence" of anthropogenic global warming.
The reference NASA gives is IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, pp 5,7.
So NASA takes what appears to be a bogus statement by IPCC, one that might be a transposition of dates from 2350 to 2035 and adds in their own error by changing the date to 2030. Amazing.
I have been in contact with the owner of these webpages several times since last August with a tiny bit of success in correcting errors, but it seems like an endless task.
And well they might, since when I followed this up a month ago, the earliest citation of it was in New Scientist In fact the WWF paper cites the New Scientist piece as a secondary source.
"Oh, hey, look over there! Squirrels!"
Many climate reports use weasel words such as "may", "might", "could", "up to", "probably" etc. In many cases it would be equally correct to say "may not", "might not", etc. to produce the opposite meaning. It's called spin.
In this case of course the incompetents in the IPCC just made a major blunder.
BTW: I "might" die in a traffic accident tomorrow, or have a heart attack. So why should I worry about global warming?
And the Sunday Times, here in the UK, is also covering the same story ..
Again:
If there is no great climate calamity, then regulating CO2 will not prevent a calamity.
The use by NASA of this error shows that the IPCC is not used, as they claim their mission is, to simply summarize the best of the science on climate.
As Harrywr2 points out, it is a circular process that feeds on itself.
Sort of like a snowball.
Bah...it's all "Voodo Science".
Pachauri has a vast interest in the research of the meltdown of the Himalayan glaciers. His TERI institute received a €3Mio grant from the EU for this project called "High Noon".
My estimate it'll be soon Hig Noon for the good doctor, as more and more examples are being revealed about his financial escapades in Big Climate.
I'm sorry but I can't take any protestations by New Scientist seriously. This is a pro warming magazine that is firmly on the side of the IPCC. Their bleating doesn't ring true.
Von Storch thinks that due to this Pachauri should resign. See the comments section (3rd comment)at his blog (Melting glaciers?)
Oh please. "New Scientist" wants an explanation?? New Scientist is a barely disguised monologue for AGW agenda. A rather pathetic excuse for a magazine. Certainly not a scientific one.
Re my Charlie #9:
NASA has removed their previous statement about Himalayan Glaciers likely to disappear by 2030 (they moved forward the already erroneous 2035 date by another 5 years). Now as evidence of "climate change" they have a picture of the disappearing snowfield of Mt. Kilimanjaro with the text "Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa."
----------------------------
I'm also have submitted to NASA an inquiry as to how they justify on their "evidence" webpage:
"Global surface air temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Celsius (almost one and a half degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century, but at twice that amount in the past 50 years."
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
I doubt that they really mean to say that the global temperature went up 1.5C in the last 50 years. Even the claim that the rate-of-rise has doubled is not supported by the facts.
---
After 3 days I finally received the response "I've forwarded your question to a scientist at the lab who reviewed this section prior to posting and am awaiting his response."
-------------------------------------
Meanwhile, NASA HQ is overdue on the response to my December 7th appeal of their rejection of portions of another Request for Correction that I submitted last August. NASA has a problem with both getting their facts straight and a problem in complying with even simple administrative rules that they themselves wrote on how requests for correction and appeals would be handled.
The above mentioned error, its correction, and additional errors in the climate.nasa.gov set of webpages are being discussed at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/nasa-climate-page-suckered-by-ipcc-deletes-a-moved-up-glacier-melting-date-reference/
At the risk of becoming irritatingly repetitive, I have been recommending that persons finding errors use the available feedback links to request corrections, and if the corrections are not made, then to follow up with a formal Request for Correction per the Information Quality Guidelines.
In "the IPCC and melting of Himalayan glaciers" hot topic I find no mention of the "gates of hell" - a horrifying event of 1971. I am surprised because the location of that event is close to Himalay. I contacted the IPCC a few months back, but have not received any response from the same. Readers can visit the following link to see the photo of that event and my comment, 13914.
http://quinncreative.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/the-gates-of-hell-in-tajikistan/
It should be noted that The Daily Mail quickly followed-up when this story broke. They reported that "Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research."
"... Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUx6pwXe
Post a Comment