Here's yet more evidence of the IPCC's fraud and incompetence from U.S. News and World Report. IPCC's Himalayan Glacier 'Mistake' No Accident Posted: January 25, 2010 By Janet Raloff, for Science News' Science & the Public Blog A London newspaper reported yesterday that the unsubstantiated Himalayan-glacier melt figures contained in a supposedly authoritative 2007 report on climate warming were used intentionally, despite the reportâs lead author knowing there were no data to back them up. Until now, the organization that published the report â the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change â had argued the exaggerated figures in that report were an accident: due to insufficient fact checking of the source material. Uh, no. It now appears the incident wasnât quite that innocent. The Sunday Mailâs David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC reportâs chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the reportâs claim that Himalayan glaciers â the source of drinking and irrigation water for downstream areas throughout Asia â could dry up by 2035. Said Lal: âWe thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.â In other words, Rose says, Lal âlast night admitted [the scary figure] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.â A noble motive, perhaps, but totally inexcusable. Science collects lots of tidbits â data, factoids, apparent correlations, syntheses of trends and more. The whole purpose of peer review is to limit the likelihood that biases, misinterpretations and outright errors of fact are sanctified as real. Peer review canât eliminate errors and bias, but it works hard to minimize the chance that they will creep into the âknowledge baseâ that guides further research and political action. The IPCC report was supposed to reflect only peer-reviewed science. Not the speculation of scientists, which the initial source of that 2035 figure (Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain) recently acknowledged it was. Nor should magazine articles or gray literature reports â like the World Wildlife Fund document that repeated the speculative 2035 figure â become the foundation for IPCC conclusions. Which is why IPCC specifically prohibits reliance on such documents. If Lal knowingly perpetuated unsubstantiated speculation in a purportedly authoritative document, that would constitute what we in journalism refer to as a âhanging offenseâ â the kind of action that gets you fired or at least heavily sanctioned. Moreover, the new Rose story also charges that the âWWF article [from which the 2035 date was picked up] also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres.â Oops. The Rose article also charges that Lalâs committee didnât investigate challenges to glacier data in its chapter -- challenges made by climate scientists prior to the IPCC report's publication. Iâll be the first to acknowledge that I donât know for certain what Lal and his team did or didnât do. Journalism is not peer review. But our reporting can help policy makers and scientists know where further investigation is warranted. And itâs warranted here. If further investigation confirms that what Rose reported today is true, then Lal â and, through him, the IPCC â would have abrograted the public trust. And stupidly given ammunition to those who have made a sport of challenging solid climate science. Glaciers globally are melting. In some cases, precipitously. And people living downstream are already not only seeing but also feeling the effects. How bad the situation is needs further study. Soon. Not the scoff of people who challenge the idea of global warming because it may be politically, intellectually or economically inconvenient. At the United Nations Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen, last month, IPCC chairman R.K. Pachauri noted that the next wholesale assessment of climate data and projections â a follow-up to IPCCâs 2007 Fourth Assessment report â is now underway. Letâs hope Pachauri and the rest of the IPCC respond to the Himalayan glacier fiasco and explain promptly how they plan to safeguard the new review from attempts by scientists to seed it with similar well-meaning but ill-conceived conclusions. Non-peer-reviewed conclusions that undermine â perhaps disastrously â the credibility of IPCC and climatology generally. http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/25/ipccs-himalayan-glacier-mistake-no-accident.html
Yup, it's a reprint of "public blog", (!) and has already been contradicted by the person who was supposedly quoted. On to the next falsehood, Trader666! (Don't slow down now, I think you're gaining traction!) UN scientist refutes Daily Mail claim he said Himalayan glacier error was politically motivated "He said these were âthe most vilest allegationsâ and denied that he ever made such assertions. He said âI didnât put it [the 2035 claim] in to impress policymakersâ¦. We reported the facts about science as we knew them and as was available in the literature.â He told me: Our role was to bring out the factual science. The fact is the IPCC has been very conservative. Note that Science News repeats the charge âthat Lalâs committee didnât investigate challenges to glacier dataâ but does not bother to repeat Lalâs assertion in the Daily Mail piece â which he made again to me â that he never saw any challenges to the glacier data. Certainly enough charges and counter charges have been made on this specific point that it should be looked into, but simply asserting it doesnât make it true." "Lal said to me, âI was a lead author for the second assessment, third assessment, and fourth assessment and this is the first time in my life that Iâve been attacked like this.â http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/...-2035-ipcc-mistake-not-politically-motivated/
I'm sure you can find a libtarded blog or website to attack anyone and anything that makes the IPCC or global warming look bad. Global warming hoaxers and their pawns (like you) are as relentless and dishonest as the libtards who cry "racism" every time there's a Tea Party rally. Or Obama who touts his "recovery" even though he harshly criticized Bush for creating a "jobless recovery" the month that 334,000 new jobs were created and unemployment was 5.8%. Speaking of hypocrites, you still haven't refuted this: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2975870#post2975870 Even if the Daily Mail got this wrong -- and I'm not saying they did -- the IPCC is still at the very least incompetent based on its Himalayan glacier fiasco. Or would you try to dispute that too?
Well they did play unfairly -- they actually phoned the guy and asked if he said this nonsense. LOL. That's like saying "Even IF the New York Post got this wrong..." There's nothing to refute. Nowhere on that slide does it refer to "consensus." And if by "Himalayan glacier fiasco" you're referring to the one wrong number on page 493 of volume 2, that's pretty darn funny. What's your next falsehood that needs to be shot down? This is like shooting clay pigeons.
What's really funny is your shameless, biased shilling for the IPCC and the global warming hoax. The Himalayan glacier fiasco was a DEVASTATING blow to the IPCC whether or not the mistake was politically motivated. Your failure to acknowledge this simple fact only proves what a disingenuous pawn you are. Which is further confirmed by your "dismissal" of this: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2975870#post2975870 because you can't dispute it. Hulme's "2500" figure obviously came from the IPCC and it's laughable to pretend otherwise. But what else would we expect from the libtard who calls himself "extremely fiscally conservative" yet also writes "so far, so good on the Democrats' budget."
Hey, I'm a very INGENIOUS pawn! (And ad homs won't help you escape the burning fire of daylight that I'm subjecting you to.) Although you haven't convinced me that one incorrect number hundreds of pages in in volume two, about a topic not even covered in detail in volume 2, but that was covered accurately in volume one without any typos, is important. I'm sure you'll explain why though. Why wouldn't the "2500" figure come from the IPCC? His objection, and it really would behoove you to read some of this stuff, was that consensus wasn't a good goal in certain subtopics, as it could be too conservative, or overemphasize the unanimity of opinion about certain subtopics in the report. You calling him a liar just made it that much easier for me to destroy your position. So what's the next falsehood you'd like to try and propagate?
I'm not going to state my opinion on this one way or another. I will say that those who say there is no global warming whenever we have a cold season or even a few cold years in a row don't understand the concept of a trend. There are always dips and drawbacks during a trend in either direction. So, we won't know whether there is or isn't global warming until the trend clearly goes one way or the other. So, if the average temperature starts to rise again, after the dip we might be in now, and passes the previous record high avg temp, there is clearly a warming trend. Otherwise, maybe not.
According to NASA, the hottest year in 120 years was 1998. Then it was surpassed by 2002, the new hottest year on record. Then it was surpassed by 2003. Then It was surpassed by 2005. Then 2006 was the second warmest year on record, tied with 2007. Then 2009 tied 2007 for second warmest ever.
LMAO!!!! The only thing you've burned with the "fire of daylight" is your credibility by writing stupid shit that exposes you as a total dumbass. For example (and I could fill a page with links exposing your stupidity): http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2974933&#post2974933 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2975097#post2975097 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2975117#post2975117 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2974562#post2974562 Oh please...Pachauri has been eviscerated and there have been countless calls for his resignation... the IPCC has lost credibility, and the whole global warming fraud has been for all practical purposes put on ice. Even AlJazeera is criticizing Pachauri and the IPCC. You claim you like logic but as we've seen you're not very good at it so let me help you out. You just made my point. Pachauri bragged about "+2500 scientific expert reviewers" for almost three years yet only had the consensus of a few dozen which gave the illusion of a much larger consensus for IPCC's liberal bullshit, without actually having to reach it. It's called misrepresentation and is one of the many reasons why Pachauri and the IPCC have lost so much credibility. Except with kooks and pawns like you.
Well you certainly can fill the screen. Wow, al Jazeera. Would that be the "Al Jazeera of Climatology?" Oh right, they don't have a journal of climatology because they're not climatologists. Will you cite the National Enquirer next? What about the Weekly World News? What does Batboy say about it? You really should read some of the links that I post sometime. You don't even understand what the "few dozen" was referring to (no, it wasn't at all referring to a "consensus" "for [the] IPCC", but that each sub topic was vetted by a few dozen experts in each field.) Anyway, don't get bogged down in details like what people were actually writing about, or details such as accuracy in newspaper articles -- post another falsehood. They're always fun, and it's a lot of fun to just post quotes from the actual scientists involved which refute you.