The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
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 said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
Money quote:
‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.
Daily Mail strikes again. The “2035” was actually a typo – should have read “2350”. Do your own research. (Note: Reading FoxNews does not count as “research”).
hey guys, I saw a UFO just now. Seriously! Oh, and it was carrying John Travolta’s Scientology loving dead kid. Creepy.
#35
I believe that is an oxymoron. How can you do research from Fox when they haven’t even done it themselves?
OMG, another sighting. Guess what this time…it’s the man himself, holy fcking Jesus. Here look at my poop, see it? Here, closer, closer…ah, he loves you because a part of him is on the tip of your tongue now!
You luck SOB ><! Damn you Jesus, I found you…I own you. Still haven't gotten as close as some of you had already ;_;
I suppose once all the existing research is looked at, this time through real peer reviews, we’ll find all that data these warmers are spouting as fact will indeed be shown to be nonsense.
Interesting, isn’t it, that this was one of the “data points” warmers pointed to as “proof.” Now, it’s “just because this and the dozen other things were false doesn’t mean the rest is.”
Re: #31 Alarmist, “Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.
‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.”
I wonder why you think that statement supports your statement, “The fact remains the glaciers are retreating.”
The rate at which the glaciers are retreating have been exaggerated by 25 times. The Professor can only offer an educated guess that there will be “somewhat” less ice. Where’s the science in any of that?
Besides, there still isn’t any conclusive proof that CO2 is causing a “greenhouse effect”. There is the lack of scientific understanding on how CO2 affects the atmospheric transfer of heat through ‘feedbacks’. The IPCC has admitted this by stating:
QUOTE from the IPCC AR4 report, end of section 8.6 entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:
“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”
#40, Denier,
I wonder why you think that statement supports your statement, “The fact remains the glaciers are retreating.”
Several reasons. The first you posted. Your own quote (from the article) refers to the melting glaciers. The issue being the rate.
The second is found in the actual report of concern. The accompanying chart shows the Himalayan glaciers to be retreating.
The third is that glaciers have been retreating worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Glacier_retreat_and_disappearance
Again, the question is still a matter of when, not if.
Re: #41, Alarmist, I was referring to the topic at hand… that the Himilayan glaciers are not melting in any dramatic way… if at all.
Regarding other glacier retreats, some are are obviously retreating because of warmer temperatures in those areas, others have retreated even though temperatures have become colder. The dispute comes from whether CO2 is the culprit, or natural causes or both. There is conflicting, and lack of, scientific evidence on the causes.
But even so, there are many glaciers in the world that are advancing as well. So the situation on glaciers isn’t as dire as one may think. It’s just like the polar bear scare. Numbers have been increasing in this climate, not decreasing…. by a factor of 500% since 1950.
…um that should have read “by a factor of 5” OR “by 500%”. Don’t want you to think I’m dummy. 🙂
#43, Denier,
ha ha, ha, who, me think you are a dummy???
Actually I appreciate a well framed argument. Even though you’re mistaken in a lot of your comments, I appreciate debating skill.
But you’re still wrong
😉
#42, Denier,
, Alarmist, I was referring to the topic at hand… that the Himalayan glaciers are not melting in any dramatic way… if at all.
Well, try this,
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/himalayan_glaciers_to_disappea.php
Table 10.9 of the IPCC Report shows the physical retreat of Himalayan Glaciers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html
Although there are more links available, I don’t want to post them as the “spam filter” holds the post.
?? Alarmist?? Your quoted paragraph supports my opinion… the rate of perceived retreat is so low that it’s meaningless. A glacier can move to and fro within the ‘guess’ outlined in that paragraph… 1km in 200 years. It’s meaningless.
As for the IPPC report you refer to… THAT”S the one where they used the non peer reviewed, unverified data of Dr. Murari. That’s what the shame is all about? So why are you quoting it? It’s garbage. Live with it until someone actually does a proper scientific analysis.
Face it, the IPCC and senior climate scientists have made asses of themselves, a sham of all the data analysis to date, and a loss of credibility of every report to date. I don’t trust ANY of it now, unless a scientist outside the circle of alarmist manipulators verifies it first. I’m going to have to refer to you as a ‘denier alarmist’ after this. It’s just incredible to me that you can’t see what’s going on.
#46, Denier,
A glacier can move to and fro within the ‘guess’ outlined in that paragraph… 1km in 200 years.
Actually no. You miss the part about temperature declining vertically and the fact that glaciers travel almost horizontally. A glacier can travel a hundred kilometers horizontally to descend one km vertically. Of course, not all glaciers are the same, however, at lower altitudes glaciers are generally flatter.
The chart in the IPCC report is NOT contested. Those are actual measurements.
Re: Denier Alarmist : “The chart in the IPCC report is NOT contested. Those are actual measurements.”
Wrong! You obviously didn’t bother to even read the article. The IPCC got it’s figures from Dr. Lal’s source… which was WRONG. Do you understand that word? WRONG. That’s why the IPCC report WAS contested by Graham Cogley. Read below…
“The WWF article 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 – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
AND…
“Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim [IN THE 2007 IPCC REPORT] multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.”
AND…
“But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’
AND…
“One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’
AND…
“Environmentalist Alton Byers said the panel’s credibility had been damaged. ‘They’ve done sloppy work,’ he said. ‘We need better research on the ground, not unreliable predictions derived from computer models.”
So you can continue to DENY the sordid truth about all the IPCC and related scandals, and continue on your ALARMIST path, or you can get real, and stop supporting corruption within the ranks of pseudo science. Up to you.
#48, denier,
Sources please.
Nothing you just posted suggests that WGII, Table 10.9 is incorrect. You are now being disingenuous. If you can’t disprove the table than STFU.
FYI, the only point of contention was the rate the glaciers were receding. The date of 2035 was shown to be completely unsubstantiated. The actual rates of receding as shown in Table 10.9 are just repeating measurements. Unless you have your measurements, …
#49, Mr. Denier Alarmist, The source (not sources) of ALL my quotes are from the article attached to this topic… that you never bothered to read. The article in turn has stated it’s sources which you can follow up, if you cared about diligence at all.
The rates of receding in table 10.9 are completely unsubstantiated. The boasting I’ve been subject to that IPCC reports are based on peer reviewed literature is bogus. The fact that this wasn’t peer reviewed “was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.” Considering the number of people who missed this basic requirement, don’t you think they have missed others? No, not you, LOL.
AND, the article that they took their data from had more than the date wrong. “The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier [Pindari Glacier] was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.” So is chart 10.9 correct Mr. Osterich?
Look at the chart again, and then tell me if I’m wrong.
Cogley raised a question of accuracy. He did not dispute the glaciers were receding. If you have any evidence that the glaciers in Table 10.9 are incorrect then you should post that information. They are based upon actual measurements, not prognostication.
In case you were unaware, and judging by your comments, you are, this is part of the peer review procedure. The issue being raised here were to have been reviewed according to IPCC standards. Every editor can only assume that the various authors have in fact done their homework. That this didn’t happen is a blight on all those involved in the Reports.
Those in the scientific community understand no one likes a cheater. Those involved with this misconception will have their careers very tarnished. They will not be trusted again. That, however, does not diminish the accuracy of the rest of the Reports or the work done by other scientists.
The article also editorializes that the East Anglia email theft was a tarnish. It wasn’t. No reputable scientist has offered that the ONE email claiming a “TRICK” is anything but honorable. Only ignorant wing nuts that have no concept of what it means are suggesting it is wrong.
Nothing in this article has demonstrated global warming is not an issue or that glaciers, worldwide, are not retreating.
Denier,
The next time you put something in quotes you might reference where you got the quote from. Even when it is from the above article. I did read the article the day it was posted here. I’ve done a lot and read a lot since.
Mr. Delusion re:The article also editorializes that the East Anglia email theft was a tarnish. It wasn’t. No reputable scientist has offered that the ONE email claiming a “TRICK” is anything but honorable.
That is just BS. There were way more than one email with questionable ethics. The one you pointed out was just given the most attention. You can easily review them by googling.
The Scientists at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public… but they are unable to lay charges because 6 months have passed. Too bad. Today’s news…
Also, I already posted the information on how the Pindari Glacier in table 10.9 is wrong. Professor Graham Cogley discovered the error (my post 48, first quoted reference. Here’s another related story.
UN climate report riddled with errors on glaciers
AND I did state my source. I said that you didn’t bother to read the article and then proceeded to quote from it.
You need to do more research, and not just the ass-kissing kind. Deny, deny, deny all you like… the situation with credibility and AGW is much worse than you pretend it is. This isn’t going away any time soon.
When someone tells me to “google something” I know they are full of crap.
As for the Timesonline, it is just another Murdoch rag. Don’t you have any scientific journals or sites you can use?
Your second link fails to condemn the email thefts. it does state,
However, a number of scientists, including some critics of the IPCC, said the mistakes do not invalidate the main conclusion that global warming is without a doubt man-made and a threat.
The mistakes were found not by skeptics like Michaels, but by a few of the scientists themselves, including one who is an IPCC co-author.
The report in question is the second of four issued by the IPCC in 2007 on global warming. This 838-page document had chapters on each continent. The errors were in a half-page section of the Asia chapter. The section got it wrong as to how fast the thousands of glaciers in the Himalayas are melting, scientists said.
“It is a very shoddily written section,” said Graham Cogley, a professor of geography and glaciers at Trent University in Peterborough, Canada, who brought the error to everyone’s attention. “It wasn’t copy-edited properly.”
… snip …
Still, Cogley said: “I’m convinced that the great bulk of the work reported in the IPCC volumes was trustworthy and is trustworthy now as it was before the detection of this mistake.” He credited Texas state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon with telling him about the errors.
However, Colorado University environmental science and policy professor Roger Pielke Jr. said the errors point to a “systematic breakdown in IPCC procedures,” and that means there could be more mistakes.
A number of scientists pointed out that at the end of the day, no one is disputing the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking.
“What is happening now is comparable with the Titanic sinking more slowly than expected,” de Boer said in his e-mail. “But that does not alter the inevitable consequences, unless rigorous action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is taken.”
What I have been saying.
Mr. Delusion, re: “What I have been saying.”
Well, no it isn’t. The chart data in 10.9 remains incorrect, and you can’t admit you were wrong about that.
The story on Timesonline is repeated on a lot of other sites with various approaches. Take your pick.
You google things all the time, so by your own reckoning are you full of crap all the time?
This is going nowhere. You still think I’m a denier and I still think you are gullible (only where the IPCC and AGW is concerned, ok?).
Honestly, I can tell you are a decent guy through your other posts, as are most of the DU gang. So all jabs aside, have a good weekend.
Really. 😉
Denier,
The story on Timesonline is repeated on a lot of other sites with various approaches.
Just because 50 billion flies eat shit because one said it was tasty doesn’t mean we should all eat it. All those that parrot the TimesOnLine crap are crap themselves. For the most part they care more about denying global warming than they do with tweaking the nose of those believing the science.
You google things all the time, so by your own reckoning are you full of crap all the time?
Very true, I do use Google quite often. When I want to learn something. I also use it when I am searching for something to make a point with. BUT, if YOU are making a point don’t expect me to do your work for you. If you believe Table 10.9 to be in error then YOU give some proof it is wrong. Don’t just say it and when challenged tell me to look it up.
You have a good weekend too.
8)