A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

This sort of stuff really pisses me off. Taking advantage of a frightened public like this is just plain wrong. The original article here and New Scientist angle here.




  1. Phydeau says:

    #32 Yes, I didn’t expect you to get it. Projecting your own arrogance and hubris on others. You are so certain of what you believe. But that’s not what science is about.

    I’ll wait until the scientific consensus is in before I draw any conclusions about AGW. You would do well to do the same, unless you’re a world-class climatologist yourself.

  2. Skeptic says:

    “Scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.

  3. Ah_Yea says:

    Heymac #33.

    You’re welcome. Those links are very informative and show definitively that the science is NOT in.

    It’s called being informed. Something people like Phydeau should learn about, instead of being a sheeple using “Scientific consensus” as an excuse to be opinionated and uninformed. Notice how Phydeau could never comment on one single link?

  4. Phydeau says:

    Looks like the sheeple disease is spreading. Good job little pedro. 🙂

    Oh, really? You could have fooled us.

    Obviously. Little pedro, you are too perfect a wingnut. I think you’re really a liberal doing a little performance art. The perfect arrogant, angry, cowardly, clueless wingnut. Beautiful work! I gotta hand it to you. 🙂

    It’s called being informed. Something people like Phydeau should learn about, instead of being a sheeple using “Scientific consensus” as an excuse to be opinionated and uninformed.

    Try a little reading comprehension, moron. I haven’t come to a conclusion about AGW. I have no strong opinions on it. I’ve heard evidence pro and con, and unlike you I don’t consider myself enough of an expert to make a judgment at this time. Capice? You’re spoilin’ for a fight with someone, obviously. Go fight with someone who is as fanatic about AGW as you are. Shoo. And take your little toady pedro with you.

  5. Mr. Fusion says:

    #32, Ah Yea,

    Quite the bullshit. Anyone can post a handfull of links and say “Read these”. Nope, it doesn’t work that way.

    If you have a point, make it. Back up your comment with a citation. It is the lazy person that expects others to do his work for him. I, for one, have no intention of reading through an article trying to find some piece of information to support YOUR point. Or not.

    Post your comment and evidence with a link and I will read it.

  6. Ah_Yea says:

    And here is the crux of your delusion, Phydeau.

    Anyone who HAS come to an informed, researched opinion to you is a wingnut.

    So everytime you call someone a wingnut, everytime you debase someone for having an informed opinion, everytime you feign to know something while proudly hiding behind your ignorance, you are spoilin’ for a fight.

    This place is called a blog, where people exchange ideas and opinions.

    Since you proudly have neither, why are you here but to insult those who do?

  7. Mr. Fusion says:

    #26, Denier,

    I find it so very amusing you accept and suggest the ramblings of a nut has greater precedence and veracity than thousands of studies and papers. So typical.

  8. Ah_Yea says:

    Oh, and Fusion. You decide to remain in ignorance. Of course if I cite a quotation, like I did in #22 without the links, you would then dispute that because I didn’t supply a supporting link.

    There are smart and reasonable people in this blog who actually want to learn something, and not be a fanatic like yourself.

    See #33 for an example of someone who is intelligent.

    Someone who decides to remain ignorant would say something stupid like “I, for one, have no intention of reading through an article”. Then to top it off, you say “Post your comment and evidence with a link and I will read it.”

    What do you think ALL of post #22 was? Sheer stupidity. Astonishing.

    Your post is both idiotic and ignorant. Pure Fusion. You state that you want citations but refuse to examine them when given to you.

    You refuse to do any work, to learn anything. You want to be spoon fed like a baby.

    I am starting to believe that you, Phydeau, and Dallas are one and the same person, or at least blog from the same insane asylum.

    You, Phydeau, Dallas, Awake, and Obamapoligist forever are getting very tiresome.

    None of you contribute anything constructive or informative.

    Let’s raise the quality of commentary on this blog and have all of you go somewhere else.

  9. Mr. Fusion says:

    Can one of you deniers explain why only the Times is covering this?

    BTW, the Times, once a great paper, is now part of Rupert Murdoch’s disinformation network.

    From the article.

    A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

    Now here is the report. Can one of you real bright deniers find where this “central claim” is?

    It is quite evident the Times got this wrong. They are attempting to make a big deal out of something we don’t know about, they used anonymous people to make a point, and belittled the authors. Maybe we could should refer to this as “Timesgate”. That should refute anything coming from them.

  10. Mr. Fusion says:

    #44, Cherman/pedro

    #44 Feeding your delusion won’t make you any better. Hasn’t your psyche told you that?

    Too funny.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 6622 access attempts in the last 7 days.