Bidisha Banerjee and George Collins have written the definitive account of the error in the WG2 report about Himalayan glaciers:
Dozens of articles and analyses of this situation, whether dashed-off blog posts or New York Times coverage, exhibit a curious consistency. Not a single article or analysis appears to include all relevant issues without introducing at least one substantial error. It's as though the original documents contained a curse which has spread to infect every commentator and reporter. The curse seems to stem from not reading sources carefully (or at all), which, ironically, was the IPCC Working Group II's central failing, and also a major issue in the documents that were the basis of the defective paragraph.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Newspapers such as the London Times are reporting that the IPCC is about to retract something from the AR4 WG2 report:
A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
The claim was indeed wrong. John Nielsen-Gammon has written a…
This is my first contribution for "Ask Stoat", and I'm doing it because it is low hanging fruit :-). I was going to do the even lower-hanging "airbourne fraction" but that will come. This is for Brian.
So, the issue is in the news because of the 2350 / 2035 kerfuffle, and links to Brian's other…
Imagine, if you will, that the emails stolen from CRU had included fawning comments from an MSM journalist to a climate scientist like this:
As a veteran member of the MSM (Vanity Fair and the UK's Mail on Sunday) may I state for the record: Sir, I salute you. Bravo!
or this:
without Steve's…
There have been new developments in the Rosegate, the scandal about the way David Rose sexed up his story about the IPCC and the Himalayan glaciers. Andrew Revkin has posted an email from Murari Lal, the scientist that Rose verballed:
I am not a Glaciologist but a Climatologist and the statement…
Because it seems like when you get down to it, the UN/IPCC is a political org, so they play games with things so as to appease the right people politically, and make back-room deals etc. which is not a good thing to do when you are trying to present science. The UN seems to screw up everything, so maybe it's time for national groups/funding/research orgs to present the science without the UN trying to wrap it all up and do the usual political games.
Carl,
Try here:
well, yeah, but the point being the UN declares itself the final word on global warming, and they've done at best a real cock-up of a job (presumably because they have to appease politicians, scientists, and politician/scientists).
Carl,
You mean like the Bush Administration insisting on the appointment of a railroad engineer as chief administrator with the expectation he would be favorably biased to the fossil fuel industry? Quite the cock-up that turned out to be.