Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    16 Aug '14 07:52
    More absurdity of the Left's "scientific" arm, dispelled...funny how it's ok for them to just make stuff up, and then get outraged when the sane fraction of the world disputes their made-up stuff.

    Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist
    • IPCC report said ice would vanish 'perhaps sooner'
    • Panel head apologises for unsubstantiated assertion
    138 comments

    An aerial view of the Siachen Glacier, which traverses the Himalayan region dividing India and Pakistan. Photograph: Channi Anand/AP
    Fred Pearce
    Wednesday 20 January 2010 17.44 EST

    One paragraph, buried in 3,000 pages of reports and published almost three years ago, has humbled the head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Facing global outcry, Rajendra Pachauri backed down and apologised today for a disputed IPCC claim that there was a very high chance the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035.

    The assertion, now discredited, was included in the most recent IPCC report assessing climate change science, ­published in 2007. Those reports are widely credited with convincing the world that human activity was causing global warming.

    But Pachauri admitted in an IPCC statement (pdf) that in this case "the clear and well-established standards of evidence required by the IPCC procedures were not applied properly", and "poorly substantiated estimates" of the speed of glacier melting had made it into print.

    Advertisement

    He had stridently defended the report in recent months. Furthermore, the Guardian has discovered the claim was questioned by the Japanese government before publication, and by other scientists.

    Pachauri's statement is a reprimand for some IPCC ­scientists involved. It is also bound to encourage critics of the panel to redouble efforts to undermine its scientific reputation. However, many scientists say evidence for man-made climate change remains compelling and note that the 2035 claim did not appear in the more widely read "summary for policymakers".

    The offending paragraph, in the panel's fourth assessment report on the impacts of climate change, said: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."

    In IPCC terminology a "very high" likelihood has a specific meaning: more than a 90% chance of coming true.

    Advertisement

    The report's only quoted source for the claim was a 2005 campaigning report from the environment group WWF. In turn, the WWF report's only source was remarks made in 1999 by a leading Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain, then vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, to journalists at two magazines, New Scientist in London, and Down to Earth in New Delhi.

    Hasnain had never submitted the suggestion of such an early demise to a scientific journal because, he said last week, it had always been "speculative". How this made it to the august pages of the IPCC report remains unclear. But the IPCC text is almost identical to that in the Down to Earth article in April 1999. WWF said today it regretted "any confusion caused" and would amend its report. The panel is yet to make a similar commitment.

    Hasnain is currently employed as a senior fellow at an Indian research institute, the The Energy and Resources Institute, whose director is Pachauri.

    Glaciologists who spoke to the Guardian say Himalayan glaciers contain so much ice it will be 300 years before it vanishes.

    The affair raises serious questions about the rigour of the IPCC's process of sifting and assessing the thousands of research findings it includes in its reports. It also raises questions about the competence of Pachauri, who angrily defended the report's conclusions about Himalayan glaciers after they were called "alarmist" last autumn by India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh.

    Pachauri accused Ramesh of relying on "voodoo science", called the minister "extremely arrogant" and said Ramesh's claims were "not peer reviewed". It is now clear that it was the panel's claims that were not reviewed. The author of the part of the panel's report, another Indian glaciologist, Murari Lal, last week defended inclusion of 2035, saying "the error if any lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion".

    Pachauri's statement repudiates that position. He said he "regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance". One person who has not spoken is the co-chairman of the impacts assessment report, Martin Parry, who was unavailable for comment. But his successor, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, said it was a powerful reminder of "carefully applying the well-established IPCC principles to every statement in every paragraph".

    "Glaciergate" has brought into the open splits between authors of the four different IPCC reports, produced every five or so years. However, Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE, said: "We should be cautious about making sweeping statements about the IPCC based on a single error."
  2. Standard member CalJust
    It is what it is
    16 Aug '14 09:10 / 2 edits
    And your point is?

    That this one error, which has been acknowledged as not having been subject to the "usual rigor of the IPCC system" , now discredits the entire field of Climate Change?

    This reminds me of a typical RJHinds post which quotes disagreement or, worse, blatant errors in one scientific paper on evolution (yes, these things happen!) which then "supports" his claim that the entire field of evolutionary science is either humbug or malicious falsification.
  3. 16 Aug '14 15:34
    Originally posted by CalJust
    And your point is?

    That this one error, which has been acknowledged as not having been subject to the "usual rigor of the IPCC system" , now discredits the entire field of Climate Change?

    This reminds me of a typical RJHinds post which quotes disagreement or, worse, blatant errors in one scientific paper on evolution (yes, these things happen!) which t ...[text shortened]... claim that the entire field of evolutionary science is either humbug or malicious falsification.
    Trying to change the subject from proven falsehood concerning global warming to evolution?

    Nice trick, I hope it doesn't work.
  4. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    16 Aug '14 17:22
    Originally posted by CalJust
    And your point is?

    That this one error, which has been acknowledged as not having been subject to the "usual rigor of the IPCC system" , now discredits the entire field of Climate Change?

    This reminds me of a typical RJHinds post which quotes disagreement or, worse, blatant errors in one scientific paper on evolution (yes, these things happen!) which t ...[text shortened]... claim that the entire field of evolutionary science is either humbug or malicious falsification.
    My points are these:

    1. "Global warming" is a fraud, foisted upon us by some scientists with very questionable credentials.

    2. These "scientists" have a long-established history of lying to perpetuate the myth of global warming.

    3. The left sees global warming as its primary tool to establish the case for transfers of wealth from industrialized nations to poor nations.
  5. 16 Aug '14 20:18
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    My points are these:

    1. "Global warming" is a fraud, foisted upon us by some scientists with very questionable credentials.

    2. These "scientists" have a long-established history of lying to perpetuate the myth of global warming.

    3. The left sees global warming as its primary tool to establish the case for transfers of wealth from industrialized nations to poor nations.
    Changing the terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" is just the latest example of moving the goal posts, to support international cooperation, or a new world order, and other schemes to eliminate national sovereignty to the advantage of certain investor classes.
  6. 19 Aug '14 03:37
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    My points are these:

    1. "Global warming" is a fraud, foisted upon us by some scientists with very questionable credentials.

    2. These "scientists" have a long-established history of lying to perpetuate the myth of global warming.

    3. The left sees global warming as its primary tool to establish the case for transfers of wealth from industrialized nations to poor nations.
    Totally agree with you my friend,, this was a fraud from the beginning.. a sad state of things when people are so easily swayed by anyone that can talk their way out of a paper bag..
  7. 19 Aug '14 12:42
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    Totally agree with you my friend,, this was a fraud from the beginning.. a sad state of things when people are so easily swayed by anyone that can talk their way out of a paper bag..
    Have you considered submitting your findings for peer review?
  8. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    19 Aug '14 13:19
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Have you considered submitting your findings for peer review?
    Step 1: Place head in paper bag
    Step 2: Start talking
    Step 3: Continue talking until bag is no more

    Repeat until result in Step 3 is statistically significant....
  9. 19 Aug '14 14:48
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    My points are these:

    1. "Global warming" is a fraud, foisted upon us by some scientists with very questionable credentials.

    2. These "scientists" have a long-established history of lying to perpetuate the myth of global warming.

    3. The left sees global warming as its primary tool to establish the case for transfers of wealth from industrialized nations to poor nations.
    "some scientists"

    wrong. most scientists is a more accurate description.


    "long-established history"
    according to whom?


    "The left sees global warming as its primary tool to establish the case for transfers of wealth from industrialized nations to poor nations."
    in order to achieve...what, exactly?
  10. 19 Aug '14 14:50
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Changing the terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" is just the latest example of moving the goal posts, to support international cooperation, or a new world order, and other schemes to eliminate national sovereignty to the advantage of certain investor classes.
    that's what you do in science, adjust to new evidence, as your understanding of a matter grows.


    you call it moving the goalposts. yes, it is much better to stick to an original opinion , no matter what the recent findings are. kinda like what you are doing.
  11. 19 Aug '14 14:55
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Trying to change the subject from proven falsehood concerning global warming to evolution?

    Nice trick, I hope it doesn't work.
    what proven falsehood? some individual made a false statement in one single case in 2010 about a claim made in 2007. you think that's enough to disprove climate change?
  12. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    19 Aug '14 21:31
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    what proven falsehood? some individual made a false statement in one single case in 2010 about a claim made in 2007. you think that's enough to disprove climate change?
    zahlanzi, where is all this supposed CO2 coming from? Can you answer that without dodging and without insulting.

    On a previous thread I asked what the temperature should be if not for mans influence and you flounced. But here is a striaghtforward simple question.
  13. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    19 Aug '14 21:56
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    ..., where is all this supposed CO2 coming from?
    OMG


    I am astounded at your ignorance - how can you deny
    climate change when you don't understand the basics?
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    19 Aug '14 22:17
    I posted the following on the Global Warming Fraud in May on the Science Forum and no one replied to refute it.

    Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

    Global Warming Scammer Al Gore predicts no Arctic ice In 2013

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPLD8aylRiw

    Al Gore exposed on Global warming to congress

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Xnr_Vwi_c

    Al Gore - Wrong About Global Warming

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vapMyAvbsbg

    Russian Scientists: Global Cooling on Horizon

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_bBMkIP8s

    Ice Cap Defies Global Warming Predictions

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJGV1CNFOCU
  15. 19 Aug '14 22:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I posted the following on the Global Warming Fraud in May on the Science Forum and no one replied to refute it.

    Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

    Global Warming Scammer Al Gore predicts no Arctic ice In 2013

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPLD8aylRiw

    Al Gore e ...[text shortened]... ce Cap Defies Global Warming Predictions

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJGV1CNFOCU
    "...the Science Forum and no one replied to refute it."
    --RJHinds

    If that's accurate, then it's because no one in the Science Forum takes
    RJHinds seriously enough to consider his usual rants to be worth refuting.
    RJHinds, a Christian fundamentalist, has no comprehension of scientific methods.

    Reputable biologists (with perhaps rare exceptions, drawn by money or
    publicity) don't bother to argue with Christian fundamentalist 'creationists'
    about the theory of evolution.

    Why does a troll (on many issues) like RJHinds complain about being ignored?