More Junk Science

World misled over glacier meltdown: Report
17 Jan 2010, 1840 hrs IST, PTI


LONDON: A warning that most of the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 owing to climate change is likely to be retracted after the United

Nations body that issued it admitted to a series of scientific blunders.

Two years ago, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) headed by India's Rajendra Pachauri, issued a benchmark report that claimed to have incorporated the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming.

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

In the last 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, the Sunday Times reported today.

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

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was a "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research, the report added.

If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research.

The IPCC was set up to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Rajendra Pachauri has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science" and last week the IPCC refused to comment on the report.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. As I been saying for the past year this is all b.s. ! Total junk science motivated by a political agenda. How many more examples need to come to light before people wake up?

Reminds me of the now somewhat dated headline:

Scientists retract prediction that World would run out of oil by 2000 as 2001 dawns with plenty of oil remaining

''I don't know if I should laugh or cry. As I been saying for the past year this is all b.s. ! Total junk science motivated by a political agenda. How many more examples need to come to light before people wake up?''
Edit: A response to a note posted by 'utherpendragon.'

So, by suggestion, does that mean you believe there should be more 'honest research done into the effects of global warming,' or that there are myriad resources available so why worry about something that will never happen ? ( over simplified admittedly but I hope you get the meaning ).
Apologies if you've written untold notes on this topic, I had problems opening the 'previous posts' from your profile.

Originally posted by RevRSleeker
''I don't know if I should laugh or cry. As I been saying for the past year this is all b.s. ! Total junk science motivated by a political agenda. How many more examples need to come to light before people wake up?''
Edit: A response to a note posted by 'utherpendragon.'

So, by suggestion, does that mean you believe there should be more 'honest resea ...[text shortened]... notes on this topic, I had problems opening the 'previous posts' from your profile.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Yes, I believe their should be more honest research.

That's the problem. These guys don't know a lick about the methods one would use to conduct good science on climate change. Therefore they judge quality based solely upon a study's conclusion. It's anathema to science actually.

What does it matter, we will run out of oxygen by 2004 anyway.

So "a central claim" of this report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm
Was that the glaciers will melt?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Don't you mean research that supports your view of the matter?