Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

technology review ^

[keep your powder dry]

One of the most alarming conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a widely respected organization established by the United Nations, is that glaciers in the Himalayas could be gone 25 years from now, eliminating a primary source of water for hundreds of millions of people. But a number of glaciologists have argued that this conclusion is wrong, and now the IPCC admits that the conclusion is largely unsubstantiated, based on news reports rather than published, peer-reviewed scientific studies.

In a statement released on Wednesday, the IPCC admitted that the Working Group II report, "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability," published in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), contains a claim that "refers to poorly substantiated estimates. " The statement also said "the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedure, were not applied properly." The statement did not quote the error, but it did cite the section of the report that refers to Himalayan glaciers. Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, who is now in charge of Working Group II, confirms that the error was related to the claim that the glaciers could disappear by 2035.

The disappearance of the glaciers would require temperatures far higher than those predicted in even the most dire global warming scenarios, says Georg Kaser, professor at the Institut für Geographie der Universität, Innsbruck. The Himalayas would have to heat up by 18 degrees Celsius and stay there for the highest glaciers to melt--most climate change scenarios expect only a few degrees of warming over the next century.

[keep your powder dry]

More on the story: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2436723/posts

[gibtx2]

Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $250,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.” RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.

[Rinnwald]

This is an amazing story. Not that a “climate scientist” would put out fake data and a cravenly alarmist BS scenario, but that someone would actually call him on it.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Mistake; Our nickle.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[iopscusa]

Even the Lefty MIT newsletter is attempting to walkback their idiotcy on AGW....all I can say is FUIAT, (FU It’s About Time)!

[keep your powder dry]

actually, the tech review did publish a piece that “talked” about it 6 years ago...
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/?a=f

[keep your powder dry]

actually, the tech review did publish a piece that “talked” about it 6 years ago...
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/?a=f

[cranked]

...but in the end, such a mistake is blatantly ignored and 'OK' because it was peer-reviewed..... =.=

[iopscusa]

Thanks for the correction on MIT Climate posting...looks like 2007 was sort of a wakeup year for a lot of folks.

[Publius6961]

One of the most alarming conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a widely respected organization established by the United Nations, is that glaciers in the Himalayas could be gone 25 years from now, eliminating a primary source of water for hundreds of millions of people. But a number of glaciologists have argued that this conclusion is wrong, and now the IPCC admits that the conclusion is largely unsubstantiated, based on news reports rather than published, [competent non-fraudulent] peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Any statement ith both "UN' and "widely respected" in it is an oxymoron.
For several decades now, the UN generally has demonstrated itself to be a cesspool of opportunism, corruption and incompetence.

Widely respected by whom, exactly? No rational person or group that I can think of.
As for "peer reviewed," it is quite clear and incontrovertible that ALL "per-reviewed" input to the last three IPCC reports has been a sham, criminally manipulated to get desired results, and the raw data not allowed to be even seen by real scientists, let alone reviewed.