Prev: The Guardian: Climategate was 'a game changer'
Next: Physics Singles Wanted
From: Eric Gisin on 5 Jul 2010 16:10
Two important articles from the UK today, this long one from the centre-left Economist.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report

Accentuate the negative

Jul 5th 2010, 10:11 by The Economist online

FOR everyone else it was the glaciers: for the Dutch it was the flooding. Last January errors in
the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit the headlines. The chapter on
Asia in the report by the IPCC's second working group, charged with looking at the impact of
climatye change and adapting to it, mistakenly claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by
2035. This contradicted some reasonably basic physics, had not been predicted by the glacier
specialists in the first working group (which deals with the natural science of past and future
climate change) and was unsupported by any evidence. There was a report from the 1990s which said
something similar about all the world's non-polar glaciers, but it gave the date as 2350. Then
there was a crucial typo and some shoddy referencing. Nevertheless the IPCC's chair, Rajendra
Pachauri, had lashed out at people bringing the criticism up, accusing them of "voodoo science". He
then had to eat his words, and set up, with Ban Ki-moon, a panel to look into ways the IPCC might
be improved.


[rest at URL]

From: Benj on 5 Jul 2010 19:53
On Jul 5, 4:10 pm, "Eric Gisin" <er...(a)nospammail.net> wrote:
> Two important articles from the UK today, this long one from the centre-left Economist.
>
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report
>
> Accentuate the negative
>
> Jul 5th 2010, 10:11 by The Economist online
>
> FOR everyone else it was the glaciers: for the Dutch it was the flooding. Last January errors in
> the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit the headlines. The chapter on
> Asia in the report by the IPCC's second working group, charged with looking at the impact of
> climatye change and adapting to it, mistakenly claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by
> 2035. This contradicted some reasonably basic physics, had not been predicted by the glacier
> specialists in the first working group (which deals with the natural science of past and future
> climate change) and was unsupported by any evidence. There was a report from the 1990s which said
> something similar about all the world's non-polar glaciers, but it gave the date as 2350. Then
> there was a crucial typo and some shoddy referencing. Nevertheless the IPCC's chair, Rajendra
> Pachauri, had lashed out at people bringing the criticism up, accusing them of "voodoo science". He
> then had to eat his words, and set up, with Ban Ki-moon, a panel to look into ways the IPCC might
> be improved.
>
> [rest at URL]

And why would the IPCC NOT be wrong? They aren't climate scientists
at all and are just press release jockeys trying to promote a huge
taxation scam. So let's see where does "voodoo science" come from?
From real climate scientists or from some political panel put together
to further some money making agenda?

Let us all pause here and note that poster boy of "AGW" Algore, has
had his net worth skyrocket from 1 million dollars when he left the
vice presidency to nearly 100 million now! Oh my! The man, not only
invented the internet and global warming but is a genius business man
as well. Now there is someone you can trust to give you the straight
skinny on climate change!
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jul 2010 01:18
Methane releases in arctic seas could wreak devastation
Warming climate could lead to dead zones, acidification and shifts at
the base of the ocean�s food chain.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60831/title/Methane_releases_in_arctic_seas_could_wreak_devastation
From: Benj on 6 Jul 2010 03:22
On Jul 6, 1:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Methane releases in arctic seas could wreak devastation
> Warming climate could lead to dead zones, acidification and shifts at
> the base of the ocean’s food chain.http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60831/title/Methane_releas...

Hey "Wormley", methane is a step up for you! At least it's a
significant greenhouse gas. (unlike CO2) Which brings up a very
important point. Why aren't you having a cow over the gulf oil blowout
(it's NOT a "spill") Burning all that oil has to create one ginormous
"carbon footprint"! Why aren't you demanding "cap and trade" for
that? And even worse, what about all that methane (a REAL greenhouse
gas) being spewed by broken well? And even worse than that, what about
all that corexit solvent being dumped into the environment? I wonder
what will happen when that reaches the ozone hole? My guess is that
finally you'll get your wish and we will actually have a climate
change disaster. Just one little minor problem there Sam the Sham: You
forgot you live here with the rest of us. Got your ticket to Mars
ready?

From: Rob Dekker on 6 Jul 2010 03:32

"Eric Gisin" <ericg(a)nospammail.net> wrote in message
news:i0te8h$amb$2(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Two important articles from the UK today, this long one from the
> centre-left Economist.
>
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report
>
> Accentuate the negative
>
> Jul 5th 2010, 10:11 by The Economist online
>
> FOR everyone else it was the glaciers: for the Dutch it was the flooding.
> Last January errors in
> the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit the
> headlines. The chapter on
> Asia in the report by the IPCC's second working group, charged with
> looking at the impact of
> climatye change and adapting to it, mistakenly claimed that the Himalayan
> glaciers would be gone by
> 2035. This contradicted some reasonably basic physics, had not been
> predicted by the glacier
> specialists in the first working group (which deals with the natural
> science of past and future
> climate change) and was unsupported by any evidence. There was a report
> from the 1990s which said
> something similar about all the world's non-polar glaciers, but it gave
> the date as 2350. Then
> there was a crucial typo and some shoddy referencing. Nevertheless the
> IPCC's chair, Rajendra
> Pachauri, had lashed out at people bringing the criticism up, accusing
> them of "voodoo science". He
> then had to eat his words, and set up, with Ban Ki-moon, a panel to look
> into ways the IPCC might
> be improved.
>
>

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains a mistake. This is not the first
inaccuracy to be found in the AR4 - there have been several papers
demonstrating where IPCC predictions have underestimated the climate
response to CO2 emissions.......

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

However, this time the climate response has been overestimated.
Specifically, the IPCC AR4 predicted the Himalayan glaciers would disappear
by 2035 which is decidedly not the case. What's the significance of this
error? To determine this, let's look at how it happened and the broader
context.

......

The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important
that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous
review. But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding
document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The
Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of
this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate.



Rob





 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: The Guardian: Climategate was 'a game changer'
Next: Physics Singles Wanted