IPCC to retract Himalayan glacier report

[Genx87]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

In the past 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.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

With crap like this is it hard to believe why China and India balk at the alarmists suggestions. You really cant make this stuff up. Basing a report off an article that was based on a single phone interview that was based purely on speculation.

/facepalm

 

[Craig234]

Wow. What an embarrassing, negligent screwup. They need to take a lot of corrective action.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Wow. What an embarrassing, negligent screwup. They need to take a lot of corrective action.

The debate is over!

 

[mav451]

Haha pretty sure Craig's thread is still very active.

 

[Lemon law]

Once again, global warming deniers seize on one tiny bit of fudged evidence and then use it to say the overwhelming amount of non fudged evidence can therefore be dismissed because it need not be addressed. If some evidence is fudged, all evidence is fudged is what the argument boils down to.

Very much akin to saying, the puffer fish has blown itself up to look bigger and therefore
does not exists at all.

 

[Hacp]

AL Gore I want my money back!

 

[highland145]

So why can't we get just the facts/raw data? Oh, forgot. The Illuminati won't let us see it.

 

[shiner]

Once again, global warming deniers seize on one tiny bit of fudged evidence and then use it to say the overwhelming amount of non fudged evidence can therefore be dismissed because it need not be addressed. If some evidence is fudged, all evidence is fudged is what the argument boils down to.

Very much akin to saying, the puffer fish has blown itself up to look bigger and therefore
does not exists at all.

A little here, a little there and it begins to add up quickly.

So far a fuckton of "fudged evidence" has come to light.

 

[Genx87]

Once again, global warming deniers seize on one tiny bit of fudged evidence and then use it to say the overwhelming amount of non fudged evidence can therefore be dismissed because it need not be addressed. If some evidence is fudged, all evidence is fudged is what the argument boils down to.

Very much akin to saying, the puffer fish has blown itself up to look bigger and therefore
does not exists at all.

The point is this is a major report issued by a major organization and they didnt even bother to verify the data or claims before publishing it. So how much of this other so called non-fudged data is of the same quality? It doesnt help some of the bodies that spew this are fighting any kind of request for their data.

 

[Hacp]

Once again, global warming deniers seize on one tiny bit of fudged evidence and then use it to say the overwhelming amount of non fudged evidence can therefore be dismissed because it need not be addressed. If some evidence is fudged, all evidence is fudged is what the argument boils down to.

Very much akin to saying, the puffer fish has blown itself up to look bigger and therefore
does not exists at all.

The problem is Climate "scientists" don't release any raw data. All they release is the graphs they grafted. That isn't real science.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Once again, global warming deniers seize on one tiny bit of fudged evidence and then use it to say the overwhelming amount of non fudged evidence can therefore be dismissed because it need not be addressed. If some evidence is fudged, all evidence is fudged is what the argument boils down to.

Very much akin to saying, the puffer fish has blown itself up to look bigger and therefore
does not exists at all.

No, very much akin to saying the puffer fish exists when the people who claimed to have discovered it just admitted they lied.

 

[Rainsford]

A little here, a little there and it begins to add up quickly.

So far a fuckton of "fudged evidence" has come to light.

It really hasn't, it just looks that way because it's more fun to look at it that way.

This looks like a bad example, I admit, and the hacking thing a bit ago sounded bad (although no ACTUAL fudged data was ever presented), but keep in mind that it's mostly being reported and repeated by people with a vested interest in discrediting climate scientists who support global warming (as in, the vast majority of them).

It would be a lot different if people did believe in global warming, and don't now because of the evidence that has come to light. But that doesn't seem to be the case so much as it's people who didn't believe it before, and are latching on to these latest reports as their reason. Which might be convincing if it didn't beg the question...what was there reason BEFORE?

 

[StageLeft]

Once again, global warming deniers seize on one tiny bit of fudged evidence and then use it to say the overwhelming amount of non fudged evidence can therefore be dismissed because it need not be addressed. If some evidence is fudged, all evidence is fudged is what the argument boils down to.

Very much akin to saying, the puffer fish has blown itself up to look bigger and therefore
does not exists at all.

Where there's smoke there's fire, the question is how much fire.

Heck, at this rate if I use the global warming climate models' prediction algorithms and instead put in the data for the amount of fudged evidence popping up I predict that within 10 years 186% of the evidence will have been false.

 

[highland145]

Where there's smoke there's fire, the question is how much fire.

Heck, at this rate if I use the global warming climate models' prediction algorithms and instead put in the data for the amount of fudged evidence popping up I predict that within 10 years 186% of the evidence will have been false.

Does your math show the next ice age cometh?

 

[Hacp]

Does your math show the next ice age cometh?

Yes it does. Since entropy will generally increase in an isolated system, the universe will die a cold death.

 

[feralkid]

Yes it does. Since entropy will generally increase in an isolated system, the universe will die a cold death.

Earth ice age /= end of the universe, you boob.

 

[Dari]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1



With crap like this is it hard to believe why China and India balk at the alarmists suggestions. You really cant make this stuff up. Basing a report off an article that was based on a single phone interview that was based purely on speculation.

/facepalm

China balked for economic reasons, not scientific.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Does your math show the next ice age cometh?

Global warming could cause the next ice age. It might not even have anything to do with us. We don't really know.

What we do know is there are changes going on, and we're definitely changing the composition of the atmosphere, in a way that seems to be consistent with the climate changes we'e observing.

What's truly mindblowing for me is that the 'non-believers' seem to have a perfect understanding of everything that affects our climate, all based on our relatively casual observations of the last ~500 years or so.

 

[charrison]

Global warming could cause the next ice age. It might not even have anything to do with us. We don't really know.

What we do know is there are changes going on, and we're definitely changing the composition of the atmosphere, in a way that seems to be consistent with the climate changes we'e observing.

What's truly mindblowing for me is that the 'non-believers' seem to have a perfect understanding of everything that affects our climate, all based on our relatively casual observations of the last ~500 years or so.

Something to think about, according to what we know the default climate of the earth is VERY cold. We do not know even know if a warming earth has net negatives.

 

[sandorski]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1



With crap like this is it hard to believe why China and India balk at the alarmists suggestions. You really cant make this stuff up. Basing a report off an article that was based on a single phone interview that was based purely on speculation.

/facepalm

They "Balk" at having to bear a burden that Others(The West) were nor taking Responsibility for. They don't deny GW/CC.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Something to think about, according to what we know the default climate of the earth is VERY cold. We do not know even know if a warming earth has net negatives.

Without some sort of heat trap, yes, we are an ice planet. A perfect combination of magnetic field, atmospheric gasses, ocean currents, etc is needed to keep us in the right ballpark. This is why 'global warming' has uncertain effects, regardless of what causes it.

Major changes to ocean currents have caused ice ages in the past, and could again; mankind is likely to survive this. New York City may not

 

[WHAMPOM]

Man Made Global Warming is not disproved by the disclosure that the 2045 Himalayan glacier melt is a wild ass guess. I'm going to bet on 2030 due to accelerated warming.

 

[Jaskalas]

It would be a lot different if people did believe in global warming, and don't now because of the evidence that has come to light. But that doesn't seem to be the case so much as it's people who didn't believe it before, and are latching on to these latest reports as their reason. Which might be convincing if it didn't beg the question...what was there reason BEFORE?

We believe AGW is full of bad science, and now we're seeing this stink come to light in the face of ZERO warming.

 

[Sclamoz]

I came across this series of videos on youtube of a debate on global warming and found it interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8KiA-YMt8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reV7bVhhcto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzTPPl05Wok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGa6_k00Cus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtPDuZzfzhw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UERzOB2CWQg

Q&A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD8RI0tRcNs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNttO8rAJNE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU0BwGdeoq8&feature=related

 

[silverpig]

Man Made Global Warming is not disproved by the disclosure that the 2045 Himalayan glacier melt is a wild ass guess. I'm going to bet on 2030 due to accelerated warming.

The article says that these glaciers are hundreds of feet thick, and the fastest rate of melt seen is 2-3 feet/yr. Bare minimum, with the fastest rate of melt of the thinnest glaciers is 100 years.

Still, some grow, some melt, and "hundreds" probably means more like 800. It'll be 2000 years at current rates most likely. Not 30.