21

UN guilty of exaggeration in the first degree?

Despite UN claims to the contrary, Himalayan glaciers may not disappear by 2035


 

The glaciers are melting! The glaciers are melting! Or not. The New York Times reports that an oft-cited UN study about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers may have been grossly exaggerated. In 2007, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was “very likely” that the glaciers would be gone by 2035. By UN standards, the “very likely” designation meant there was a 90 per cent chance the prediction would come true. But now, it looks like that prediction was based on a single interview of an Indian scientist that appeared in The New Scientist magazine. (Moreover, that scientist, Dr. Syed Hasnain, has since claimed that he was “misquoted” about his 2035 estimate.) Christopher Field, co-chairman of the UN panel, says “the I.P.C.C. considers this a very serious issue and we’re working very hard to set the record straight as soon as we can.”

New York Times


 
Filed under:

UN guilty of exaggeration in the first degree?

  1. Cue the deniers. “This is proof that AGW is a lie!!!”

    • Cue nothing. The deniers were on this quicker than a fat kid on a chocolate bar. What's comical about it though, is that they think they've scored a victory in the revelation that the Himalayan glaciers won't melt away quite as quickly as predicted.

      • Any predictions work out yet?

      • So now they say not in 25 years but in 4 or 5 hundred years. As if that could be actually predicted. The victory is not in gaining time. It is in finding yet another lie, another piece of claptrap that has NO BASIS IN SCIENCE, being promulgated by the IPCC which insists that they base their dire predictions on actual science. The IPCC is not about science. It is about politics and scaring people.

      • The victory is not that glaciers will not disappear in 25 years but in 5 or 6 hundred years, as if that was actually predictable. The victory is the discovery of yet another of a long line of fudging scientific of findings, or just making shit up, by the world pre-eminent global warming authority, the IPCC. Yet one more lie. Yet one more point that completely lacks any science whatsoever. Anyone see a pattern jere?

  2. skeptics have only got an arm to deflate the climate change issue. This is all to save billions by avoiding the emission cuts as per Kyoto protocal

  3. Not proof entirely by itself. Just another in a long line of little proofs. The hockey stick is dead. Mann cherry picked the data. Hansen fudged the temperature data at NASA to falsely label the 1990's as the warmest ever. Naomi Oreskes cherry picked and fudged her data to fraudulently declare a consensus on global warming. Jones and Briffa hid the decline at UEA-CRU, then they hid the data, then they refused to release the data, then they deleted at least some of the data, then they deleted emails, and they did all they could to evade FOI requests, and control and skew the "peer review" process. Pachauri at the UN is filthy stinking rich with his conflicts-of-interest involvement in TERI. Al Gore is set to become the first carbon Billionaire from advocating for the worlds govts to spend trillions on his pet global warming projects. Most of the scientists backing the IPCC are climate computer modellers with faulty climate computer models doing all they can to protect their future incomes as climate computer modellers. Michael Mann just got half a million dollars from Obama's stimulus fund. Why? Who knows. These guys are getting tons of funding to study their global warming. Follow the money. It is that simple. People getting rich by scaring everybody else. One big money making fraud.

    • Warmers are willfully blind…

      • Must be nice to be so certain of all your 'facts', the motives of god know how many people…and all for money. Your omniscience staggers me…you're absolutely right of course…it would have all been so much simpler if they all listened to Inhofe and just taken Exxons money and shut-up. Now you can attack me for being a left leaning socialist fool, who wants to kill capitalism and drive a stake through the heart of democracy…but you already knew that, didn't you?

        • Feel free to check my facts. Then you can point out exactly which of those facts are incorrect. I noticed that you failed to address even one of the points I presented. Not a single one. All you did was present some ad hominem and strawman arguments. Typical warmist propaganda. You've got no credible scientific evidence so you resort to name calling and Exxon-baiting. Typical.

          • You only provided delusional nonsense. For example;

            The hockey stick is dead. Mann cherry picked the data.

            Wrong. In 2006 a panel convened by the National Academy of Science endorsed Mann's hockey stick as accurate.

            A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.
            The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.
            But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.

            The rest of your phacts are equally delusional.

          • The hockey stick results has never been duplicated except by other members of the "hockey team" using the same cherry picking and fudge factoring, that Mann used. No credible expert in statistics will support the methodology used. It was debunked, and no panel can revive it.

        • Tunderbar

          i merely point out your astonishing ability to 'know" what everyone else is thinking and why…witness your assumption i'm a warmer, when in fact i'm still painfully sitting on the fence. One thing that keeps me up there are blowhards like you who presume to know all and judge all while remaining anomymous. But you are inventive, i took away one obvious avenue of attack for you, yet you still found a way to attack me…ad hominem attack, hilarious. I'm still searching for my strawman…must be here somewhere, cuz you said so.

    • Completely agree with you tunderbar!!!! Rich nations earlier used technology to push developing nations into submission now that the developing nations have caught up, they use the reverse.. saying you should not use technology as it will harm..all those stinkers who agree are given nobel prizes and others are branded villians.. awesome scandal this!!!!

  4. I just have to give some cudos to MacLeans. Nice to see a mainstream media outlet actually start covering these shenanigans. Way to go.

    • Then spare some kudos for the source for this blurb. Everybody's favourite MSM whipping boy. The New York Times.

  5. A challenge to warmists. You have a 25 or 30 year history of alarmists, like Al Gore and James Hansen, making dire predictions about global catastrophes that were to befall humanity as a result of elevated CO2 causing global warming. Go back into the archive of dire predictions and find one that has actually come true. One dire prediction that has actually manifested itself in the real world that has been actually measured. For example, sea level rise – it hasn't actually happened. Or more and stronger hurricanes and tropical storms – hasn't happened. How about crippling droughts – nope, no more droughts than usual. Even the temperatures have apparently stopped going up.

    Here is another one – the Arctic is supposed to have melted a long time ago, go see for yourself:

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh

    It is still there.

    You'd think nature was doing what nature has always done – cycle. Understand this, climate changes, that is what it does. That is what it has always done. It is by nature a chaotic system. There has never been a period of time where climate remained static, ever.

    Just because a few enviro-activists at the UN and at a few Universities that depend on climate related funding want to believe that we can change the planets temperatures at will does not mean that there is any credible science behind it.

    And by the way, there were fewer than 5000 polar bears in the 1970's and now there are well over 25,000. Doesn't sound like they're doing too badly even with this mythical global warming.

    • The problem it seems you're having is that you're relying on the media to determine what the AGW predictions are, rather than the science, and so you get the worst of the predictions as those draw the most viewers.

      Then, you're going to the skeptical blogs etc to get your data to compare, rather than the actual science. And so you get every cherry-picked bit of factum that supports their otherwise unsupportable arguments.

      In essence, you're multi-localizing a global issue.

      Incidentally, you can find all of your arguments debunked here:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      • Then find predictions from the IPCC, Al Gore or any other "scientific" source that has come demonstrably true. You pick your source of the prediction and show us the proof. Of course, oriif from the hockey stick team will be highly suspect.

        • The fact that you consider Al Gore to be scientific simply underlies the point.

          And a number of the IPCC predictions are holding up. Try actually reading the document.

  6. Do any of the East Anglia e-mails deal with this particular cover-up?

Sign in to comment.