It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
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.
www.climategate.com...
Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".
The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming"
Originally posted by TinFoilBat
Well i still think raising taxes and not leaving your tv on stand-by
is the only way to save the world
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
So, truthfully, is anyone surprised that the IPCC bases their 'scientific' conclusions on speculations and not facts? Anybody?
Carnegie scientists Chris Field and Ken Caldeira of the Department of Global Ecology are key contributors in the UN panel awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on October 12 for work on global climate change. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shares the prize with former vice president Al Gore for his role in communicating the issue to the public.
Following a press conference about the prize with Gore in Palo Alto, California, Field said: “It’s fantastic to have the Nobel Committee recognize the importance of the climate issue, and it’s important that the Nobel committee recognizes that effective action requires a partnership between a great communicator like Al Gore and the scientific community that provides the information that we need to move ahead.”
Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."
The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified.
... [T]he lead author of the IPCC chapter, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, told New Scientist he "outright rejected" the notion that the IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan glaciers. "The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them," he says.
"We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report," Lal says. "The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."
Hasnain rejects that. He blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist. "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," he told New Scientist. "It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers," Hasnain adds.
Originally posted by TinFoilBat
Well i still think raising taxes and not leaving your tv on stand-by
is the only way to save the world