« | »

5 Errors In 1 Paragraph From The IPCC

Earlier this week we posted about the absence of any real science behind the UN’s predictions about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. But it turns out that was just the (ahem) tip of the iceberg.

From a nevertheless still true believing Associated Press:

UN climate report riddled with errors on glaciers

By Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer Wed Jan 20

WASHINGTON – Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world’s most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful.

The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 — hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.

The climate panel and even the scientist who publicized the errors said they are not significant in comparison to the entire report, nor were they intentional. And they do not negate the fact that worldwide, glaciers are melting faster than ever

Of course not. We never doubted it for a minute.

This is “settled science.”

In a statement, the climate change panel expressed regret over what it called "poorly substantiated estimates" about the Himalayan glaciers.

"The IPCC has established a reputation as a real gold standard in assessment; this is an unfortunate black mark," said Chris Field, a Stanford University professor who in 2008 took over as head of this part of the IPCC research. "None of the experts picked up on the fact that these were poorly substantiated numbers. From my perspective, that’s an area where we have an opportunity to do much better." …

"It is a very shoddily written section," said Graham Cogley, a professor of geography and glaciers at Trent University in Peterborough, Canada, who brought the error to everyone’s attention. "It wasn’t copy-edited properly."

Oh, that must be it. The IPCC just need better copy-editors.

Cogley, who wrote a letter about the problems to Science magazine that was published online Wednesday, cited these mistakes:

The paragraph starts, "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world." Cogley and Michael Zemp of the World Glacier Monitoring System said Himalayan glaciers are melting at about the same rate as other glaciers.

It says that if the Earth continues to warm, the "likelihood of them disappearing by the 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." Nowhere in peer-reviewed science literature is 2035 mentioned. However, there is a study from Russia that says glaciers could come close to disappearing by 2350. Probably the numbers in the date were transposed, Cogley said.

The paragraph says: "Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035." Cogley said there are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

The entire paragraph is attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from the WWF, Cogley said. And further, the IPCC likes to brag that it is based on peer-reviewed science, not advocacy group reports. Cogley said the WWF cited the popular science press as its source.

And, as we noted previously, even the article in the popular science press was based on a telephone call with someone who says he was just speculating off of the top of his head.

A table says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters. Then comes a math mistake: It says that’s a rate of 135.2 meters a year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year.

You see, these are just copy-editing errors.

Five outlandish errors in just one paragraph from the “gold standard” of ‘climate change’ research.

A number of scientists pointed out that at the end of the day, no one is disputing the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking.

No one is disputing this? Somehow we don’t believe this “number of scientists.”

"What is happening now is comparable with the Titanic sinking more slowly than expected," de Boer said in his e-mail. "But that does not alter the inevitable consequences, unless rigorous action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is taken."

The Titanic is sinking, all right. But it’s the Titanic of the ‘global warming’ religion.

And it is only going to sink faster as their fraud gets exposed more every day.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 21st, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “5 Errors In 1 Paragraph From The IPCC”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    Inmates in control of the Asylum. Monkey’s with hand grenades.

    You know, in any science class from grade school through graduate school I would have had my arse handed to me and FAILED that class had I made ‘errors’ so blatant.

    But in today’s modern world …. or, as Christ said, it shall be as in the days of Noah …. ‘errors’ such as these are cause for increased government funding.

    Because, you have to keep plucking that chicken ….

  2. proreason says:

    ok, ok.

    There are some mistakes in the report.

    But I still FEEL that it is accurate.

  3. MinnesotaRush says:

    IPCC = Idiot Proposals Cause Chaos & Confusion.

    Sorry .. I stuttered on that last “C”.

  4. tanstaafl says:

    The alleged gold standard in climate analysis, the 2007 IPCC report, is rife with sloppy inaccuracies about glaciers and we’re “still” supposed to have absolute faith in its conclusions.

    Combine that with what has recently come to light with the memos between so called “climate scientists”, the manipulation of and exclusion of data that didn’t fit their preferred conclusions, and we’re “still” supposed to have absolute faith in their premises.

    The anthropogenic global warming thesis is looking more and more like a religion.

  5. lunaticcringeradio says:

    peer-reviewed: definition
    when you take a mish mash of random wildly inflated data and fit it to you’re desired agenda even if the numbers don’t add up, and only allow others who support your agenda to see it and publicly announce it is accurate without having the data studied and scrutinized by authentic sources to be verified.

    peer-reviewed: example
    leon was on trail for raping this chick but luckily he was peer-reviewed but 12 other rapists and leon walked.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »