So India is going to start its own assessment of climate change, stating that it cannot rely on the IPCC since the science was not peer reviewed.
The issue is the IPCCs claim that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035. This claim was not in any peer reviewed study but it was included in the IPCC report.
The interesting thing, I believe, is the quote from Ramesh regarding climate evangelism vs. climate science. I have felt for a while that climate change research has gone from a science to religion, where anyone who dares question it is metaphorically burned at the stake.
Then, of course, Rajendra Pachauri from India, the head of the panel is now resigning. He calls the inclusion of the prediction a mistake but claims that this is being ‘played up’ by those with a vested interest in downplaying climate change. (Geez, if you make shit up and call it science some people *may *question it)
Note, the prediction that made it into the report was based on a New Scientist story from 1999. An India scientist named Syed Hasnain basically made it up The IPCC report gives the prediction made by Hasnian, which was never peer reviewed or actually studied, a 90% probability.
Up for debate is this:
What can the IPCC do, if anything, to prove that the rest of the IPCC science is actually, ya know, scientific?
Given the recent issues in climate science (Climategate, now this). how can we get the climate science folks to release all the data and the models to the scientific community so that others can study the models and the data?
Wouldn’t it make sense to review that one report instead of throwing all the babies out with the bathwater? Unless they have an agenda that goes beyond questioning the science of the IPCC report…
Given the avalanche of scandals, the point is well taken! First, there was Climategate, and now this, following close on the heels of Climategate, which happened just before this happened. And, then, of course, there was Climategate… Man, they just keep piling up, don’t they?
Don’t you think that last paragraph there is kind of significant though, Gigo? It SEEMS kind of significant to me, but maybe I’m misreading what it says.
Context, context, the main point remains; the main sourced IPCC report was not the one that got smeared, but still one should not ignore that laziness in citations can get you in trouble. Even if it was not the main report, some people deserve their feet put over the coals for that mistake, but it is not a mistake that stops the science behind the report.
Regarding the OP: While it is significant that the environment minister is saying that, I really wonder if the spin given in that report is not accurate, it seems that in reality India will not leave the IPCC. Just that it will set their own group besides the one that will continue to contribute to the future IPCC reports.
I did not want to deal with the second item because it was really, really silly.
But then again, others should learn that it is really misleading to say that all data and models were not released, or that the ones saying that continue to ignore that restrictions sometimes apply that are not exclusive of climate science, but that apply to all sciences.
A-men! Hopefully our nation will follow India’s example. This sort of Chicken Littleism is horrid for a time of economic recession. Maybe a few years from now we can consider global warming but not now.
Eh. I don’t really view this as a significant change in India’s position, since they’ve never really been on board with carbon regulation (or pollution regulation generally). There’s simply too many sectors of the Indian economy dependent on carbon producing activities. Taking action on carbon regulation more-or-less entails pissing off the entire population, which isn’t going to win you seats in parliament.
As I see it, I was correct, the article in the OP is just cherry picking quotes and ignoring the full picture, India is not leaving, they just have set their own independent body to check on the science.
As the prime minister mentioned, the Indian scientists that are part of the IPCC have the support of government as even they notice that the mistake is not stopping the science.
Of notice is also the bit that that Indian independent group was formed **months **before the mistake of the number II less sourced IPCC report came up, showing that they had other reasons to make it (chief among them, the often reported next step in the AGW research: what will take place in specific locations on earth). IMHO the blabbing of the environmental minister is more political than scientific in this case.
Next thing you know, China will set up their own group! Then Russia! Who’d have guessed!
In other news, the Pope is Catholic, and bears shit in the woods.
But as to the specific point about Himalayan glaciers, one would expect a couple of oversights in a document that’s been prepared by a committee of thousands of people, spanning several hundred pages, and compiled from thousands more scientific studies. The point remains that until someone comes up with a better overall theory that matches what we have already seen closer, everything else is just howling in the wind. One or two issues over minor items doesn’t change much.
It’s not minor when you can’t nail down where the Chinese data locations are or use incomplete Russian data or have scientists who deliberately lie about the data they actually have.
We are using bad science to develop bad solutions.
None of the items mentioned here are based on evidence.
Nope, the error mentioned by the OP is in the end a not well sourced over estimation not mentioned in the main report, the peer reviewed papers report that the glaciers are still retreating.
One of the most sorry examples of denial behavior is to see reports implying or saying that the scientists did lie, even reviewers from the Arizona State University know that an error is not a lie.
Some denialists grab this to mean there is no glacial retreat, this is not accurate. What the science says is that they are still retreating but not at the rate implied in the erroneous item.
I suspect you’re glossing over many points in this statement. Not to mention that the Chinese and Russians, while perhaps the most likely to manufacture data, are also the most likely to manufacture data that is anti-global warming.
The world is warming. There’s no doubt of that. If you subtract the effects of volcanic emissions and solar irradiance from the recorded temperature, you get an inclining curve that exactly matches the level of CO2 change in recorded history. No one has been able to make a global simulator which matches recorded history unless it assumes that greenhouse gasses work as expected according to the greenhouse theory–which also predicts the climates on Mars and Venus and other such places. At least one climate simulator does duty simulating these other planets. And that’s one out of a dozen simulators.
Half of all climate scientists within the US work for big business. At any point, businesses could have built competitive simulators to show that something else is causing what we’re seeing and hence not a worry. This hasn’t appeared.
The science might not be as wonderful as it could be, but there’s no competitor, and we can say with decent certainty that the greenhouse effect is working just fine.
Global Warming is a religion. Not because there may be temperatures we can regulate but because the solutions proposed are nothing but transfers of wealth from one country to another without any attempt at controlling temperature. We are NOT going to burst into flames in the next 10 years, we ARE working on more efficient forms of energy production and we WILL engage technology as needed in the future.
And the idea that half the climate scientists within the US work for big business is a red herring of nonsense because they are not driving the UN climate mandates in any way shape or form.
