# India abandons IPCC **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874 "2010-02-06T02:00:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/1 "2010-02-06T02:00:56Z")
[Linky.](http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100205/india-ipcc-un-climate-change-global-warming.htm) 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is going to start its own assessment of climate change, stating that it cannot rely on the IPCC since the science was not peer reviewed. > [@](#): > > India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will establish a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region. > > “There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,” Ramesh said. “I am for climate science.” 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](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527434.300-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html) 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: 1. What can the IPCC do, if anything, to prove that the rest of the IPCC science is actually, ya know, scientific? 2. 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? Slee . ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/2 "2010-02-06T02:36:19Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/3 "2010-02-06T02:59:30Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/4 "2010-02-06T02:59:36Z")
It seems to me that India, just like Saudi Arabia, has decided to look for researchers that will them what they want. [Quote=sleestak] 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) [/quote] Question it yes, but it is not true that it was a central point, or that the estimate was part of the main Working Group 1 report: [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a\_beat\_up\_of\_himalayan\_proport.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport.php) > [@](#): > > Actually, the estimate does not appear in the WG2 summary and was mostly ignored by the media when the report came out. The Times story on the WG2 did not mention the estimate at all – their story about the mistake is actually longer than their story about the release of the report. > > I did a Factiva search for news stories that mentioned Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 and found 198 (not counting duplicates). But the majority of these were recent stories about the IPCC mistake. Only a handful of others attributed the estimate to the IPCC report (even though there were hundreds of stories about the report). More common were stories based on the 1999 New Scientist story, like this one in The Times which makes the same mistake as the IPCC, reporting: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 40 years because of global warming, according to a research study. ... One of the researchers involved, Syed Hasnain, of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said studies indicate that the glaciers in the region could be gone by 2035. > > > > ``` > > This is not to excuse the IPCC’s error – we expect higher standards from them than from the The Times. > > John Nielsen-Gammon notes something else that The Times got wrong: > > > [@](#): > > > > I am quite dismayed by the last paragraph of the Times Online article: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > “The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. …” > > > > ``` > > Latest crack in the consensus??? The whole point is that the IPCC report didn't reflect the consensus. The consensus, as far as we know, was right all along. And **the Working Group 1** report of the IPCC reflected that consensus, with solid references to the peer-reviewed literature. The lesson here is that the IPCC does not deserve blanket trust for what they write; their reports are only as good as the references on which they're based. And if the author had stuck to the IPCC's own protocols for relying on the peer-reviewed literature, this mistake would never have been made in the firsts place. > > > > ``` > > Of course, global warming deniers seized on the error to argue that the IPCC can’t be trusted > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The Opposition energy spokesman, Nick Minchin, a climate change sceptic, said the report highlighted the ''disturbing'' lack of scientific rigour around the IPCC 2007 report. > > > > "These revelations provide even further evidence of the Rudd Government's recklessness in relying on dubious reports such as this as part of its scare campaign to push the urgent need to introduce a CPRS [emissions trading scheme] ahead of the world," Senator Minchin said. > > > > ``` > > But if even relatively obscure errors in the IPCC reports get corrected, that should increase our confidence in the accuracy of the more prominent statements. > > And somehow Minchin’s confidence in someone like Ian Plimer is unshakeable, despite Plimer’s refusal to correct even the most blatant errors. > > And deniers are also pretending that this error proves that Himalayan glaciers aren’t melting. For instance, The Australian’s Cut and Paste: > > > [@](#): > > > > See the iceman leaveth. George Monbiot, in The Guardian on May 10, 2005, on why David Bellamy was wrong to suggest glaciers were not shrinking: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > ``` > > > "It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost journals." > > > > > > ``` > > > > ``` > > Or more likely stayeth. The Australian yesterday: > > > > ``` > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > ``` > > > Flawed communication between teams of scientists caused the UN climate change agency to claim most Himalayan glaciers would melt almost 300 years earlier than forecast, glaciologists claim. > > > > > > ``` > > So, how can we find out what went wrong with the editing of the IPCC report? Fortunately the drafts and review comments are available on-line. In the second draft the offending passage states: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in other any part of the world (see Table 10.10 below) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate. The glaciers will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035. > > > > ``` > > There was no cite at all for the claim and more than one reviewer noted that a citation was needed. If the chapter authors had followed this comment, all would have been well: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding - and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in precipitation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.'s 2005 Nature paper here - this seems very similar to what they said. (Hayley Fowler, Newcastle University) > > > > ``` > > But the response was this: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version > > > > ``` > > Instead the authors added to a cite to this WWF report, which says > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high". > > > > ``` > > And here we see the perils of lazy citing. The IPCC report should have cited the WGHG/ICSI report, but the authors weren’t able to get hold of it. If they had, they would have found that it doesn’t say anything about the glaciers disappearing by 2035. The WWF report authors hadn’t seen the WGHG report either, but relied on this New Scientist story, by a reporter that hadn’t seen the report either, but had talked to the author of the WGHG report. ‘Played up’ indeed. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/5 "2010-02-06T03:07:45Z")
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. -XT ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/6 "2010-02-06T03:18:20Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > 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. > > -XT 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. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hLD6YMlBO0xetLT1s2gY11ihf8qg](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hLD6YMlBO0xetLT1s2gY11ihf8qg) > [@](#): > > Indian PM backs UN climate panel > > (AFP) – 20 hours ago > > NEW DELHI — Indian Premier Manmohan Singh on Friday lent his support to the beleaguered UN climate change panel, saying a glaring error in the body’s key 2007 report did not change the science of global warming. > > The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been under fire since revelations last month that its landmark Fourth Assessment Report mistakenly predicted that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 as a result of global warming. > > The claim has been traced to the campaign group WWF, which in turn took the prediction from an article in New Scientist magazine in 1999. > > Addressing a summit on sustainable development, Singh acknowledged that "some aspects of science reflected in the work of the IPCC have faced criticism. > > “But this debate does not challenge the core projections of the IPCC upon the impact of greenhouse gas accumulations on temperature, rainfall and sea level rise,” he said. > > “Let me reassert that India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way,” said Singh. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/7 "2010-02-06T03:28:16Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > 1. 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? 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. > **[RealClimate: Where’s the data?](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/)** > > RealClimate: Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear... > **[RealClimate: Data Sources](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/)** > > RealClimate: This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.... ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/8 "2010-02-06T03:31:33Z")
> [@](#): > > “There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,” Ramesh said. “I am for climate science.” 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/9 "2010-02-06T03:32:41Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > 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. You did not read the tread huh? I would think a Prime Minister would override an Environmental Minister, but that is just me… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/10 "2010-02-06T07:56:56Z")
**India abandons IPCC** Well, when the Ganges runs dry, they better not come crying to _us_! ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/11 "2010-02-06T08:14:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/12 "2010-02-06T15:59:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You did not read the tread huh? I would think a Prime Minister would override an Environmental Minister, but that is just me… 🙂 Except the whole Indian government seems to approve of this new policy. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/13 "2010-02-06T18:19:01Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Except the whole Indian government seems to approve of this new policy. Cite? That the Prime Minister is not part of the government? 🙂 [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/02/indians\_go\_wacko.php](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/02/indians_go_wacko.php) > [@](#): > > This is just politicking, and while it makes for some fun snarking there is precious little substance here. Someone will get a nice little empire out of managing the thing, and someone will have to produce some kind of output to stop the [environmental] minister looking too stupid, but there will be nothing valuable produced by this project. I notice they say: _The body, **which he said will not rival the UN’s panel** , will publish its own climate assessment in November this year._ So (in the current absence of a sea ice bet) anyone care to put an anything on this? I take the side of: the report will be delayed, or if it appears on time will be an obviously valueless and hastily-cobbled together. 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/14 "2010-02-06T18:29:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/15 "2010-02-06T19:17:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/16 "2010-02-06T19:34:59Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/17 "2010-02-06T19:43:25Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. None of the items mentioned here are based on evidence. > [@Magiver](#): > > We are using bad science to develop bad solutions. 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. > **[Himalayan glaciers: how the IPCC erred and what the science says](https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm)** > > \The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The... > [@](#): > > The moral of the story seems clear - stick to the peer reviewed scientific literature. This is not to say peer review is infallible. But as a source for climate science, there is no higher standard than rigorous research based on empirical data, conducted by scientific experts and reviewed by other experts in the field. > > This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005). > > On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona’nyi Glacier have observed it’s losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008). > > While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They’ve found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007). > > The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it’s important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/18 "2010-02-06T19:53:45Z")
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. [http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf](http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf) (PDF file) > [@](#): > > This statement is in error. To clarify the actual situation: > 1.Himalayan rates of recession are not exceptional. b \* > > 2.The first “2035” is from WWF 2005, which cites a news storycabout an unpublished studydthat does not estimate a date for disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. > > 3.The second “2035”, an apparent typographic error, is not in WWF 2005, but can be traced circumstantially to a rough estimateeof the shrinkage of all extrapolar glaciers (excluding those in basins of internal drainage) between the present and **2350**. > > 4.In conflict with knowledge of glacier-climate relationships, disappearance by 2035 would require a 25-fold acceleration during 1999–2035 from the loss rate estimatedffor 1960–1999. > > 5.This was a bad error. It was a really bad paragraph, and poses a legitimate question about how to improve IPCC’s review process. **It was not a conspiracy. The error does not compromise the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which for the most part was well reviewed and is highly accurate.** - 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/19 "2010-02-06T19:56:20Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874/20 "2010-02-06T20:34:38Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/india-abandons-ipcc/527874.md?page=2)