Glaciergate: More Scientific Fraud: "Botched" - "Riddled with Errors" - "Panel got it wrong"
January 21, 2010
Posted by: David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov
Glaciergate: More Scientific Fraud
"Botched" - "Riddled with Errors" - "Panel got it wrong"
"Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming"
Inhofe EPW News Round-Up
USA Today : U.N. apologizes for botched climate prediction - United Nations climate panel chiefs apologized Wednesday for a botched projection of all Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035. In an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement, group chairman Rajendra Pachauri and other officials acknowledged "poorly substantiated rates of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."
AP: Riddled with Errors 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.
TIME: Himalayan Melting: How a Climate Panel Got It Wrong - The mistake is a black eye for the IPCC and for the climate science community as a whole. Climate scientists are still dealing with the Climategate controversy, which involved hacked e-mails from a major British climatology center that cast doubt on the solidity of evidence for global warming. It's still not clear exactly how the error made it into the IPCC's assessment, though climate scientists point out that the total document was thousands of pages long and that the Himalaya claim wasn't included in the summary of the report, which was boiled down for policymakers and received the most attention from reviewers. "Honest mistakes do happen," admits Benjamin Santer, a climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "The bulk of the science is clear and compelling and rests on multiple lines of evidence," not just one case.
Investor's Business Daily: The IPCC's Abominable Snowmen - A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting fast and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts admitted. The scientists who said that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 have admitted the claim has as much credibility as sightings of the mythical Yeti. It's their fraudulent claims that are melting away. We hesitate to call it Glacier-gate, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. body tasked with scaring us to death about global warming, has admitted that the claim in its 2007 report about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing was not based on any scientific study or research. It was instead based on one scientist's speculation in a telephone interview with a reporter.
FoxNews: Claims Melting Away - The world's most famous climate change expert is in the midst of a massive controversy, as the leading environmental science institute he heads scrambled to explain data it promulgated for a U.N. report. One of the key elements in the growing scandal is the revelation that IPCC based some of its public proclamations on non-peer reviewed reports."The data, all the data, needs to come to light," says Dr. Jane M. Orient, president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and an outspoken skeptic on climate change.
The Economist: Off-base camp - The idea that the Himalaya could lose its glaciers by 2035-glaciers which feed rivers across South and East Asia-is a dramatic and apocalyptic one. After the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said such an outcome was very likely in the assessment of the state of climate science that it made in 2007, onlookers (including this newspaper) repeated the claim with alarm. In fact, there is no reason to believe it to be true. This is good news (within limits) for Indian farmers-and bad news for the IPCC.
Bloomberg: UN Study Erred on Glacier Size, Melting Rate, Scientists Say - A single paragraph in the United Nations' most comprehensive report on climate change contains three factual errors, scientists said. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, said in the 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than elsewhere when they are not, overestimated the area covered by the Asian ice masses by a factor of 15 and said they may shrink four-fifths by 2035 rather than 2350, four researchers said in a letter to the journal Science. "These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected," the researchers based in the U.S., Canada and Austria wrote.
E & E News - Climate science panel apologizes for Himalayan error - Jeffrey Kargel, an adjunct professor at Arizona State University who helped expose the IPCC's errors, said the botched projections were "extremely embarrassing and damaging." "The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority -- as indeed they should -- and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact," he said. Kargel is one of four scientists who addressed the issue in a letter that will be published in the Jan. 29 issue of the journal Science. "These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected," write the researchers.
WSJ: Claim on Glaciers Under Fire - "The IPCC report said Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than anywhere else in the world and that's not correct," said J. Graham Cogley, a professor of geography at Trent University in Ontario. Dr. Cogley is a glaciologist who contributed to another part of the 2007 IPCC report and is one of the first people to track down some of the inconsistencies in the section on Himalayan glaciers. He added that the 2035 date was also likely wrong. "There's a failure to review this data adequately by qualified experts," Prof. Cogley said.
The Australian - UN's IPCC says sorry for glacier error - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said yesterday the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was "poorly substantiated" and resulted from a lapse in standards. "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly," the panel said. "The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance." The stunning admission is certain to embolden critics of the panel, which is already under fire over a separate scandal last year involving stolen emails that mentioned suppressing data to freeze out climate change sceptics.
Sydney Morning Herald: Claims on glaciers not backed up - CLAIMS that Himalayan glaciers could melt entirely by 2035 were poorly researched and should have faced greater scrutiny before appearing in the United Nations benchmark study on climate change, the world's top climate officials have conceded. After a week of criticism over the validity of the 2035 claim, the UN's top climate group - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - conceded the estimate was not backed by the standards of evidence the group required.
Montreal Gazette: UN panel 'regrets' exaggeration - The UN panel of climate scientists expressed regret yesterday for exaggerating how quickly Himalayan glaciers are melting in a report that wrongly projected that they could all vanish by 2035. Leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance," they said in a statement about the flaw in a paragraph of a 938-page scientific report