It’s worse than we thought! Now the IPCC has been citing magazine articles, like this one from Climbing Magazine, issue 208, shown at left. We’ve heard the title before, according to their index: “Canaries in a Coal Mine,” – Feature on global loss of glaciers. But wait there’s more! If you think that’s crazy, we also learn that IPCC Chairman Pachauri has penned a “smutty” romance novel! Bizarre, but true.
The Telegraph reports on the magazine issue:
The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.
It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.
This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.
But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC’s use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.
Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.
“Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.
“There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”
The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government’s worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.
The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled “Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming”.
It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.
The report also states that the section is intended to “assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects”.
But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.
The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.
Mr Bowen said: “I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes.”
The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.
read the complete article at the Telegraph
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass 642-642 exam fast using self paced 640-822 prep tools including 640-863 dumps and other study resources.
Smokey (04:12:50) :
“The effect of CO2, if any, always has been the central question in the AGW debate. So please, explain exactly how CO2 causes those glaciers to recede. I’m interested in the mechanism.”
AR5 will report that the cause is “axial sympatric molecular pelting”. It’s complicated. But basically, as AGW imparts more kinetic energy to the CO2 molecules, the CO2 molecules are propelled at tremendous speed toward the glacier’s vulnerable surface projection, and as we all know velocity dictates the energy in a collision, so what would be a casual co-mingling of valence electrons during a normal temperature period becomes a violent collision, producing the requisite energy to sublime the glacier. Sad, but true.
I’m blogging about it now, so expect to see the above summarized as a bullet point in AR5, and the attribution given to my blog.
More evidence today that the IPCC was specifically warned, by leading glaciologists, that the Himalayan glacier melt claim was false. Yet they ignored it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009707.ece
How on earth can Pachauri claim that he wasn’t aware of this problem until a few weeks ago? Did it need to be published in a climbing magazine for him to see it?
“kwik (03:59:42) :
We are now in the “Age of Emotions”….”
No! It certainly is the age of stoopid! And, eventually, our “solar space ship”, or even an external event, will decide our fate.
“Royinsouthwest (00:56:38) :
[…]
Suppose the climbers had said that there was more ice on the mountains than there used to be. In that case I am sure that some of the readers of this blog would have been quite happy to use that annecdotal evidence then.”
This blog is not the IPCC. Any commenter can contribute anything. This blog is not funded with billions of government cash. And a thread on this blog does not automatically become a guideline for policymakers. Does this invalidate your line of reasoning enough for you?
If there were evidence for AGW, i’d accept it. I don’t accept spurious comments by climbers in the alps as evidence for AGW.
It won’t be long before we find out that they used editorials as a “source” too !!
Or cartoons !!!
I think you’re seeing her hair being whipped onto her back because of her speed. If you look carefully, you’ll see her right hand is not yet at the next handhold. She’s performing a so called dyno, where she’s using momentum to reach the next handhold.
“I believe that CO2 has an effect on Climate. It is obvious that “Climate Science” has absolutely no idea what that could possibly consist of. It is a sad sad day for science.”
I agree. There may very well be something to CO2 and warming, but you wouldn’t know it from the snake oil coming out of the UN.
I guess I should read the AR-4 to see if they referenced my kid’s science fair project.
The U.K. “Climate Secretary” – the lesser of the two repulsive Milliband brothers – has declared “War” on sceptics:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247459/Ed-Miliband-declares-war-climate-change-sceptics.html
“even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is”
Now I get it!
What’s wrong with using such anecdotal evidence ?
… as long as it’s attributed as such .
Smokey (20:47:46) :
I try.
Jimbo (03:25:16) :
That is Gavin for you. He doesn’t want anyone to know about them. This is what a regular said when they found out about them,
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them.
Including right here by RC regulars.
“In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published.
It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus.
It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints.
I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.“
Nick
Your wasting your time , Ive just had a look at AR4 WG2 Ch.1.3.1.1and the are numerous other studies besides this one cited there ,but if you just read these posts you would assumed all conculsions about glaciers where base on ths one study .
you guys seemed to be enjoying this just a little to much , ive this image of people jumpimg up and down around there computers saying I told you so I told you so , with a mad grin on their faces .
Any idea what would be left of AR4 if someone went in and removed every statement that was supported by non-reviewed articles and such?
What would you have in left the end that was actually supported by actual science?
Patrick Davis (04:51:43) :
“kwik (03:59:42) :
We are now in the “Age of Emotions”….”
No! It certainly is the age of stoopid!…..”
Nah, It was the age of propaganda, thank goodness the age of the internet is proving an effective antidote…. Until The Powers That Be figure out how to censor it.
The truth has always been the bane of politicians, shysters, con artists, power mongers and bankers.
” A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
Lenin
Russian Communist politician & revolutionary (1870 – 1924)
I sent NASA an email this morning. Here is what I sent:
You have allowed Hansen and the NOAA to falsify the temperature record to show a false doom. You have allowed Hansen to proselytize anthropogenic global warming.
The entire world is aware of the Yarmal tree ring trick where out of a population of 35 trees a single tree had the ‘right stuff’ and was used to bend the temperature record showing warming. But when adding in the other 34 trees the warming disappears. So naturally Mann’s study left out all the other 34 trees that disprove the hockey stick.
In the same way, everyone also now knows that the NOAA and the CRU have been systematically removing the cooler stations from their data sets until now their temperature records now shows false warming because the cooler inputs are simply eliminated. They have also ‘adjusted’ the temperature data to make times before 1960 cooler and since warmer. The NOAA and CRU have shamelessly altered the record to prove ‘man made warming’. Comparing with original temperature records from the stations with the garbage output by the NOAA you can easily see how they falsified the records. Spend a little time at WattsUpWithThat.com or Climategate.com. Look for DARWIN One for a good example but there are thousands of examples in the raw dataset.
Satellite data shows no warming for over ten years. The sun has no spots and a minimal magnetic wind coming at us causing more upper level clouds and cooling.
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are not growing in spite of the output of industry. Some where there is an unidentified CO2 sink.
More CO2 would mean bigger plants and more rapid growth. More warmth would extend the growing period in northern Russia and Canada.
Where is the evidence that warming would be bad?
You, NASA, have allowed all these falsified records to be propagated by your own James Hansen and now you got your payoff: No More Space Exploration. Obama’s new budget kills the Aries Rocket replacement for the soon to be retired NASA Space Shuttle and along with it the Manned Moon Mission project. Both of these endeavors were funded under the umbrella Constellation Program which is now cancelled.
Instead of being grounded with no orbital space vehicle, Obama intends to pay Russia with US Dollars for rides into space. Obama is very purposefully shipping a lot of your jobs overseas.
Congratulations on letting the charlatan Hansen destroy NASA. Obama has a new mission for NASA: you get to be the national global warming watchers. Way to go!
How are you ever going to get your space mission back? Russia and China now lead the world in space technology. And they are guaranteed to keep that lead as long as Obama is in office and for a few years after that.
Your only hope to return to space in less than a decade is to disprove the junk science promoted by Hansen, NOAA, CRU, Jones, Mann, and all the liars who promote the hoax for dollars. Hansen alone has received over 22 million dollars in grants over the last ten years. Follow THAT money!
Promoting the false church of anthropogenic warming has put you out of the whole space exploration business. How will you fix this? How will you end the crazy belief in ‘man caused end of the world by CO2 concentrations over 350ppm’? Only you can save your selves. You are responsible for this because Hansen is your boy.
Obama also wants to destroy the energy companies in the US. He wants to bankrupt them with Cap and Trade taxation because that will ‘Save The World’ from ‘man-caused warming’. ‘Man Caused Catastrophic Global Warming’ is a false church with no actual evidence that of CO2 forcing, or even of any evidence of warming outside of their cooked data. This will destroy many industries aside from energy. It will increase unemployment. It will certainly prolong the depression we are in. NASA can help to save us if you will finally find scientists like Dr. Fred Singer and then promote their message, and seemingly unlimited evidence, of the falsity of the church of anthropogenic warming.
What are you going to do about all of this? Meekly become the Global Warming Monitoring Agency as Obama has decreed? Or return to the Truth and subsequently return to space exploration?
The weather satellites show no warming so I guess your inability to launch satellites ever again will be a good thing for Hansen who does not want anyone to see the satellite record: it disproves everything he says.
The climbing rag’s cover is an interesting study on gravity. Can you spot the tell-tale signs of tilting the photo?
You don’t suppose the hero in his novel was “turning the dials” of the geography grad student in exchange for an honorable mention in the report?
AR5 will report that the cause is “axial sympatric molecular pelting”. It’s complicated. But basically, as AGW imparts more kinetic energy to the CO2 molecules, the CO2 molecules are propelled at tremendous speed toward the glacier’s vulnerable surface projection, and as we all know velocity dictates the energy in a collision, so what would be a casual co-mingling of valence electrons during a normal temperature period becomes a violent collision, producing the requisite energy to sublime the glacier.
Obfuscation, pure and simple. So many words to say “as atmospheric temperature rises, the ice melts faster.” Higher temperature would “impart more kinetic energy” to molecules of all atmospheric gases, why single out CO2? Where is any proof that what is observed is not natural (non-anthropogenic, if you prefer hairy terms)? Sad, it is. True, it isn’t.
zunedita373 (02:18:15) :
For some reason, this reminds me of Rush Limbaugh’s hatred of the NAACP. Oh, it’s not that he hates black people. Not at all. He just hates it when they organize to form groups to assert their human rights, that’s all.
Speaking of making unsubstantiated claims…
Here’s the relationship:
Al Gore, Pauchauri, WWF, Greenpeace, et al, are to decent people who care about the environment
as
NAACP et al are to blacks.
How did the assorted Asians and many other ethnic groups get integrated into American society? They didn’t ask to be treated special, merely like everyone else. During my lifetime I have seen my “small town city” in Central Pennsylvania become increasingly diverse, “integrated” if you will, not by legislation or special interest groups, but because different people moved here, current residents then saw they were ordinary people just like them, and the community just accepted them.
Meanwhile, assorted “black advocacy groups” continue to rally troops for a “civil rights” war that was won some time ago, with considerable Republican help, which for a long time now has yielded the primary result of maintaining a perpetual liberal Democratic voting bloc that demands special consideration even though their votes are taken for granted. On the “social justice” front, looking at the great “progress” wrought by continued multi-generational dependence on government entitlements, while saying the situation in our inner cities is a “black holocaust” is a bit strong it unfortunately is not that far off the mark.
Rush Limbaugh does not object to the NAACP as a grouping of people trying to secure their civil rights. He objects to it, and rightfully so, because it takes advantage of them, preying on their fears while feeding them never-realized hopes, to maintain their own power and that of their leadership.
Look around the US. What race-based civil rights battles remain to be fought? Frankly, as I have heard on other blogs from those who have lived in both countries, the UK is more racist than the US, in a less-obvious understated manner.
At this point, if the NAACP really did care about helping black people get ahead, they would disband themselves. Abandon the tired rhetoric, cease making demands for special treatment, and go away. Simply let the rest of America finish doing what we have long been doing on our own, which is to stop making color an issue because it does not matter. We are all one people, Americans, each of us deserving neither more nor less consideration and respect than any other American. And that, is what matters.
zunedita373 (02:18:15) said:
I think you are the first troll to allude to skeptics as racists.
I suspect we will see more of this, and outright claims, not allusions.
Pamela Gray (07:33:15) said:
Yes, her hair hangs at an odd angle for the claimed orientation of her body.
More bad citations! The WWF was cited multiple times in AR3, and several of them were together with the CRU:
http://climatequotes.com/2010/01/31/more-wwf-citations-found-in-ar3-three-alongside-cru/
Jose A Veragio (06:30:31) said:
What’s wrong with using such anecdotal evidence ?
… as long as it’s attributed as such .
Here is what is wrong, but first I will quote from Benny Peiser’s CCNet 8/2010 – 31 Jan 2010
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that we have other evidence that proves that this is not the first time that glaciers in the Alps have retreated to these levels or worse. We have both historical written accounts of people using mountain passes that were, until recently, or still are, blocked by glaciers, and we have the evidence uncovered by these retreating glaciers, of former warming times.
Any honest scientific enquiry would then admit that in order to separate short term climate variance (a PDO/AMO cycle or two) from the long term trend requires several hundred years of reliable data and possibly several thousand.
Please don’t come back at me with the Precautionary Principle, because as far as I can see it is little more than Pascal’s Wager.
Indeed, I suspect the biosphere is currently CO2 constrained. That is, the level of activity in the biosphere by organisms large and small would be greater with a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.
Pamela Gray (07:33:15) made possibly the most important comment of the day:
This is the second time I have responded to your post. Of course her hair gives it away, but the bigger point is this (perhaps you were referring to this bigger point, you devil, you): Even the magazines the IPCC authors refer to commit fraud!