UPDATE: WUWT Gets results – Time fixes the error! See below.
Reader HowardW sends this tip. Almost two years after the discovery of this ridiculous error, once labeled “voodoo science” by IPCC Rajenda Pachauri when told of skeptics pointing out this error, only to have to admit it is a real mistake later, the “Himilayan Glaciers will melt by 2035” is back. Here’s the screencap of the article:
It is amazing that this false date of 2035 is still in circulation at a major media outlet, isn’t it?
I ask that WUWT readers make sure the editors of Time are aware of the error. Here’s where you can fill their Inbox:
http://www.time.com/time/letters/email_letter.html
As for author Julien Bouissou, you’d think that somebody who has immersed himself in India and is a member of the Institute for the Practice of Journalism would hear about the IPCC fiasco over glaciers. But, no.
Maybe one of our French speaking readers can locate the original article in Lemonde and notify them too.
UPDATE: 3:00PM PST 11/16/2011 – Responding to the attention brought to bear by WUWT, Time has retracted the statement about glaciers disappearing in 2035 and added this statement:
It only took about 6 hours – good job folks!
Why are you all so surprised?
In fact this is SOP for every green organization. I watched this happen for almost 40 years in the nuclear industry. Get one paper with some dubious science past peer review or in some authoritative publication and, if it suits the green agenda purpose, it will be referred to forever as fact, no matter how many papers in how many respected journals are published to refute the claim. The green shirts use this standard technique in nuclear waste management programs, food irradiation, genetically modified foods or anything they oppose. They call it “truthiness” but it’s really just lying. Don’t ever expect to see green shirts or any of their friends in the MSM stop misrepresenting the 2035 date as fact. …maybe in 2036.
I suppose that in the end all the arguments that we are having will be moot. AGW alarmism will hit the buffers eventually due to reality not going along with the agenda. This particular error may keep popping up from time to time but as 2035 approaches it will begin to look ridiculous. I am looking forward to the summer of 2015 when some guy who says that the North Pole will be ice free is going to fall on his face.
Am I correct in saying that the 2035 figure came from typo of 2350?
My advanced computer model projects a complete meltdown of Times’ authority by 2035 AD due to anthropogenic nitty-gritty disruption.
Brandon says:
November 16, 2011 at 10:24 am
What difference does it make if it is 2035 or 2100? If its a problem its a problem no matter when the consequence will be fully realized.
As you say: *if* it is a problem.
Read some of the references above that show that far from shrinking some of the glaciers are actually advancing. So in answer to your premise – It does not seem to be a problem.
Amazing? Not really. Journalists by and large are undereducated, the media fact-checkers are either absent or overwhelmed, and editors conflate and confuse when they get their hands into the mess. Much of “journalism” today seems to be cut and paste so the persistence of false memory should be expected. Then there are the headline writers looking to inject as much sizzle as possible to garbled press releases.
Tell me why anybody pays for this stuff…
Sent:
I am amazed that a reputable publication such as yours can print this Bhutan story, based on the ‘Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035’ IPCC statement. It has been well known for a long time that this statement was false. All of the world’s major media outlets covered the story, and it was headline news in many of them. For example, here is the error being reported in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, which has been staunchly supportive of the IPCC for many years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/19/un-climate-rajendra-pachauri-regret
“The mistake, a false assertion that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, exacted severe damage to the reputation of the IPCC and its head, Rajendra Pachauri.”
I fear that if you do not print a prompt retraction, your reputation will also be badly damaged. A lot of people care a lot about this subject, given its importance to national economies and hence to everyone’s economic wellbeing.
jack morrow says:
November 16, 2011 at 7:51 am
I hate conspiracy theories ,but I’m beginning to wonder about the AGW crowd ….. I’m also thinking maybe there is a little something to this “new world order” thing…..
_________________________________
Jack, the “new world order” thingy is now called “Global Governance” Unfortunately it is very much alive and well and a big factor in what we hear as news. The push is towards “Global Governance” and the buss words are “Sustainability” “renewable energy” and “Climate Change” The truth has very little to do withthis agenda.
The World Trade Organization Director, Pascal Lamy, a year ago in The Global Journal published an article “Of What Use is Global Governance?” among others. The article shows exactly where he wants us to head. http://www.theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
The US & EU Intelligence Agencies released “Global Governance 2025” Courtesy of a Freedom of Information Act request. It can be found at cia.gov – http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf
You will get lots of hit if you search. “Global Governance”.
Given what we see in the news today this gives another glimpse into the minds of those generating the propaganda and spin to push us in the direction of a predetermined goal.
From the EUROPEAN COMMISSION’s “WORLD IN 2025” report: http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/the-world-in-2025-report_en.pdf
I found this prhase “Progress in the adoption of a world governance system, due to the extent of the problems to be dealt with and to the pressure of public opinion.”
It is the last in a listing of “Wild Cards” like
“A major war…,
A technological disaster which could influence the choices of priorities of governments (e.g. a nuclear accident like Chernobyl blocking the nuclear option for many years);
collapse of a major urban area…,
Pandemics with devastating effects….”
A breakthrough in the field of renewable energy production…”
and of course“Sudden or even brutal acceleration of the (nonlinear) impacts of climate change”
This list of possible “Wild Cards” is followed by a section titled: “Stabilising the world, recognising the new key-actors: The transition towards a multi-polar world and world governance.
….. The new geopolitical situation which takes shape with the rise to power of emerging countries will probably have as a counterpart a new organisation of international relations.
The EU aims at leading by example. A common governance system on a world level is likely to emerge (transition from the nation state to new legal-political entities) but one does not know how it will evolve……” (pg 21 of 35)
Without the background knowledge of what the ultimate goal is, the news such as this Times piece does not make much sense.
Steele said:
November 16, 2011 at 11:03 am
‘Mountain Tsunamis’? I guess it’s possible for the entire glacier to change state instantly and pour off the mountain …
Misunderstanding the issue does not help. The problem has nothing to do with instantaneous phase changes of huge volumes of solid glacial ice.
There are many lakes that contain glacier melt water which may have built up over a period of time. The lakes exist because of natural damming of the water. Unfortunately, some of these natural “dams” are none too strong and their collapse could release water equivalent to years of glacier melt “instantly” to cause death and destruction to villages below them (possibly built there because of the easy access to water). Forget manmade dams with great walls of solid rock. These are adventitious piles of boulders infilled with debris and silt.
The problem will continue to exist whether or not there is CAGW because the dams can be disrupted by earthquakes. The best that can be done is to release the water in a controlled way such that the rapid flow will not disrupt the dam by erosion.
Alan Bates
Brandon says:
November 16, 2011 at 10:24 am
What difference does it make if it is 2035 or 2100? If its a problem its a problem no matter when the consequence will be fully realized.
___________________________________________
The problem isn’t melting/shrinking glacires, they have shrunk before as the human artifacts being uncovered prove.
You want a REAL problem to worry about, then worry about when the Holecene INTERGLACIAL is going to end and my old hometown/state will be covered by a mile of ice.
Warm =>wet + CO2 => Lots of FOOD.
“It is amazing that this false date of 2035 is still in circulation at a major media outlet, isn’t it?”
Not really – it’s Time, after all.
Glad you said “media” outlet instead of news outlet. Accuracy is important.
#
#
Gary says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:29 am
Amazing? Not really. Journalists by and large are undereducated, …..Then there are the headline writers looking to inject as much sizzle as possible to garbled press releases.
Tell me why anybody pays for this stuff…
_______________________________________________
I quit watching the boob tube in 1975, I quit getting the papers (Wall Street Journal, Barrons,,,) in 1995 and I quit my professional Associations in disgust a few years ago.
I just can not stomach all the propaganda and dreck any more and I refuse to pay someone else to brain wash me.
It is called voting with your feet.
I read TIME magazine from cover to cover for decades until about eight years ago when their cover depicted a cowering American soldier. I cancelled my subscription and have never gone back.
Letter to editor has been sent, along with an offer to replace the lazy SOB who wrote that garbage above.
This article is from Time Magizine itself!:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1955405,00.html
How lame can they be?
XKCD is particulary apt today !
http://xkcd.com/978/
No. That was a coincidence, because the Canadian journalist who first exposed the error noted that there was a gray literature article (not cited by the IPCC) that mentioned 2350–and he guessed that that might be the source of the mistake. He changed his mind when the whole of the story emerged. I wrote a history of the main points of it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-real-climate-scientist-dr-ray-pierrehumbert/#comment-683880
2100 means we can afford to wait to see if there really is a problem. I.e., if temperatures stay flat for five or ten more years, then the case that CO2 is a major driver becomes very suspect. Second, it gives us time for possible technological breakthroughs to happen, or to mature (like thorium, maybe). We’ve already had one, in the form of shale gas.
2035? Sure, why not? By the way did you know that Global Warming caused the JFK assassination? /sarc
can this be added to the climatefail files nice to have some more docs in there for the grand kids to laugh at.
How about Australias news.com.au http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/higher-ground-8-must-see-vanishing-tourist-destinations/story-e6frfq80-1226191304284
Apparently we are to visit these sites quick because of the global warming and sea level rise…. *sigh* MSM really do have alot to answer for
The IPCC “correction” at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf is very careful not to admit that anything in the report is actually wrong. It merely states its regret that “a paragraph … refers to poorly substantiated estimates … of the date of disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers.” The statement also emphasizes that the conclusions of AR4 in this respect are “robust”. There is no actual retraction of a specific paragraph. One could read this to mean that 2035 is about right according to other sources they neglected to cite, but that the specific source the IPCC did cite did not well substantiate this (in fact robust) estimate.
So I’m not surprised if the press still thinks 2035 is valid.
The latest XKCD cartoon explains this situation extremely well. Be sure to read the ‘hint text’ too, it is very funny!
I have a copy of a National Geographic entitled “Greenland – Ground Zero for Global Warming”.
It contains two seperate articles – one dealing with scientists studying meltwater during summer – it is alarmist. The second dealing with the Greenland peoples and where they live is much less alarmist and historically correct acknowledging the Norse history and the freezing end to the settlements there.
It seems the Greenlanders can’t get enough global warming – they may get a chance to produce enough food to live without Denmark supplying the vast majority of their needs.
I think they may be disappointed in the future though. What if the warming periods of the Holocene interglacial have already peaked and we are cycling down to less intense warming periods in the years ahead ?
Now that is worthy of subsidy and study – I would’ve thought a simple trace gas has already been studied to death.
John Daly urged the Australian Gov’t to study the ENSO phenomen instead of CO2 and was ignored.
There was little warning about the severe 2011 LaNina summer here. Now with an apparently modest LaNina our governments are lowering dam levels but clearly the signs of a repeat of 2011 are not there at the moment – we have had the driest November to date for a hundred years to date.
Will we get floods or drought and heat – no one knows especially the CO2 experts.
What a waste !
>> Brandon says:
November 16, 2011 at 10:24 am
What difference does it make if it is 2035 or 2100? If its a problem its a problem no matter when the consequence will be fully realized. <<
The sun is going to turn into a red giant, engulfing the Earth. We need to tax everyone now.
Brandon says:
November 16, 2011 at 10:24 am
“What difference does it make if it is 2035 or 2100? If its a problem its a problem no matter when the consequence will be fully realized.”
Looks like you’ve fallen for it hook, line and sinker. It’s not going to happen.
Keith says:
November 16, 2011 at 8:27 am
Aside from the obvious 2035 nonsense the article basically states:
“The climate is changing. Experts blame climate change”
Anyone else spotted a slight circularity in their point?
Yeah, but Keith –
Them’s some experts we can believe in!
🙂
Looks like theyve changed the article..and added this at the bottom;
“The original version of this article, first published in the French newspaper Le Monde, cited a 2007 report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which stated that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. In 2010 the IPCC retracted that report, calling it inaccurate; there is no known date by which Himalayan glaciers are expected to disappear.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2098960,00.html#ixzz1duWMrCFo“