UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report – Times Online.
Enough of these kinds of stories have surfaced recently that should make rational people at least question the claims made by the Anthro weather crowd if not dismiss the entire notion once and for all. The persistent retort by the weather chicken littles has always been that “science has verified these conclusions” and to deny them made you a flat earther.
It turns out that the ground zero of evidence of glacial melting in this story is not a roomful of meticulously collected data, analyzed objectively and mapped out using complex mathematical and predictive models, but on an interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. Upon learning this, to their great embarrassment, the IPCC panel admitted to poorly substantiated predictions.
!!!
One of the inconvenient facts gleaned from this study was the minor statistic involving the size of glaciers under scrutiny. One of the most glaring errors in the study claims:
“…the total area of Himalayan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035…”
Only problem is, there are only 33,000square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.
This kind of stuff happens I suppose; a fat finger press of the buttons on the calculator and all of a sudden, an area the size of the moon will melt into the ocean etc etc. But when the results of the analysis of the data are so controversial, you would think, certainly as scientists, that a check of the data and techniques are in order. At least that’s what they told us in first year science.
The truly disturbing part of this article is this passage from Dr. Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist whose interview formed the basis of these series of conclusions is now suspect:
He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.
“…He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time. “I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?…”
What kind of operation is the IPCC? Is it run like the Mafia where ‘omerta’ is the code and someone will break your legs if you point out an inconvenient fact? Is there a history of this kind if thing with IPCC? Do horse’s heads wind up in people’s beds?
It’s all fun until someone loses an eye is the old saying and in this case some serious damage has been done. This kind of ‘science’ has contributed to the great bogus industry and worldwide political handwringing over dealing with global warming. This oversight led to the butterfly effects of scaremongering. In an article from The Register exactly one year ago, Dr. John Theon the NASA scientist who supervised James Hanse, the man widely credited for inflicting global warming hysteria states:
“…My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.
“They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
Hmm, evidence of faulty or fraudulent data. I think what we need here are forensic lawyers. We need the vast army of under utilized legal talent to audit, verify and hold those responsible for foisting this junk science on the world. After all, much damage has been inflicted on all societies. There have been unneccesarily increased taxes, destroyed industries, the laughable cap and trade schemes and most dastardly, the conning of young people to bow to the cause. Let the lawyers loose. Let them figure out who has been complicit with the whole charade. Hey, in the legal world, someone’s always responsible. When they figure it out, send them all to Antarctica to re-study the scientific method shod only in flip flops and flowered shirts.
