[FairfieldLife] Re: UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics
do: > The legitimate science shows that within > just the last few decades the glaciers > overall have been melting... > So, the Himalayan glaciers are not melting.
[FairfieldLife] Re: UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" wrote: > > Once again you are right Mr. Do, they were only off by 315 years. The > glaciers will melt in the year 2350 AD, we better speed up our conservation > efforts. > The legitimate science shows that within just the last few decades the glaciers overall have been melting and diminishing in size and it's already radically impacting river water flows and shrinking life sustaining fresh water supplies. The melting is diminishing glacier size and depth and is increasing more rapidly than has been expected. The resulting dramatic increase in the loss of a vital fresh water supply to millions of people is potentially catastrophic. Here's just one example: China part 1: Melting Glaciers Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA57XnuC1Hs > I'm going right out and buying a 'smart' car, yippiee!! > Comedy isn't your forte', Billy Gee Whiz... > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnXqyBsO2bo >
[FairfieldLife] Re: UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics
Once again you are right Mr. Do, they were only off by 315 years. The glaciers will melt in the year 2350 AD, we better speed up our conservation efforts. I'm going right out and buying a 'smart' car, yippiee!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnXqyBsO2bo
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WillyTex Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 1:57 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics > Himalayan Glacier Goof-up: More fake ammo > for the climate denial industry... > So, the Himalayan glaciers are not melting. They are. It's just a question of how fast.
[FairfieldLife] Re: UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics
> Himalayan Glacier Goof-up: More fake ammo > for the climate denial industry... > So, the Himalayan glaciers are not melting.
[FairfieldLife] Re: UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics
Himalayan Glacier Goof-up: More fake ammo for the climate denial industry http://snipurl.com/u6dpy [www_mnn_com] VIDEO Report on glacier story: Bad Mistake? One Scientist Reacts to IPCC Mistake Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzKLYlKMyGY --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" wrote: > > Whaat! Political correctness? What have we been telling you! > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" > wrote: > > > > Peace be upon those who follow guidance. > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html > > > > Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified > > > > By David Rose > > Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010 > > > > The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN > > report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night > > admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world > > leaders. > > > > Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 > > report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did > > not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. > > > > In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating > > lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: `It related to > > several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought > > that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and > > politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. > > > > `It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.' > > > > Dr Lal's admission will only add to the mounting furore over the > > melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to > > withdraw because it has no scientific foundation. > > > > According to the IPCC's statement of principles, its role is `to > > assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, > > scientific, technical and socio-economic information IPCC reports > > should be neutral with respect to policy'. > > > > The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests > > on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which > > were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report > > by the environmental campaign group WWF. > > > > It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source. > > > > The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A > > claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 > > metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres the authors had > > divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121. > > > > Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement > > recognising the claim as `unsound', and saying it `regrets any > > confusion caused'. > > > > Dr Lal said: `We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was "grey > > literature" [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But > > it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor > > by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to > > which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.' > > > > In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air. > > > > Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in > > Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, > > said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to > > melt by a factor of about 25. > > > > `My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 > > than there is now,' he said. > > > > `But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It > > doesn't seem to me that exaggerating the problem's seriousness is > > going to help solve it.' > > > > One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack > > of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November > > by the Indian government said: `Himalayan glaciers have not in any way > > exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.' > > > > When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, > > denounced it as `voodoo science'. > > > > Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri > > blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures. > > > > It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. `We as authors > > followed them to the letter,' he said. `Had we received information > > that undermined the claim, we would have included it.' > > > > However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be > > published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the > > new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when > > reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal > > and his colleagues simply ignored them. > > > > For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, sugges
[FairfieldLife] Re: UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics
Whaat! Political correctness? What have we been telling you! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" wrote: > > Peace be upon those who follow guidance. > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html > > Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified > > By David Rose > Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010 > > The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN > report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night > admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world > leaders. > > Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 > report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did > not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. > > In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating > lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: `It related to > several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought > that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and > politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. > > `It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.' > > Dr Lal's admission will only add to the mounting furore over the > melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to > withdraw because it has no scientific foundation. > > According to the IPCC's statement of principles, its role is `to > assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, > scientific, technical and socio-economic information IPCC reports > should be neutral with respect to policy'. > > The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests > on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which > were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report > by the environmental campaign group WWF. > > It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source. > > The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A > claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 > metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres the authors had > divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121. > > Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement > recognising the claim as `unsound', and saying it `regrets any > confusion caused'. > > Dr Lal said: `We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was "grey > literature" [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But > it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor > by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to > which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.' > > In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air. > > Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in > Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, > said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to > melt by a factor of about 25. > > `My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 > than there is now,' he said. > > `But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It > doesn't seem to me that exaggerating the problem's seriousness is > going to help solve it.' > > One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack > of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November > by the Indian government said: `Himalayan glaciers have not in any way > exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.' > > When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, > denounced it as `voodoo science'. > > Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri > blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures. > > It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. `We as authors > followed them to the letter,' he said. `Had we received information > that undermined the claim, we would have included it.' > > However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be > published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the > new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when > reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal > and his colleagues simply ignored them. > > For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that > their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram > range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential > journal Nature. > > In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were > `unable to get hold of the suggested references', but would `consider' > this in their final version. They failed to do so. > > The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what > it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disapp
