UN admits glacier data dodgy

Still there?

But then claims the rest of the report is robust – of course it is. How could we possibly doubt it, after Climategate and Glaciergate and Hockeystick-gate? The next “gates” in this saga will be floodgates, as independent scientists poring over the IPCC’s claims will find many similar instances of shoddy science used to advance a pre-conceived agenda. From the ABC:

The UN’s climate science panel has acknowledged that a grim prediction on the fate of Himalayan glaciers in a benchmark report on global warming had been “poorly substantiated” and was a lapse in standards.

Charges that the reference was highly inaccurate or overblown have stoked pressure on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already assailed in a separate affair involving hacked email exchanges.

The new row focuses on a paragraph in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, a 938-page opus whose warning in 2007 that climate change was on the march spurred politicians around the world to vow action.

The paragraph notably declared that the probability of glaciers in the Himalayas “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high.”

The IPCC said in a statement that the paragraph “refers to 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,” the panel admitted.

“The Chair, Vice Chair and Co Chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.

“This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of ‘the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source in an IPCC report’.”

And the most shocking aspect to all this is that it appears the IPCC were warned of the dodgy data before it was even published, but they ploughed on regardless. What does that say about the mindset of those writing the reports?

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: