jump to navigation

Glaciergate meltdown October 30, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,
trackback

Glaciergate meltdown

by John McLean
Quadrant Online, October 27, 2010

Flaws in the IPCC report writing process

The IPCC’s assessment reports are widely regarded as the ultimate references on climate matters. Behind this esteem is a belief that teams of scientists impartially evaluated a vast pool of information and together drafted and refined an impeccable document for each report. The gulf between this belief and reality is in fact huge.

The problems were highlighted by “Glaciergate”, the IPCC’s flawed comments about the Himalayan glaciers.

This section of the IPCC report opened with comments about the area of Himalayan glaciers covering 3 million hectares, which is 30,000 sq. km., and said shortly afterwards that the likelihood of them disappearing by 2035 is very high. In the next paragraph the report says that the glaciers are predicted to shrink from 500,000 sq. km. to 100,000 sq. km. by year 2035, which contradicts the earlier statements both in extent and state of retreat.

It appears that most of the IPCC’s text was a verbatim copy of passages from an article in the Indian magazine Down to Earth, not the source given in the IPCC report, with quotes in that article becoming factual statements in the IPCC report. The retreat by the year 2035 was mentioned in the article but trace the source of that information we find it was an incorrect transcription of year 2350 and the shrinkage to 100,000 sq. km. was a comment about the total of all glaciers outside the polar regions.

How could these errors and inconsistencies appear in the IPCC report, supposedly the authority on climate matters?

The answer lies in the IPCC’s procedures and in the tasks assigned to authors, reviewers and review editors of the reports.

No-one is assigned the work of policing IPCC procedures and the only people to check authors’ work are the expert reviewers, whose role is to “comment on the accuracy and completeness of the … content and … balance of the drafts … according to their own knowledge and experience.” IPCC procedures fail to mention what happens if no experts are available in a particular subject area, so presumably any review is ad hoc and by people less than expert in the subject.

Read the rest here

About these ads

Comments»

1. Oliver K. Manuel - October 31, 2010

After the upcoming election, politicians and consensus scientists may finally realize the sad truth:

Western science and Western forms of government face a self-inflicted crisis: Loss of public confidence caused by unbridled greed and selfishness and by the abuse of federal science as a tool of propaganda.

The deep roots of the climate scandal, dating back to the fall of the Allende meteorite on 8 Feb 1969 and the return of lunar samples from the Apollo Mission on 29 July 1969, will be explained in a new book and in this four-part video series (in process):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQZe_Qk-q7M

Western science (and Western forms of government?) may not survive if they do not eliminate the concentration of power without accountability in:

a.) Anonymous reviews of research proposals and papers, and in

b.) NAS (National Academy of Sciences) control over federal research agencies by annual budget reviews for the US Congress.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: