World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

gizmo555

djpbarry wrote: »

€3 million (or a share of it), in terms of research funding, is peanuts and I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone would go to such extra-ordinary lengths in order to secure such a paltry sum.

As the old cliché goes, academic politics is so vicious precisely because the stakes are so low.

Cunsiderthis

djpbarry wrote: »

You have alleged that TERI has benefitted financially, to the tune of approximately €3 million, from the publication of this incorrect assessment of Himalayan glaciers by the IPCC, or “lies”, as you call them. You are essentially accusing Dr. Pachauri of fraud. But this argument is severely lacking weight. Firstly, there is no evidence that TERI has received anything near the full €3 million in funding – we have no idea how much they received, but based on the number of institutions involved, it would appear to be significantly less than €3 million. Secondly, there is no mention made of the ‘2035 claim’ on the High Noon web page you linked to. Furthermore, the claim did not feature in either the IPCC summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report – you’d imagine it would have if Dr. Pachauri was attempting to mislead policy makers, wouldn’t you? And finally, if Dr. Pachauri was attempting to swindle large amounts of funding from funding bodies, then he has failed abysmally. €3 million (or a share of it), in terms of research funding, is peanuts and I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone would go to such extra-ordinary lengths in order to secure such a paltry sum.
These are hardly “minor details” – they are the basis of your argument. You’ll have to forgive me for not believing everything I read in a newspaper.

You are free to believe whatever you chose to believe, as we all are. If your judgement, based on the evidence, is that you believe Dr Pachauri to be innocent of all charges and allegations as outlined elsewhere in this thread, then that's your judgement.

You are free to judge that TERI received not one cent from the Carnegie Corporation of New York or from EU funded by European taxpayers.

You may choose to believe that they did get grants from the Carnegie Corporation of New York or from the EU, funded by European taxpayers, but that the amount is a "paltry sum" and therefore, Dr Pachauri is not guilty of anything because the amount of money is a paltry sum.

We all have to make up our own minds on this and, if you are right, we can all look forward to the entertaining court case(s) when Dr Pachauri sues all the news outlets (probably over 100 of them) who have made these claims, for defamation and for damages.

djpbarry wrote: »

So Bellamy is a “true scientist” because his opinion happens to agree with yours? Personally, I’d question Bellamy’s “scientific integrity” based on the content of his now infamous letter to Nature in 2005 (in which he claimed, without supporting evidence, that “555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980”) and, the following statement, taken from an opinion piece written for The New Zealand Centre for Political Research:

Anyone who comes out with a statement that is so obviously false is not deserving of the title “scientist”.
With regard to what exactly?

Its funny how you are willing to jump on David Bellamy for his scientific integrity (and you may be right to do so), but when it comes to the IPCC even when there is evidence that Dr Pachuari and the IPCC got it wrong, on the basis of making claims where there was no scientific evidence, and when he belittled and bullied a decent scientist who tried to correct his lack of evidence with proper evidence, you seem to claim he and they have done nothing wrong!

Shome Mhistake Shurley?

David Bellamy, it must be remembered, didn't get millions in "grants" for his own company as a result of his claims. Dr Pachuari did!

We can all make up our own minds as to the veracity of the claims on the evidence available, and it seems most so far in this thread, and elsewhere, do not come to the same conclusions as you appear to.

robtri

Can I ask in this thread does DJPbarry have any conenction directly or indirectly with the IPCC???

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

You are free to believe whatever you chose to believe, as we all are. If your judgement, based on the evidence, is that you believe Dr Pachauri to be innocent of all charges and allegations as outlined elsewhere in this thread, then that's your judgement.

You mean your charges and allegations?

As I see it, there are two separate issues here:

1. An incorrect claim made by the IPCC with regard to the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas
2. A potential conflict of interest involving Dr. Pachauri

Both of these are serious issues in their own right, worthy of discussion. However, what you are attempting to do is imply that something altogether more sinister is taking place. That is, that the IPCC, under the direction of Dr. Pachauri, is deliberately making false claims in order to mislead people. All for the sake of <insert arbitrary figure less than or equal to €3 million here> in funding for his institution? He must be one hell of a persuasive guy.

It may also shock and horrify you to learn that errors are not at all uncommon in peer-reviewed literature – wherever humans are involved, errors will be made.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Its funny how you are willing to jump on David Bellamy for his scientific integrity (and you may be right to do so), but when it comes to the IPCC even when there is evidence that Dr Pachuari and the IPCC got it wrong, on the basis of making claims where there was no scientific evidence, and when he belittled and bullied a decent scientist who tried to correct his lack of evidence with proper evidence, you seem to claim he and they have done nothing wrong!

Once again, I claimed nothing of the sort and I’ll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth. I have not once defended the IPCC with regard to this particular error – heads will/should roll and Professor Lal, in particular, deserves an almighty kick up the behind. However, I will reserve judgement on the organisation as a whole until I see how it reacts to this incident.

As regards Dr. Pachauri’s dismissal of Dr. Raina’s report on the basis of it being non-peer reviewed, well, that is obviously hypocritical.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

We can all make up our own minds as to the veracity of the claims on the evidence available, and it seems most so far in this thread, and elsewhere, do not come to the same conclusions as you appear to.

Oh, I’m well used to reaching different conclusions to other posters on this forum – that is certainly nothing new.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

Can I ask in this thread does DJPbarry have any conenction directly or indirectly with the IPCC???

Ask questions of the post, not the poster.

The elevated status attributed to moderators on boards.ie never fails to amuse.

SLUSK

Is it unreasonable to think this "error" that was made was made in order to get access to more money? It is not as if people never lied in order to get their hands on money before.

probe

djpbarry wrote: »

I have no idea what the relevance of this comment is? If you want to discuss the "Climategate" emails, I suggest you do so in the relevant thread.

The issue of qualifications of an "expert" was mentioned in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64155054&postcount=45

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

Is it unreasonable to think this "error" that was made was made in order to get access to more money?

Without evidence to support such a theory, yes, it is.

probe wrote: »

The issue of qualifications of an "expert" was mentioned in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64155054&postcount=45

I'm still not sure where you're going with this? The nature of Dr. Pachauri's qualifications is hardly a secret?

SLUSK

I tried to make a separate thread about another IPCC scandal brewing but the mod locked it, so I shall write about it in this thread.

The IPCC claims that so called man made climate change leads to more frequent and more serious natural disasters. This is based on a report which has not been under normal scientific scrutiny. What is worse is that they blatantly ignored their scientific advisers who thought the evidence for this was to weak.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7000063.ece

How many more "mistakes" like this will we see in the future? Climategate, Himalaya glacier mistakes and now this. The IPCC is not to be trusted. To me it's obvious that this "science" is nothing more than politics and they will come out with any lies in order to push their agenda.

Angry Troll

SLUSK wrote: »

I tried to make a separate thread about another IPCC scandal brewing but the mod locked it, so I shall write about it in this thread.

The IPCC claims that so called man made climate change leads to more frequent and more serious natural disasters. This is based on a report which has not been under normal scientific scrutiny. What is worse is that they blatantly ignored their scientific advisers who thought the evidence for this was to weak.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7000063.ece

How many more "mistakes" like this will we see in the future? Climategate, Himalaya glacier mistakes and now this. The IPCC is not to be trusted. To me it's obvious that this "science" is nothing more than politics and they will come out with any lies in order to push their agenda.

the climate debate is just all about politics, ideology and, to people like mr. know-it-all gore and the ipcc guys, also about moneymaking…
and why would a mod close down a discussion thread on the issue?

gizmo555

djpbarry wrote: »

what you are attempting to do is imply that something altogether more sinister is taking place. That is, that the IPCC, under the direction of Dr. Pachauri, is deliberately making false claims in order to mislead people.

On the principle that one is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, the IPCC by assigning people to report on fields in which they were unqualifed and allowing them to draw for their reports on information sources which had no scientific basis, did deliberately make false claims in order to mislead people.

To characterise this as an "error" is as much of a misnomer as it is to call a car crash where the driver was speeding while drunk an "accident".

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

The IPCC claims that so called man made climate change leads to more frequent and more serious natural disasters.

No they don’t – the IPCC’s position on hurricanes in particular is relatively non-committal.

gizmo555 wrote: »

On the principle that one is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, the IPCC by assigning people to report on fields in which they were unqualifed and allowing them to draw for their reports on information sources which had no scientific basis, did deliberately make false claims in order to mislead people.

Then considering that Dr. Pachauri himself is not a climate scientist, that suggests that the entire IPCC’s raison d'être is deception ... which is branching into conspiracy, quite frankly.

probe

djpbarry wrote: »

Without evidence to support such a theory, yes, it is.
I'm still not sure where you're going with this? The nature of Dr. Pachauri's qualifications is hardly a secret?

It might not have been a secret but it is relevant. If someone is highly qualified in civil engineering, meteorology, cardiology, accountancy, electrical engineering etc - you are unlikely to pull the wool over their eyes in any matter that relates to their qualification and expertise. They will have studied the theories and know the basic fundamentals inside out. And they will have their professional reputation in that field to protect.

If you put a highly qualified cardiologist or electrical engineer in charge of a climate related research programme, they won't have the relevant experience to bring to the table. It is easier to fool them.

The same applies in virtually every walk of life. One can think of teachers who made good ministers for education in various countries - but performed less well in other portfolios.

There are exceptions where people are naturally gifted in a discipline and make good judgement calls - with or without the qualifications - but these people are the exception.

gizmo555

djpbarry wrote: »

Then considering that Dr. Pachauri himself is not a climate scientist, that suggests that the entire IPCC’s raison d'être is deception ... which is branching into conspiracy, quite frankly.

That's your suggestion, not mine. I generally prefer not to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Either way, Pachauri is self evidently not fit to hold the position he does and is doing the IPCC more damage every day he clings to office.

Mahatma coat

ah but Pachari is more than qualified for his position

he does hold an Economics Degree;)

and thats what its all about

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Ask questions of the post, not the poster.

The elevated status attributed to moderators on boards.ie never fails to amuse.

but the question is related to your recent posts and overwhelming show of support for the IPCC and refusal to accept they have done anything wrong intentionally or accidentally..


with all due respect, it has nothing to do with your mod status... it is often asked of posters, mods or not, to declare their interests upfront...

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

but the question is related to your recent posts and overwhelming show of support for the IPCC and refusal to accept they have done anything wrong intentionally or accidentally..

I’m not sure what thread you’re reading. That’s hardly a fair assessment of my position.

robtri wrote: »

... it is often asked of posters, mods or not, to declare their interests upfront...

No it is not. If it were, I would expect such posts to be reported. It is not required of any poster on this forum that they “declare their interests” (by which I presume you mean personal/professional background).

Now, back on topic please.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not sure what thread you’re reading. That’s hardly a fair assessment of my position.
.

this is on topic...

Cunsiderthis

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not sure what thread you’re reading. That’s hardly a fair assessment of my position.

Perhaps none of us is best qualified to judge the impression we give of ourselves to others.

While not wanting to labour the point, I would have to agree that the impression you give, from the evidence of your posts, is that you support the IPCC through thick and thin and won't tolerate a word of criticism.

I can think of numerous threads where I can point to many posts where this is the impression I have received. As this is not a fair assessment of your position, maybe you could point us to links where you have criticised actions of the IPCC, as I would love to have my impression corrected in the sense of fairness and balance.

Macha

Folks, this is getting far too personal. Stick to the issue at hand.

And again, no in-thread discussion of moderation. Find out where the 'Report Button' is and learn how to use it, if you have an issue.

Turtwig

Oh sweet mother of god, how the heck did this even become a long thread?

IPCC overestimated something and scientists called their attention to it? Big deal! They've also underestimated many things that scientists called their attention to. Though we don't mention those now do we? Anyone who thinks the (peer) review process is perfect has got their head stuck in sand - Mistakes are often made, the important thing though is that they are usually caught as time goes on.

Citing the WWF and not checking their source, was a mistake but it doesn't detract from the overall message of glaciers retreating at faster than expected paces.

Cunsiderthis

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh sweet mother of god, how the heck did this even become a long thread?

IPCC overestimated something and scientists called their attention to it? Big deal! They've also underestimated many things that scientists called their attention to. Though we don't mention those now do we? Anyone who thinks the (peer) review process is perfect has got their head stuck in sand - Mistakes are often made, the important thing though is that they are usually caught as time goes on.

Citing the WWF and not checking their source, was a mistake but it doesn't detract from the overall message of glaciers retreating at faster than expected paces.

The real issue he is not just scientists overestimating something. it is non scientists (ie Dr Pachauri) having a conflict of interest.

He is Chairman of the IPCC and director-general of a company called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).

In his capacity as chairman of the IPCC he promoted the idea that the climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. This was challenged by specialist glaciologists in the area, and Dr Pachauri, in his position as chairman of the IPCC, ridiculed and belittled anyone who actually had evidence that this claim he was making was false, and his claim not supported by either evidence or by the specialists (glaciologists) in the area.

Quite why he felt able, or qualified, to do this, remains a mystery, and quite why he felt at liberty to abuse his position as chairman of the IPCC to ridicule and belittle scientists and their evidence, is also curious.

It must be remembered, Dr pachuari had no evidence to support his claim, and the IPCC now accepts that there is no evidence to support his claim.

In his other capacity, as director-general of a company called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Dr. Pachuari then used this bogus claim (which he had been told was bogus by experts) to obtain grants for his company of up to €3 000 000.

The scandal is one of a conflict of interest on the part of Dr Pachuari, and of appearing to fradulently obtain money for his own business, based on the claim by himself, and at the time backed by the IPCC, who chose to ignore the evidence by the glaciologists).

What is interesting is that, when it is exposed, Dr Pachuari doesn't even seem embarassed by it, but merrily carries on as if he has done nothing wrong.

The IPCC, in the meantime, also does not seem to express concern about this conflict of interest, and that tells us more about him, and them, than they might like to reveal.

gizmo555

Malty_T wrote: »

IPCC overestimated something and scientists called their attention to it? Big deal!

As has already been spelled out in this thread this was not just a simple mistake but gross incompetence compounded by petulant name calling on the IPCC chairman's part when they were called on the nonsensical claims they were making.

Malty_T wrote: »

Citing the WWF and not checking their source, was a mistake but it doesn't detract from the overall message of glaciers retreating at faster than expected paces.

Faster than who expects? According to this blog by Madhav Khandekar, a former research scientist from Environment Canada and expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents:

The depleting ice cap on Mt Kilimanajaro (in east Africa, near equator) is often cited as an “evidence” of global warming, however an excellent paper by Kaser et al ( 2004, Int’l J of Climatology) documents how the peculiar geography of the Mountain together with gradual decline of moisture at mid-tropospheric level since the late nineteenth century has resulted in depletion of its ice cap. These authors discount recent temperature increase as the cause of ice cap shrinking. In case of the Himalayan glaciers, precipitation patterns, especially snow precipitation and its intra-seasonal variations, seem to be an important parameter. Heavy late winter snow precipitation seems to improve the health of some glaciers in the Himalayas (Koul & Ganjoo Climatic Change 2009).

. . . . .

In summary, the glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating, but NOT any faster than other glaciers in the Arctic and elsewhere. The two large and most important glaciers of the Himalayas show very little retreat at this point in time. The primary reason for retreat of some of the other glaciers seems to be lack of adequate winter snow accumulation. This depletion of winter snow could be due many factors like inter-annual variability of winter precipitation or possible southward displacement of the sub-tropical jet stream which straddles the Himalayan Mountains over a long 1500 km path.

It is premature at this stage to link global warming to the deteriorating state of Himalayan glaciers at this time. The Indian Environment Minister MR Jairam Ramesh has correctly observed “let us not write an epitaph on Himalaya glaciers at this time”

In other words, such reduction in size of Himalayan glaciers as there is may in fact have nothing to do with rising temperature.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/global-warming-and-glacier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

In his other capacity, as director-general of a company called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Dr. Pachuari then used this bogus claim (which he had been told was bogus by experts) to obtain grants for his company of up to €3 000 000.

The scandal is one of a conflict of interest on the part of Dr Pachuari, and of appearing to fradulently obtain money for his own business, based on the claim by himself, and at the time backed by the IPCC, who chose to ignore the evidence by the glaciologists).

You’re still a very long way from demonstrating that anyone is guilty of fraud. May I remind you of something that was posted by a certain someone earlier in this thread:

ConsiderThis wrote: »

A sceptic, we have to remember, is someone who does not believe something without evidence.

Pembily

This thread is quite funny - the IPCC being the bad guy here is a conspiracy theory (IMHO) - conspiracy theories crack me up!!!

Mahatma coat

Generally when people lie and cheat to alter peoples perceptions they can be considered to have Conspired against those people.

the IPCC Lied, it lied repeatedly to strengthen its position when there was grant money being allocated

Unqualified people hoodwinked organisations and then Bullied people into submission
(thats called a coverup, tis different to a conspiracy as its mostly an after the fact situation)

but you think its funny that the people who were put in charge of finding the 'Truth' did just that, however it didnt agree with their World view so we gewt their 'version' instead.


serioulsy if incompetnat unqualified liars amuses you Oreachtas report must crack you up.

Turtwig

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The real issue he is not just scientists overestimating something. it is non scientists (ie Dr Pachauri) having a conflict of interest.

I stopped reading here..

A non scientist with a qualification in economics and engineering is unheard of. Economists are scientists. Engineers can be scientists too and ,unless you're really pedantic about it, engineers are scientists.

One of the criticisms of Mann's hockey stick graph was his failure to consult statisticians to help statistically analyse the data. Yet here you are arguing that the IPCC shouldn't have someone with an understanding of economics and statistics are the helm of a largely statistical phenomenon - that's he a non scientist. If I may say so that argument is just plain weird.

Turtwig

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Generally when people lie and cheat to alter peoples perceptions they can be considered to have Conspired against those people.

the IPCC Lied, it lied repeatedly to strengthen its position when there was grant money being allocated

Unqualified people hoodwinked organisations and then Bullied people into submission
(thats called a coverup, tis different to a conspiracy as its mostly an after the fact situation)

but you think its funny that the people who were put in charge of finding the 'Truth' did just that, however it didnt agree with their World view so we gewt their 'version' instead.


serioulsy if incompetnat unqualified liars amuses you Oreachtas report must crack you up.

Unqualified liars? That's quite the statement to make. The IPCC reports were reviewed by experts who were more than qualified in their respective disciplines.

Just out of curiosity does any anti-climatologist here know what the actual review process of IPCC here is? It would help if you could detail the how it was blatantly lying on the part of the reviewers and the authors.

Anyways, I' haven't had time to review to this thread, so apologies if it has already has been covered. Here's how the rather silly error came about.

---

From the second draft.

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in other any part of the world (see Table 10.10 below) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate. The glaciers will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035.

This was followed by the review comment.

I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding - and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in precipitation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.'s 2005 Nature paper here - this seems very similar to what they said. (Hayley Fowler, Newcastle University)

Reply:

Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version

So they erroneously cited the WWF.

"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high".


The WWF's error was that they took a quotation from an author of the WGHG report. The IPCC error was laziness and failure to scrutinise the source.

---

Conclusion: citation Laziness.


Many thanks to deltoid for the excellent blog. It seems we are really going to need a Talk-Climate.org

robtri

Malty_T wrote: »

The IPCC error was laziness and failure to scrutinise the source.

---

Conclusion: citation Laziness.

So you agree, that the IPCC used incorrect information in their report...

As A secientific body charged with putting information together on climate and its effects, thats not laziness, thats lying through your teeth....

Macha

robtri wrote: »

As A secientific body charged with putting information together on climate and its effects, thats not laziness, thats lying through your teeth....

No, because you have yet to prove that it wasn't an honest mistake.

gizmo555

Malty_T wrote: »

Conclusion: citation Laziness.

What conclusion do you draw from these comments by the IPCC chairman after this "citation laziness" was drawn to his attention?

London, January 9 (ANI): Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has described the Indian government report that criticized the claim by IPCC over the faster than expected melting of Himalayan glaciers, as “voodoo science”.

.....

But, according to a report in New Scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as “voodoo science” lacking peer review. He adds that “we have a very clear idea of what is happening” in the Himalayas.

Mine is that Pachauri has slandered his fellow scientist, and lied about having "a clear idea" of what is happening with regard to Himalayan glaciers. The hypocrisy in claiming the government report lacked peer review is particularly breathtaking. Leaving aside the clear conflict of interest he has between his work for the IPCC and his own business interests, on this ground alone the man has to go and even friends of the IPCC must see that by now.

More at : Pachauri calls Indian govt. report on melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”

Mahatma coat

Conclusion : Twistin Evidence to suit an agenda

Turtwig

gizmo555 wrote: »

What conclusion do you draw from these comments by the IPCC chairman after this "citation laziness" was drawn to his attention?

I'd be very very surprised if the IPCC chairman's comment were just referring to that Indian Government's report dismissing the 2035. The report, which severely lacks citations, has made a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Which isn't surprising when you consider that India's "scientific" Health Dept. has just started endorsing homoeopathy. I'm sorry but can you blame me if I'm skeptical of the Indian Governments reports?

If you can show that his comments were specifically aimed at the claim about 2035 being wrong. Then I'll agree with you, he's in for some major humiliation and was an arrogant ass.

Cunsiderthis

Malty_T wrote: »

I'd be very very surprised if the IPCC chairman's comment were just referring to that Indian Government's report dismissing the 2035. The report, which severely lacks citations, has made a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Which isn't surprising when you consider that India's "scientific" Health Dept. has just started endorsing homoeopathy. I'm sorry but can you blame me if I'm skeptical of the Indian Governments reports?

If you can show that his comments were specifically aimed at the claim about 2035 being wrong. Then I'll agree with you, he's in for some major humiliation and was an arrogant ass.

Is your argument that everything the indian government says or does is invalidated because theur health department has made some endorsement of homoeopathy? If so, (and that appears to be what you are saying) then it's not a very good argument.

I agree that homoeopathy is bogus and a lie (as proven by the evidence available and the science available), just as I can see that Dr Pachuari and the IPCC are wrong with their pronouncements about the Himalayian's being ice free by 2035, again based on the evidence and science available.

Even the IPCC now says that it was wrong to make that claim!

Turtwig

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Is your argument that everything the indian government says or does is invalidated because theur health department has made some endorsement of homoeopathy? If so, (and that appears to be what you are saying) then it's not a very good argument.

Nope my argument is that the Indian Government report is unsubstantiated and lacks citations. The fact that it claimed the IPCC were wrong about the 2035 claim, does not validate the Indian Government's entire report.
My point about the homoeopathy is that Government isn't following a scientific agenda anywhere. For this reason I'm skeptical of any report it publishes.
(Using the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit I have no choice in this matter. )

Cunsiderthis

Malty_T wrote: »

Nope my argument is that the Indian Government report is unsubstantiated and lacks citations. The fact that it claimed the IPCC were wrong about the 2035 claim, does not validate the Indian Government's entire report.
My point about the homoeopathy is that Government isn't following a scientific agenda anywhere. For this reason I'm skeptical of any report it publishes.
(Using the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit I have no choice in this matter. )

I agree re homoeopathy as one of the greatest con jobs perpetrated on the greatest number of people. Not only is there no evidence for it, there is a plethora of evidence to suggest it is nonsense, and the billions made by the homoeopathic industry are a testament to the stupidity of so many of us.

gizmo555

Malty_T wrote: »

If you can show that his comments were specifically aimed at the claim about 2035 being wrong. Then I'll agree with you, he's in for some major humiliation and was an arrogant ass.

According to this report in the New Scientist, Pachauri's voodoo comment was made in respect of this discussion paper by Vijay Raina, who is described by the New Scientist as a "a leading Indian glaciologist". Raina's paper states that contrary to the IPCC's claim that "glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world", there is no abnormal retreat of Himalayan glaciers.

Mahatma coat

The homeopathy angle is just a non sequitor, the fact remains that one guy made a random statement and then ...... read taconnols sig.............
Bias, towards one particular POV is not Science

Cunsiderthis

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The homeopathy angle is just a non sequitor, the fact remains that one guy made a random statement and then ...... read taconnols sig.............
Bias, towards one particular POV is not Science

In fairness, I don't think even the credulouists would now claim that the IPCC is a scientific body.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think even the credulouists would now claim that the IPCC is a scientific body.

In all seriousness, the name-calling is getting a little childish.

It's clear to me the IPCC failed to follow its own rules in only including peer-reviewed research.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

In all seriousness, the name-calling is getting a little childish.

It's clear to me the IPCC failed to follow its own rules in only including peer-reviewed research.

In all seriousness, it's not this one example of their claim that the ice would melt by 2035 which shown the IPCC is not a scientific body. The IPCC also still claims to "believe" in Mann's hockey stick graph, even though his work has been showed to be flawed and non scientific.

Additionally, that the IPCC does not express concern about the conflict of interest shown by Dr Pachuari is revealing, and that it does not show concern for what he has done re raising money for his own companies must be worrying for most observers.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

In all seriousness, it's not this one example of their claim that the ice would melt by 2035 which shown the IPCC is not a scientific body. The IPCC also still claims to "believe" in Mann's hockey stick graph, even though his work has been showed to be flawed and non scientific.

For what must be the millionth time, there is another thread for that topic

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Additionally, that the IPCC does not express concern about the conflict of interest shown by Dr Pachuari is revealing, and that it does not show concern for what he has done re raising money for his own companies must be worrying for most observers.

Would you like to provide some evidence for your theory other than that Dr Pachauri has some business interests?

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

For what must be the millionth time, there is another thread for that topic


Would you like to provide some evidence for your theory other than that Dr Pachauri has some business interests?

I love your pejorative language ("...for your theory..." .."Dr Pachuari has some other business interests")

I don't have a "theory" but am contributing to a thread about "World mislead over Himalayan meltdown".

If you are unable to understand the conflict on interest between Dr Pachuari promoting a theory and putting his weight behind it as chairman if the IPCC, and also, in his role as chairman of the IPCC, belittling and ridiculing evidence given by a scientist,who specialised in the area, who suggested that the evidence contradicted Dr Pachuari, and Dr Pachuari in his role as chief executive of a private company, using the evidence he has been promoting as head of the IPCC, ( evidence which was not true and was a lie), to help obtain funds and grants of up to €3 000 000 for his company, then you can't see it is a conflict of interest.

For you to merely dismiss that as "some other business interest" is your decision, and I can't agree. So lets agree to disagree and move on!

Turtwig

taconnol wrote: »

It's clear to me the IPCC failed to follow its own rules in only including peer-reviewed research.

Sorry, Tac, but that was never actually a rule. Grey Literature that was deemed to be scientifically sound is allowed within the guidelines.
Given the enormous size of the reports it was initially hoped to "crackdown" or "eliminate" grey references as the reports progressed i.e the first assessment contains more than fourth.
The rule that was broken was that the claim wasn't scientifically sound.:)

Macha

Malty_T wrote: »

Given the enormous size of the reports it was initially hoped to "crackdown" or "eliminate" grey references as the reports progressed i.e the first assessment contains more than fourth.
The rule that was broken was that the claim wasn't scientifically sound.:)

Ah fair enough, I was under the impression that grey research would have been eliminated at this stage.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I love your pejorative language ("...for your theory..." .."Dr Pachuari has some other business interests")

I don't consider the word 'theory' pejorative and fail to see why you do...

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

If you are unable to understand the conflict on interest between Dr Pachuari promoting a theory and putting his weight behind it as chairman if the IPCC, and also, in his role as chairman of the IPCC, belittling and ridiculing evidence given by a scientist,who specialised in the area, who suggested that the evidence contradicted Dr Pachuari, and Dr Pachuari in his role as chief executive of a private company, using the evidence he has been promoting as head of the IPCC, ( evidence which was not true and was a lie), to help obtain funds and grants of up to €3 000 000 for his company, then you can't see it is a conflict of interest.

...and yet you see fit to put down my disagreement with your opinion as my 'failing to understand'.

Turtwig

gizmo555 wrote: »

According to this report in the New Scientist, Pachauri's voodoo comment was made in respect of this discussion paper by Vijay Raina, who is described by the New Scientist as a "a leading Indian glaciologist". Raina's paper states that contrary to the IPCC's claim that "glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world", there is no abnormal retreat of Himalayan glaciers.

Yes, I'm well aware of this, but Raina's paper doesn't stop at the 2035 mark, it goes much further and get's a little bit dubious (not to mention lacking citations).:) Have you got anything that shows that Pachauri is dismissing questions of 2035 specifically?

Also, I just noticed that this thread title is a little sensationalised. The world was not misled, as the 2035 claim wasn't even close to the central IPCC conclusions on the issue. It should read : " World misled, just a teensy tiny wee bit, over Himalayan Glaciers.":D

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Ah fair enough, I was under the impression that grey research would have been eliminated at this stage.


I don't consider the word 'theory' pejorative and fail to see why you do...


...and yet you see fit to put down my disagreement with your opinion as my 'failing to understand'.

Really, I disagree with your opinion and you, apparantly, with mine.

Can we not agree to disagree and move on?

gizmo555

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes, I'm well aware of this, but Raina's paper doesn't stop at the 2035 mark, it goes much further and get's a little bit dubious (not to mention lacking citations).:) Have you got anything that shows that Pachauri is dismissing questions of 2035 specifically?

The 2035 date doesn't appear anywhere in Raina's paper. It was the IPCC that came up with this date and the sensational and wholly unsubstantiated claims that Himalayan glaciers would very likely (which in their terms apparently means a probability of at least 90%) have entirely disappeared by 2035.

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, I just noticed that this thread title is a little sensationalised. The world was not misled, as the 2035 claim wasn't even close to the central IPCC conclusions on the issue. It should read : " World misled, just a teensy tiny wee bit, over Himalayan Glaciers.":D

What on earth do you mean? It has clearly been established that the entire section on Himalayan glaciers in the IPCC 2007 report is completely counter factual.

Angry Troll

the aftermath of the ipcc and other scandals... www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674087,00.html

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Can we not agree to disagree and move on?

Of course I'm just really annoying and have to have the last word :pac: