The plot thickens

Apparently the glacier mistake was known all along, but the IPCC thought it better to say nothing!

Pielke Jnr has the story.

Comments

[Jack Hughes]

How about this:

Its conclusions -- that climate change is "unequivocal" and poses a major threat -- remain beyond reproach, he [glacier expert Kaser] said.

This is weird. Kaser is a glacier expert and knows that the glacier part of the IPCC report is totally wrong. But somehow he trusts the rest of it.

[Chris Cooper]

ClimateProgress.org has just posted:

Memo to IPCC: Please reanalyze ALL of your conclusions about melting ice and sea level rise.
Good news: The Himalayan glaciers will probably endure past 2035. Bad news: If we don't reverse our emissions trend soon, their disappearance is likely to become irreversible before then.

They’re very chirpy about the IPCC’s Himalayan glacier goof:

MEMO TO MEDIA: It isn’t news that the 2007 projections by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not accurate.
…
It does look like the IPCC used some out-of-date projections for a pretty minor piece of the report,

‘Joe’ doesn’t seem at all bothered by the IPCC’s procedural failings.

He goes on:

Thus it is absolutely crucial that — if the IPCC re-examines the issue of glacial melt in the Himalayans — that it re-examine the entire issue based on the staggering new observational data in the scientific literature:...

- followed by a long list of alarming links.

'Re-examine', 'based on data' ... those are things we should all agree with.

Chris

[Antony]

"A day after it emerged that IPCC's dire prediction that climate change would melt most Himalyan glaciers by 2035 was based on mere "speculation", environment minister Jairam Ramesh slammed the processes of the celebrated body saying "due diligence had not been followed by the Nobel peace prize winning body"." from

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms

[Luke Warmer]

Jack

You identify what the late Michael Crichton called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-whyspeculate.html )

Knowing that your area of expertise has been mis-represented in the press (read IPPC) and then turning the page and taking the next story on complete face value.

[James P]

I'm pleased to see that The Register is onto this. Almost MSM!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/19/ippc_glacier_cockup/

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

Incredible, but somehow not a surprise at all.

[Turning Tide]

In view of the fact that a consortium involving Pachauri's TERI got a grant of $500,000 from the Carnegie Foundation in 2008 on the basis of the alarmist claim about the glaciers, maybe its inclusion in the IPCC report in 2007 isn't quite so inexplicable after all.

I have emailed the Carnegie Foundation a link to Richard North's story, and asked them whether they intend to attempt to recover the money. I suggest other posters do the same.