Comments on: Glaciergate? IPCC Claims That Himalayan Glaciers Will Disappear By 2035 Are Melting Away

By: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, March 11th 2010 « The Daily Bayonet

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, March 11th 2010 « The Daily Bayonet — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:19:44 +0000

[...] those clever sciencytists, and they let Glaciergate slip by? I’d call that more than a [...]

By: Glaciers Grow - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest

Glaciers Grow - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:07:02 +0000

[...] credibility of both the IPCC and its chairman in the wake of ‘climategate’ and ‘glaciergate‘ is giving countries like India and China the political freedom to back away from the policy [...]

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:29:45 +0000

The Nobel peace prize has now been destroyed, having been awarded to two smooth talking conmen – Gore and Pachauri.
Nobel Committee – retract this prize from the conmen now, otherwise future awards may be considered a slur on the winner’s integrity.

By: Will Garnaut and Rudd retract? « catallaxy files

Will Garnaut and Rudd retract? « catallaxy files — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:07:44 +0000

[...] terrible. Thankfully we now know that isn’t true. Actually we know a bit more; Walter Russell Mead uses the F-word. One of the most alarming predictions of the IPCC, the scientific panel that is considered the [...]

By: ICE REMAINS, IPCC MELTS « An Honest Climate Debate

ICE REMAINS, IPCC MELTS « An Honest Climate Debate — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:46:19 +0000

[...] of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research.” Which is saying something. More from Walter Russell Mead: If evidence this slender was sufficient to convince the IPCC that this threat was real, it’s [...]

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:51:38 +0000

I guess if the IPCC have reported on something then the best course of action would be to think the exact opposite.
The shrill alarmism from this mob and the berating of anyone opposing them, just ask Martin Durkin, highlights the veracity of their so called ‘Science’.
The ‘alarmists’ as the IPCC call them are yet to make such grandious blunders or miss calculations. The IPCC on the other hand are yet to get a prediction even remotely correct.
What do the boys at East Anglia have to say on this…lol

By: Gee... That's a Hard One

Gee... That's a Hard One — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:52:12 +0000

[...] There is further discussion which mentions the strategic implication in The American Interest. [...]

By: JOHN calomiris

JOHN calomiris — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:12:50 +0000

I am just recovering from a bender.While there,I had a great idea!To keep the world from being flooded due to the melting of the glaciers”in our lifetime:BUILD A THREE ROW LINE OF EVAPORATORS ALONG THE COASTS OF THE ENTIRE LAND MASS OF OUR WORLD!That would save the planet, provide pure drinking water and for other purposes like a shot and a beer.Where to store all that water?Why build dams at all the canyons!!

By: Relax, Gangotri is not going away, after all! – The global warming hoax and the Himalayan glacier scare. « India Unfinished

Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:23:22 +0000

[...] While the blame game goes on, science being not exempt from it. And not a moment too soon we have a new word for a new scandal, thank you Walter Russel Meade, Glacier Gate [...]

By: Luke Lea

Luke Lea — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:29:36 +0000

I’ve just wasted my morning, but if you trace the genealogy of the IPCC reports and how they are repaired, you are lead back to their first report (Climate Change, Cambridge U. Press, 1991) which unfortunately is not online. In the preface to that 1st report, which I have a copy of, the editors acknowledge that they have built on a previous report, SCOPE 29 (The Greenhouse Effect, John Wiley & Sons,1986), which, in turn, was built on 28 previous SCOPE reports, none of which are online (SCOPE, btw, is short for Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment). The first SCOPE report, which I also have, was published in 1971 (!) by MIT Press and is entitled Inadvertent Climate Change: Report of the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate (SMIC), hereafter referred to simply as SMIC. (Incidentally, Stephen Schneider, a now well-known climate alarmist, was on the two-man “Research Staff” for that SMIC report and may have been responsible for writing it, in which case this would have been his earliest publication.)

Be that as it may, the SMIC report was based on a meeting of “thirty scientists from fourteen countries” during the previous year and opens with a Sanskrit Prayer (Oh, Mother earth, ocean-girdled and mountain-breasted, pardon me for trampling on you). It then proceeds to lay out its goals and the methodology, from which I quote:

The stated goal was to provide “an international scientific consensus on what we know and do not know” about climate science [it being assumed such a consensus existed] and to supply that consensus “as input into planning for the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and for numerous other national and international activities.”

As for the methodology, it is substantially identical to the one followed by the IPCC to this day. The technical findings were arrived at through an intensive three-week discussion among the scientists themselves working in 5 Work Groups “as well as discussion and careful consideration by all participants,” including presumably by Stephen Schneider himself. I now quote from the Preface:

“This Report represents the consensus of all of the SMIC participants. Each participant concurs with the substantive presentation, but everyone did not have time to review the final wording of all the chapters. . . . Some editing was done in the weeks following SMIC. . . .Because the major objective of SMIC was to raise the level of informed public and scientific discussion and action on global and regional climate problems, this Report was published as quickly as possible.”

Notice the sense of urgency and the fact that the scientists themselves do not have the final word in how their findings are summarized and presented to the public. The only innovation since then is that the summaries are now published by the IPCC several months before the scientific findings themselves.
–
Luke