Himalayan Glacier Goof-up: More fake ammo for the climate denial industry
New Scientist runs story with misquoted scientist, then falsely claims IPCC 'debate.'
Photo: NASA On the basis of our research in 1999, I must have said that glaciers in the Central and Eastern Himalayas will lose mass during the next 40/50 years at their present rate of decline.
| Previous Post Boating through a wind farm | Next Post Top 7 disappearing glaciers, Part 1 |
Comments
Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.
.... More
Thank you, Karl Burkart for your tremendous efforts in keeping us informed. What is it people don't understand?!? Any person who has read your blog and commentaries on the subject of glacial meltdown would have to be a fool NOT to understand how the initial mix-up occurred and was manipulated. Your work is so clear. I am one of your many readers and fans.
Thank you, Kar.
Global warming is now called climate change why? Oh, thats right, the Earth is getting COOLER. One of these days you will be spending your winters in Miami beach and get frostbite on your ***. That is MUCH more likely than all the glaciers melting and the oceans rising to flood the coast. Find a new scam to steal other peoples money, this one is already busted!
Is it heads or tails no it's the 3rd side that goes round and round..
The glaciers are melting, maybe a little slower than we thought last week, maybe a little faster. Either way, when they are gone, South Asia is in a heap of trouble when the drinking water is gone. To even think about them being gone in our lifetimes is troubling enough.
Next is Greenland, and when that goes, say goodbye to our coastal cities.
There is no lack of people who have no use for science except when it makes minor (communication) errors that they can exploit for their.... More
Your sick, and your life is one of falling for alarmist conspiracies of global warming. If all the people in the world can fit into houses built in the state of Texas, so to can all their co2.
"South Asia is in a heap of trouble when the drinking water is gone." Really??? It seems you don't know South Asia very well. Most of South Asia is in a sub-tropical climate receiving more water from rainfall than they can ever use. Most of it flows out to sea.
These days, I'm getting awfully tired of all the alarmist predictions of gloom and doom over global warming as well as all the scientists who intentionally lie about their findings just so they can keep their funding.... More
Thank you Karl for putting light on what is happening to our planet.
I find your blog to be a great and reliable source of information.
Keep up the good work!
USA SCUTTLED COPENHAGEN (COP 15)
BY: MANFRED ZYSK, M.E. – January 21, 2010
The present Waxman-Markley co-authored energy legislation stipulates that Energy firms could purchase energy offsets rather than reduce their emissions for a far-off target date. The Coal Companies and Utility Companies would be given Trillions of Dollars in free pollution credits even while raising energy prices for consumers. The Cap and Trade Policies allow industries to sell and buy carbon.... More
So basically a lot of you that are commenting on this blog are not environmentalists and have no interest in any "green" news. So why then are you spending so much time and energy blasting it? Do you not have anything better to do? You shouldn't be allowed to debate against something you are obviously to stupid to understand- SCIENCE
The word anonymous just means your hiding and using the word stupid just means you cannot argue intelligently gw science that is skewed to extract the maximum amount of fear and money from the public. wow i even impress my self sometimes since i still cannot write grammatically correct sentences and spell either.
"The title implies that there is some form of a “debate” actually occurring at the IPPC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about whether or not glaciers are melting. Such a debate does not exist and one wonders why the author (or the New Scientist editor) chose to paint the story in such a misleading light." --- Can you cite this. I'm more inclined to believe the editor of the New Scientist than a blogger. There should be clear evidence, spelled out for the reader, to back up.... More
In 1973, long before there was the slightest hint about global warming, I took a Geology class. We were told that most of the mountain glaciers were probably formed during "the little ice age", and that in current conditions they probably continue melt away, retuning to their condition during the medieval warming period.
In other words mountain glaciers come and go with the natural variations in the earths climate. The IPCC has claimed this is all nonsense, but that was what I was.... More
Perhaps the reason so many reasonable people remain skeptical of the AGW hysteria is that the "scientists" promoting the scare have so-clearly cherry-picked their data to support the apocalyptic conclusions they apparently selected before they began their "research". Either that or they, more-charitably, suffer from a collective and terminal case of historical short-sightedness.
Glacial retreat has been in-progress since at least the 1850s throughout most of the northern hemisphere. .... More
This 'reporting error' with the Himalayan analysis is just another example of a lack of quality control and separation of concerns in the climatic research sector. For instance the CRU as well as doing climatic research were also collating and adjusted climatic data that they supplied monthly to the rest of the climatic research community. Given the magnitude of the decisions resting off this data it's a bit like having an election where the candidates are in charge of counting the.... More
Any article on global warming seems to induce mass frothing at the mouth, with opinions clearly being biased by one's prior political ideology. Great shame that, we should look at the science as objectively as we can, and hold our ideology at bay. So what does the science say anyway? Simple....
1. Industrial activity produces CO2
2. CO2 absorbs heat and thus heats up the atmosophere
3. The scale and scope of this warming is difficult to estimate with precision. Background.... More
I am heavily biased towards reason and science. Call me old fashioned.
The real issue is the toxic load we are placing on future generations. The "global warming" issue creates a debate over a specific long term impact, albeit significant if we do succeed in displacing coastal populations, while allowing polluters to continue to greedily poison children and screw up the genetic code. Sometimes I wish there was a hell for those who knowingly seek selfish gain at the expense of future generations.
Use of the term "denier" reveals the bias of the user.
The vast majority of skeptics are just that.....skeptics. Real science is supposed to encourage skeptical evaluation of theories.
Being skeptical is fine, but when the data is overwhelming, its not helpful. It is not productive to be skeptical about the earth being round. Or the earth going around the sun.
The number of "skeptics/deniers/idiots" consistently posting on this site makes me wonder who's paying them to keep a watch on these sites and to quickly post their "views." What does a gig like that pay?
They're interns at places like the Heartland institute, so they're not getting paid very much.
Perhaps the 'global warming believers' could tell how much CO2 is responsible for 'global warming' and how much is CO2 part of the atmosphere??
Give me some science, not BS/ I believe, please!
I'm glad you asked that question--as a former University Professor, one who taught environmental sciences, rather than answer you outright let me suggest you Google exactly the question you asked (minus the question mark, of course) and you will be inundated with hotlinks to the very information you seek.
The information will have more value to you, you likely will pay closer attention to it, and remember it longer, if you have a personal investment in finding it.
If you are.... More
I took the advice you so smugly gave Art above. I Googled "how much CO2 is responsible for 'global warming' and how much is CO2 part of the atmosphere." I left out the question marks as you recommended. I did find many links discussing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount claimed to be responsible for global warming. I also found some sites published by skeptics displaying thoughtful analysis such as,
.... More
... by James Hanson of NASA. I am in the middle of it now and he gives you plenty of the science behind climate change. However, he also uses the book as platform for political reform since he was basically censored during the Bush administration when he tried to be more vocal about his findings. It really is fascinating.
In his latest Conspiracy Theorist TV program Jesse expose who is really behind 'global warming' and what is all about:money! The canadian UN official who started the whole fiasco called 'global warming' and who was behind Al Gore, s now in hiding in China! I'd would recommend to all to watch this program.
Since when was a former WWF wrestler an authority on anything other than steroid use?
...seriously? You're citing a tinfoil hat expose by a former professional wrestler as authoritative proof for a global conspiracy to promote climate change? Under the guise that it's money driving it...because clearly the money of the oil industry has no interest in opposing it...they just drill holes and suck out things that can be burned out of the goodness of their hearts...that's why the last time you filled up your car it was free right?
Obama was a construction worker, so that label should forever follow him?
*Fact is BOTH sides are being funded with vested interested in specific outcome.
*Fact, there is data that has been proven to have been falsified. *Fact, some peer review was dubious at best.
*Fact...the hockey stick...rolls eyes.
I see the pollution/extraction industry spin machine got here first, with numerous ad hominem attacks on their favorite whipping boys, disingenuous red-herring remarks designed to deflect peoples attention away from what is, undeniably, a very real problem and just general ********.
Quote: "Vast stretch of glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau are dwindling so rapidly that Chinese government officials are becoming increasingly alarmed over the impact of diminishing water.... More
So, can you tell me from the 4th assement report WG II,( if the year 2035 is in error as noted) when do the Himalayan glaciers disappear?
Is the earth's climate changing? Yes
do government's and special interests bend the truth to accomplish goals? Yes
will taxing co2 and limiting the number of children and pets I have help anything? No
do these so called greenies care more about their next grant or donation than humanity? Yes
Are you unwilling to observe the overwhelming scientific evidence by the overwhelming majority of scientists that have dedicated their lives and education to the study of climatology, glaciology, atmospheric science, oceanography, ocean chemistr, etc. so that you don't have to look in the mirror and dislike what you see? Yes
Do greenies get paid a PITTANCE compared to even the lowest paid oil patch worker? Yes
So if it ain't for the money, then why do they do it, smarty?
That if we're talking about climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals in the field, there are about 75 of them. I'm serious, read some of the analysis of the CRU emails and it will become clear that the group at the forefront of this research consists of about 75 researchers, plus members of the groups working under their grants. Any other scientist who disagrees, regardless of credentials, is dismissed as a non-specialist. While this group can point to several thousand other.... More
Yes, it's cute to call skeptics deniers. it make you feel better about your cause. But until you can show the skeptics proof that the melting is in fact caused by man's burning of fossil fuels, calling skeptics deniers actually hurts your cause.
Nothing the glaciers are doing in their decades long cycle of growing and melting is happening as fast as Al Gore's reputation. Apparently not content to refer to flawed hockey stick graphs, fudged numbers, the real temperature of the Earth's core and facts in general. Al has changed the feet in his mouth to try to bolster his flagging carbon credit industry. SOme glaciers in the Himalayas are melting, some are growing and some staying the same. Most of the melting is actually attributed.... More
Enter your comments here"Vast stretch of glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau are dwindling so rapidly that Chinese government officials are becoming increasingly alarmed over the impact of diminishing water supplies"
But of course, If they believed the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, they would have been alarmed. So what's the next best guess by the IPCC?
=======================
How is it "climate denial industry" when the "science" is bogus
=======================
Those who are in denial are those clinging to global warming hoping their last shreds of "evidence" aren't bogus also.
Al Gore is the Bernie Madoff of environmentalism
You're missing the point honey. The question is if you're ignorant or disingenuous.
It's not Fred Pearce's fault the IPCC ran with his error. See, that's the IPCC's fault who had to clearly break their own rules by using Pearce's mistake published in a non-scientific magazine. So why did they do that: were they being dumb or trying to scare people?
And no, the glaciers won't melt by 2035, the corrected number is 2350.
Again, the question is if you are purposefully.... More
What ever happened to the global cooling hysteria of the 70's and 80's.
You point out that the Himalayas are melting, yet growing at an "unknown" amount in other area's. That say's to me that your focusing on the negative but not on the positive.
I'm part of the "Dumb" population that is confused and needs to be led by hand over the cliff.
I like most of the population see this as nothing more than an attack on petroleum based energy and rally to move to other forms of.... More
You are absolutely right! It is an attack on an industry that has reaped obscene profits while leading a global plutocracy and poisoning the planet and its population with cancer-causing, gene-altering toxins. Moreover, it is about a movement to get people to adopt alternative energy that doesn't pollute, reduces the costs to humanity, and builds a society that is dependent on an infinite, rather than finite, source of energy. As for global cooling, see .... More
The question is not whether the glaciers are melting or not, it is whether the IPCC is a scientific organization or a front for a political agenda. When you say that somehow the claim got included in the 2007 IPCC report, you should be asking how and why. The IPCC has been called the world's foremost climate authority, yet they allowed a claim by an obscure scientist to show up in their report without checking out the claim for scientific integrity. It is similar to the famed sentence in former.... More
nice first sentence, chief! stopped reading after that...
When are we going to forget the deniers? Does the media spend time grappling with those who think the moon landing was fake, the loch ness monster is real, or that aliens built the pyramids? No of course not. Then why do we spend so much time talking about deniers instead of tactually talking about the problem?
How about skeptics that have science on their side while you have hysteria on yours. Wanna shut us up like those conspiracy nuts? Then be smarter than us... oh thats right, your brain trust starts with Al Gore... Maybe you should see if you can get his commisions from inventing the internet to fund more global warming studies!
The climate change deniers are the key constituency of the grasstops industry advocates that gently whisper like wormwood into the ears of the ignorant luddites overwhelmingly interested in acting and voting against their own interests. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsiWf-ctieA
Thank you for explaining this "controversy" and arguing that scientists need to consider their public images.
One thing though: can you please update your post so that it begins with "Let's get this straight" instead of "Let get this straight"? It's the first sentence of a piece arguing for greater attention to detail, and hopefully more and more people will be coming here to read it, since it's linked to on HuffPo's homepage.
In what way does it matter who believes what? The glaciers will do what glaciers have always done. When they diminish sufficiently to harm the downstream populations the resoponse will be that it is godf's will and that mankind was never able to have any effect on global weather. The important thing was always to keep the rich climbing higher on some wealth scale and that whatever harm occurs will be most striking in relation to those who lack the resources to frortify themselves from the.... More
