Friday, 8 January 2010

Climate Change - IPPC wrong over Himalayan glaciers

It turns out that serious doubts are coming to light over the IPPC's claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. In fact one scientist, Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, says: "At current melting rates it might take up to 10 times longer". I make that 250 years, and with the next ice age just around the corner, I think we can call the IPPC's report alarmist to say the least.

For all the IPPC's claims of their work being peer reviewed, it appears that the evidence of deglaciation of the Himalayas was taken from remark made in a one off magazine article from 10 years ago.

Full Story HERE


Cate Munro said...

The whole thing's a load of old tosh Steve and the sooner people wake up to the fact the better. Evidence is coming to light by the day to rubbish these ridiculous climate change claims . . it's good to read someone who thinks the same.

Anonymous said...

The explanation is simple but is the sort of thing pounced upon by people with an agenda.

The reason is a simple misreading of 2350 for 2035 in an IPCC report.

Additionally, it's not quite true to say that Himalayan Glaciers are melting faster than elsewhere but that doesn't mean much anyway. Globally there is a very serious issue with glacial retreat.

Try seeing what these people say on glacial retreat:

The World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS). They are an amalgamated body consisting of thePermanent Service on Fluctuations of Glaciers and TTS/WGI (Temporal Technical Secretary/World Glacier Inventory.

Anonymous said...

something here about it

when I can work this out in seconds, It's a bit disingenuous of you to publish this and try to make something out of it that isn't there. But that's how climate science in general is reported in the blogosphere

Anonymous said...

sorry, link is here

Daily Referendum said...


The famous and infallible IPPC Peer reviewing process.

Doesn't inspire confidence.

Anonymous said...

In something the size of the IPCC, it happens occasionally. It wa sa simple misread of a number.

You reported it incorrectly even after it had been spotted and corrected so I'd have thought your spectacular failure to research the topic might have led to a bit more humility. Obviously not.

Daily Referendum said...

Anon, Bullshit read the link.

Anonymous said...

For fuck's sake.

The article by Pearce reads like the ramblings of a drugged madman. The reason for the error is simple. There is nothing deep and sinister. The himalayan glaciers are well-recorded and understood.

I know this is only the internet and the domain of rent-a-gobs with no expertise in the vast majority of fields they spout about, but man, give it a break.

Anonymous said...

and can you decide whether you want to call them the IPCC or the IPPC?

Still, what's the import of a minor typo like that, eh?

Daily Referendum said...


Would you like to reconsider your previous statements?