IPCC will retract claim of melting Himalayan glaciers.

[CID1990]

From the UK Times-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece

Looks like the claim that all Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 was based on speculation without any scientific data. The scary thing is that the assertion was made by the IPCC, which is suppposed to be the body that provides world leaders with hard facts on climate change. In other words, if the IPCC has it wrong, then conferences like Copenhagen are nothing more than a farce.

[HI54UNI]

I wonder how big the check was that Exxon sent the UK Times. Can't be true because the IPCC is absolutely correct and beyond question.


Or so I've been told.

[CID1990]

I wonder how big the check was that Exxon sent the UK Times. Can't be true because the IPCC is absolutely correct and beyond question.


Or so I've been told.

My money's on the big check from Exxon, Shell, and Chimpy McCheneyburton. That has to be the answer.

[travelinman67]

Some of the greenies' "research" gaffs are so laughable, they remind me of the "oat bran" scandal of the 80's.

http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower ... s_the.html

GW = faux science.

What SHOULD come from this is a study on the human propensity to seek/create mass hysteria...

...and the propensity of morons to maintain the hysteria.

[AZGrizFan]

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Holy Fucking SHIT. This is absolutely HILARIOUS. It's the "keep repeating it until it's taken as gospel" theory on a fucking GLOBAL hysteria scale.

Honestly, the IPCC has lost any shred of credibility that it had left. The whole fucking fiasco should just be disbanded...at this point EVERYTHING they have said or ever WILL say should rightly be looked at with a severely jaundiced eye.

[travelinman67]

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Holy Fucking SHIT. This is absolutely HILARIOUS. It's the "keep repeating it until it's taken as gospel" theory on a fucking GLOBAL hysteria scale.

Honestly, the IPCC has lost any shred of credibility that it had left. The whole fucking fiasco should just be disbanded...at this point EVERYTHING they have said or ever WILL say should rightly be looked at with a severely jaundiced eye.

"Sa-a-a-a-a-v-e us, A-a-a-a-a-l"

[kalm]

I have to admit my skepticism is growing.

Does this mean we no longer have to worry about Glacier National Park?

[travelinman67]

I have to admit my skepticism is growing.

Does this mean we no longer have to worry about Glacier National Park?

No.

Recent research conducted by Buddy Robertson (seen here after receiving a Nobel Prize for his work in eschatology and dark matter)...

Spoiler: show

...discovered the increased entropic data resulting from environmentalist introduction of hot gases, has in fact accelerated the glacial melting.

Hence, Glacier National Park's smaller glaciers will continue to melt following suit with the larger glaciers which melted over the past 10,000 years before SUV's arrived.
Once melted the Park will be renamed more appropriately, "Black Hole Park", as a landmark to the millions of taxpayer dollars wasted there each year funding research grants to employ graduate students unable to find a real job.

[Appaholic]

Once melted the Park will be renamed more appropriately, "Black Hole Park", as a landmark to the millions of taxpayer dollars wasted there each year funding research grants to employ graduate students unable to find a real job.

Now that's fokking funny!

[clenz]

Once melted the Park will be renamed more appropriately, "Black Hole Park", as a landmark to the millions of taxpayer dollars wasted there each year funding research grants to employ graduate students unable to find a real job.

Now that's fokking funny!

agreed

[YoUDeeMan]

This just in:

The IPCC has released a study that shows ice cream will melt faster if you bend over and blow hot air on it. Surprisingly, the study found that both ends of the human body releasing hot air are capable of melting the ice cream faster than if it were left on alone the counter. However, researchers have asked for an additional $600MM for further studies and more precise measurements of the rate of melt, but they theorize that bending over and continually farting above the ice cream would actually cause the ice cream to melt faster than just blowing on it with your mouth due to the fact that methane is considered a greenhouse gas.

Ever eager to impress the world, approval for the funding from the Obama administration is expected. A tax on beans is being considered to pay for such funding, but union and government dining halls are expected to be exempted from such a tax.

[CID1990]

Kalm,

You shouldn't be skeptical of global climate change. It is certainly real. It has been happening since the earth formed. There have been ice ages where glaciers moved south (go check out Gettysburg National Battlefield... the boulders there were placed when glaciers covered the area...southern PA) and there have been periods where there were no icecaps (and Antarctica had a temperate climate complete with arboreal forests and dinosaurs).

What you should be skeptical of is the chicken little response to anthropogenic climate change, which suggests that human activity is warming the earth to dangerous levels. There IS some evidence that supports anthropogenic change, but there are equal amounts of evidence that suggest we have little impact. There is nothing wrong with trying to control our pollution levels. Being good stewards of the planet is something everybody can get behind. That being said, inflicting huge financial stresses on national economies based on science that is incomplete at best and fudged at worst is very irresponsible.

The current claims are nothing more than a global extortion attempt, wrangled by people like Al Gore who stand to make a mint on programs like cap-and-trade. (and have already made a mint with public speaking tours, movies, etc.) Copenhagen was nothing but a bash the West conference with a healthy dose of proposed wealth distribution from industrialized nations to the Banana Republics of the world.

[Appaholic]

Kalm,

You shouldn't be skeptical of global climate change. It is certainly real. It has been happening since the earth formed. There have been ice ages where glaciers moved south (go check out Gettysburg National Battlefield... the boulders there were placed when glaciers covered the area...southern PA) and there have been periods where there were no icecaps (and Antarctica had a temperate climate complete with arboreal forests and dinosaurs).

What you should be skeptical of is the chicken little response to anthropogenic climate change, which suggests that human activity is warming the earth to dangerous levels. There IS some evidence that supports anthropogenic change, but there are equal amounts of evidence that suggest we have little impact. There is nothing wrong with trying to control our pollution levels. Being good stewards of the planet is something everybody can get behind. That being said, inflicting huge financial stresses on national economies based on science that is incomplete at best and fudged at worst is very irresponsible.

The current claims are nothing more than a global extortion attempt, wrangled by people like Al Gore who stand to make a mint on programs like cap-and-trade. (and have already made a mint with public speaking tours, movies, etc.) Copenhagen was nothing but a bash the West conference with a healthy dose of proposed wealth distribution from industrialized nations to the Banana Republics of the world.

Well put, CID...IMO, the debate isn't is the climate changing?(it is) But are we the cause?(hmmmm...)? & will giving the government more money reverse that trend?(pretty confident "NO" on that one).....