Big Ooops From UN Climate Panel

By | January 23, 2010, 10:07pm PST

Summary: UN 2007 report on climate change contained false data on Himalayan glaciers.

Factual errors in a major UN climate report from 2007 have been made public. And now the apologies and explanations begin. The statements in the UN report on melting Himalayan glaciers were not based on research apparently. Or else an actual scientific report was “misquoted.” And the UN’s summary report even gave the wrong figure for Himalayan glacier landmass.

This has now earned the UN panel such headlines as: “blunders again.” “UN pledges tighter controls after melting glaciers blunder.” “Four more Himalayan howlers.” “IPCC Scientist: Fake Data Used To Put Pressure On World Leaders.”

This revelation will make it even harder to convince many reluctant governments to take any action on greenhouse gases. It will make the politics of climate change even more contentious in India itself. The chairman of the UN’s international panel on climate change is an Indian scientist who now has been attacked for profiting on grants to study Himalayan glacial melt. That raises a question of conflict of interest in addition to the false data revelation.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Harry Fuller

http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?page_id=2

Biography

Harry Fuller

Harry Fuller is a media veteran, having spent decades in TV news in the San Francisco Bay Area. As GeneralManager of KPIX-TV (CBS) he founded one of the nation's first TV station websites in early 1995. He was News Direcor at TechTV when it was founded in 1998. In 2001 he moved to London to become Executive Producer for CNBC Europe. Four years later he returned to San Francisco as Executive Editor for CNET's news.com.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
46
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

temperature data?
delerious 28th Jan 2010
I went there thinking I'd see the raw data and the adjusted data. All I saw were graphs. What are these graphs showing? There's nothing on those pages saying what those are graphs of. It says they were downloaded from data.giss.nasa.gov, but when I went there I saw no graphs - lots of links.

You do realize they don't show the temperature and the graphs are different don't you? (they cover different time frames).
0 Votes
+ -
Disband UN
sadly2010 24th Jan 2010
Incompetent reckless organization.
0 Votes
+ -
Harry, continue with the rest of the story
Richard Flude Updated - 24th Jan 2010
for it is very instructive.

For years sceptics have been labelled with derogatory
names, like denier, for daring to question AGW. We were
told the science was settled, a scientific consensus had
been formed. The MSM was on board.

When the preposterous claims of the Himalaya's being ice
free by 2035 glaciers were questioned this was the IPCC reply:

"Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has described the Indian
government report that criticized the claim by IPCC over
the faster than expected melting of Himalayan glaciers, as
?voodoo science?."
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/pachauri-
calls-indian-govt-report-on-melting-himalayan-glaciers-
as-voodoo-science_100301232.html

Regular Harry readers will note the familiar tone.

Now with the smallest of investigations by individuals it
can be revealed the IPCC claims were rubbish, Pachauri has been
profiting from glacial research, in the pay of big oil (Texas based
GloriOil), and an advisor to companies shipping million in EU carbon
credits (to reopen outside the EU). Imagine what we could find with
the billion used to push this madness.

Who would have though this of a man known to fly half
way around the world to attend cricket practices, whilst
lecturing the rest of us about our carbon footprint. The
hypocrisy that offends many of us is lost on the Harrys.
0 Votes
+ -
and had the full melting of the Arctic (not to be confused with the
Greenland or Antarctic) Ice sheet raising sea levels from 28 cm to 48
cm.

Guess they never studied Archimedes.

That the Chairman of the IPCC received millions of research grants
based on the 2035 claim goes to show that manmade global warming
has more to do with money, politics and research dollars than science.

At that is the rub. We are having an effect on the environment. All
you have to do is look to the dirty 30's to see a small number of
people can have HUGE regional impacts on the Earth's environment.

The politics and the science need to e cut apart on Global Warming to
get to the root cause and effect relationships in the models (that have
some serious issues).
0 Votes
+ -
And the truth is...
barence773 24th Jan 2010
IPCC?s projections of sea level rise are based on (1) the expansion of ocean waters as they warm, (2) the melting of mountain glaciers and ice caps, and (3) the accumulation and melting of snow on the surfaces of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

[Source:http://www.ipccfacts.org/myths.html]

Notice they don't mention Arctic ice. I guess they know that ice floats after all.
0 Votes
+ -
And the IPCC attributed the Arctic (not Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets)
to something like .25 to .5 meters of sea level rise. That has been
recently changed but even that was refereed to as "pop science" when
the values were first put in question.

Read the IPCC 2007 IV assessment. Again, mixing political, money and
policy to get bad science.
"based on multiple models that all exclude ice sheet flow due to a lack of
basis in published literature,[11] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
in a low scenario[9] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
in a high scenario[10] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)"

So, strawman-guy, why don't you _actually_read_ the report, or even the
exec summary before commenting on it:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
0 Votes
+ -
Oops again (Natural Disasters)
Richard Flude Updated - 24th Jan 2010
"THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for
wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and
severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ec
e

At what stage is this acknowledged as criminal behaviour? Or is this
accepted simply the way the UN does things?
0 Votes
+ -
And now another (Africa starvation)
Richard Flude Updated - 24th Jan 2010
"What attracted our attention most, however, was this claim

'According to the IPCC, climate change could halve yields from rain-
fed crops in parts of Africa as early as 2020, and put 50 million more
people worldwide at risk of hunger. [Pg. 2]'

...

Most interestingly, the study [on which the IPCC bases it's claim] was
not simply produced by some academic working in some academic
department, for publication in some peer-reviewed journal. Instead, it
was published by The International Institute for Sustainable
Development (IISD)."
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/01/22/ipcc-and-peer-review/

The IPCC is being exposed for the fraud many suspected now that
deniers are given an opportunity to air their grievances. Largely thanks
to the Copenhagen farce and the cooler than predicted Northern
winter.

C'mon Harry a response;-)
0 Votes
+ -
And now another gospel, the Stern Review
Richard Flude Updated - 24th Jan 2010
"As I was preparing this post, I accessed the Stern Review Report on
the
archive site of the UK government to capture an image of Table 5.2.
Much to my surprise I learned that since the publication of my paper,
Table 5.2 has mysteriously changed! Have a look at the figures
below."
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-tangled-web-we-
weave.html

We call it the new green "science". It has no place for scepticism;-)

Appropriate time to extend the reference of the UK parliamentary
investigation into Climategate.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technol
ogy/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm
Why is it that every time that someone comes up with facts that you - as a certified Gore-statue wanker - don't like, you hide yourself?

Harry IS pollution here on ZDNet.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
On someone who defends this man made climate change theory would call this an OOPS.

In other news:

Big Ooops from US defense department. Evidence of Iraq WMDs relied on facts from Military Sales Corporations and other people who could profit from these lies. It will now be harder to prove Iraq has WMD's and will use them if given a chance.

Are you kidding, Harry? They're now predicting a mini ice age. Where's your climate model now?
0 Votes
+ -
mini ice age?
delerious 24th Jan 2010
Who's predicting a mini ice age? None of the sources he quoted said anything about that and last I checked the glaciers were still retreating at a rate of about 21 meters per year.
0 Votes
+ -
No names, no reasons...
Agnostic_OS Updated - 24th Jan 2010
can't be that important as the people who knew that about this corrected the error immediately, didn't they? wink
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Big Ooops From UN Climate Panel
Agnostic_OS Updated - 24th Jan 2010
So when will they admit that the oceans are not rising as fast as they initially said?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/18/global-sea-level-updated-at-uc-still-flattening/
Water exists on our planet in clouds, the sea, water in lakes and
rivers, and ice, and in biomass.
The relative proportions of each are very complex, and inter-related
with the carbon cycle, and energy.
Pointing to one chart to try to dispel a model for the overall system
meaningless. Like looking at the temperature across america for
example.
You've got a vast interlinked complex system that is trying to be
modeled.

On the one hand, if what you've presented here is correct, the sea
level doesn't seem to be rising linearly. I don't recall the IPCC model
predictions. However on the other hand the fact that this winter, ships
were able to navigate right across the North pole is also not predicted
by the model, and in general, most indicators are that global warming
is tracking the most extreme potential output that the IPCC presented
as a possibility, not the least extreme.

The model isn't perfect, and they are trying to improve it. But seizing
on a single measurement to disprove the overall concept would be
foolish.

eg: if you were in a non-accelerating car and you could see the world
rushing past, but the speedo was showing zero, if you could see a
wall approaching would you concur that (1) you weren't moving but
being shown a video on LCD screens all around the car, and therefore
there was no danger or (2) the speedo might be broken or not
working for some reason, best to step on the brake anyway.
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting link
Fred Fredrickson 24th Jan 2010
However, a quick visual analysis shows that:

1. Sea level rise is not linear
2. From time to time sea levels fall
3. Periods when sea levels fall are only one or two years
4. When averaged over periods of 5 years, there is an inexorable rise
5. The data only cover about 18 years

So while there is an obvious and persistent trend upward, downward trends are brief and insignificant in the long term. But the graph only covers a very short timespan, it would be much more meaningful to see 30 or 40 years of data.

Using tide guages to measure global sea level height is fraught with difficulties. How is continental drift accounted for? How are rises due to tectonic movements accounted for? Either of these effects could be far more significant in particular locations than any increase in ocean water volume due to ice melt.
0 Votes
+ -
USSA Oboma communist
no_barry_2012 24th Jan 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Totally intentional data manipulation by the Gore-worshipping treehuggers of this world"

"Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html

And now we have Glaciergate. No difference.

Hey Harry, How's that Global Warming working out for ya? You know, the one that you're so hysterical about? LOL!
0 Votes
+ -
NASA: "Hide this after Jim checks it"
RonaldKbitbyte 24th Jan 2010
And yes ladies and gentlemen, we have another something that the Harries of this world don't want to see exposed.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/
0 Votes
+ -
Sadly representative of the new science
Richard Flude 24th Jan 2010
An informative link, thanks.
Even 'settled science'.

Harry Fuller needs to go away from ZDNet. He pollutes ZDNet.
0 Votes
+ -
You got there first - good one
Agnostic_OS 26th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
p.s. Where is Harry now, with his hysteria?
RonaldKbitbyte 24th Jan 2010
Well Harry? What's your 'crisis du jour'?

What should we be alarmed about today?

LOL!
0 Votes
+ -
http://www.harry-daily-hysteria.com
RonaldKbitbyte 24th Jan 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
This is how 'scientists' do their work:
RonaldKbitbyte 24th Jan 2010
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013142.html

Sure. Let's just have 1 thermometer above 65 degrees, and extrapolate its readings to an area - oh - three times the size of Alaska. (reminder: Canada is a big Country...).
0 Votes
+ -
Your link is telling lies.
snberk341 24th Jan 2010
If you look at a map of the stations that Environment
Canada maintains you can see that there are more than
a dozen reporting stations above 69 degrees. I didn't
bother determining which stations between 60 degrees
(approximately where Iqaluit sits) and 69 degrees were
above the arbitrary 65 degree line, but there are few
more stations between 65 and 69.

Iqaluit sits at about 60 degrees, Cambridge Bay sits at
about 69 - for reference. Eureka is way way up North.

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/forecast/canada/index
_e.html?id=NU
The link you provide simply provides a list of places for which Environment Canada provides forecasts. It's not a list of weather stations.

Fail.
0 Votes
+ -
Each of those places has an airport, and therefore has at a minimum
an automatic reporting station. That means that the basic
observations of humidity, cloud cover, wind, temperature, etc are
being recorded.

Environment Canada maintains a network of over 500 "climate
stations" in BC and the Yukon. These are automatic stations, or
volunteer staffed.

I can find, in just about a minute of looking, just about a dozen
stations in the Yukon above 65 degrees that record weather
information.

Since I have already proven that the link I claimed was lying is in fact
lying, I haven't bothered to count stations in the NWT and Nunavut -
each territory being bigger than the Yukon.

This is the link I used to find the Yukon stations. Notice that I am
using a primary source, and not a blog written for entertainment.

http://scitech.pyr.ec.gc.ca/climhydro/climate_explanation_e.asp
0 Votes
+ -
Hint: The data of how many of your 500 weather stations were used for IPCC stats? One. And that was exactly the point that the first poster made.

Twice you didn't grasp that.

Fail.
0 Votes
+ -
@Ronaldkbitbyte & EraldDing - Mea Culpa
snberk341 Updated - 24th Jan 2010
I didn't read into the article far enough. I apologize for
stating that "smalldeadanimals" was lying.
0 Votes
+ -
Oops?
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 24th Jan 2010
Oops implies accidental, without malice or unintentional. IPCC has zero credibility anymore, and they are as dead as the physicist debunked AGW crap. For specifically, objection at the underlying "settled" hypothesis and statement as if it is fact. Namely, This revelation will make it even harder to convince many reluctant governments to take any action on greenhouse gases.

I submit that the word "greenhouse" has no basis in fact as intended except in the sense that ALL matter has energy content, such as O2, N, etc.

Whomever leaked (despite all attempts at finding a "hack" event, they can't) the emails and started the revolution back to actual scientific theory and discussion should receive the Nobel Prize.

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Nobel for leaker
cobbjohn@... 25th Jan 2010
I would agree, but Nobel prizes are given out for folks who haven't actually done anything yet.
0 Votes
+ -
Good One! Thanks for the smile. (nt)
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 25th Jan 2010
(nt)
0 Votes
+ -
Give Harry credit
Dorkyman 24th Jan 2010
Seriously. I've been as skeptical as anyone on Mr. Fuller's posts, but give him credit for mentioning a scandal that hurts the credibility of his side.
No credit for someone who lies.

He's also a coward - he is too afraid to engage in discussions, and is certainly too afraid - or should I say dishonest - for dumping loads of hysterical blogs here containing lies.

No credit. The man is a lying coward.
0 Votes
+ -
My thoughts
CobraA1 24th Jan 2010
Okay, somebody faked something.

I kinda figured some of the more extreme environmental stuff was overblown.

But - I still think it's a good idea to keep track of the environment.

As long as we focus on solutions.

I think the environmentalists forget sometimes that we should be fixing things, not scaring people.
He's the one polluting ZDNet with dozens of hysterical blogs full of lies.
0 Votes
+ -
It is Al Gore or 'Bore'
Use_More_OIL_NOW 24th Jan 2010
Making Billions off this lie...
0 Votes
+ -
Disband China and US
sadly2010 24th Jan 2010
They are both evils of climate change.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Big Ooops From UN Climate Panel
Agnostic_OS 26th Jan 2010
Just watch the first 3 minutes of the video
Global Warming: Was it Ever Really a Crisis?
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

It says it all.
0 Votes
+ -
The Heartland Institute?
delerious 26th Jan 2010
Heavy on special effects. References seem to be non-existant. If you're looking for an opinion based on facts rather than PR see http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html and http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf for a real peer reviewed study.
0 Votes
+ -
Like the links
Agnostic_OS 27th Jan 2010
but as I said, within the first 3 minute of the video link the problem is
DEBATE.
Not only for all but more-so for science. Without it science will end-up debased, belittled, and sidelined as a method by which we can all move forward and live better lives.
DEBATE
Who is going to charge "carbon tax", for what, and how is it going to help each of us? A few well connected people look like they are setting themselves up as carbon saviors and make a lots of money.

For something cited as so globally important there are too many holes in the arguments, the means, and the money.
0 Votes
+ -
temperature records
Agnostic_OS 27th Jan 2010
Somebody directed to an interesting site a while ago.
A disinterested record keeper retains old temperature graphs from data.giss.nasa.gov.
The question is why does the temperature data keep getting readjusted?
see -
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm

and
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm

How can adjusted data be called "raw data"?
0 Votes
+ -
temperature data?
delerious 28th Jan 2010
I went there thinking I'd see the raw data and the adjusted data. All I saw were graphs. What are these graphs showing? There's nothing on those pages saying what those are graphs of. It says they were downloaded from data.giss.nasa.gov, but when I went there I saw no graphs - lots of links.

You do realize they don't show the temperature and the graphs are different don't you? (they cover different time frames).

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix