Panel ignored warnings on glacier error

[sunsettommy]

Another IPCC screw up.It seems that their due diligence process was very slow.

Times Online

January 31, 2010

Jonathan Leake

EXCERPT:

THE United Nations climate panel ignored warnings by leading scientists not to publish false claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

One warning, in 2006, a year before the report was published, came from Georg Kaser, an Austrian glaciologist who was a lead author on another section of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

He said: “I sent warnings to the IPCC telling them the claim about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was false.”

Another warning came from Gwyn Rees, a British hydrologist who oversaw a £300,000 study funded by the UK government in 2001 to assess the claims about rapid melt.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en...009707.ece
=============================================

I wonder if those AGW believers are still going to worship the IPCC?

[JohnWho]

He said: “I sent warnings to the IPCC telling them the claim about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was false.”

I'm thinking if we start listing every point where someone told the IPCC that something in their report was wrong, we'd be here for a very long time.

However, recent developments sure don't reflect well on the integrity and the quality of the "science" of the IPCC reports, do they?

[John L]

Let's see if Rajendra Pachauri still has his job, once the dust has all settled.

[JohnWho]

Yeah, but even if he goes, will the IPCC reports be discredited enough to get a real scientific re-analysis of the data and a re-analysis of the concept that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having any measurable effect on the world's atmospheric temperatures.

[John L]

If you consider: this scandal has been going on for only a little over two months now. Go back and put yourself in the frame of mind, to what it was before ClimateGate, and then compare how far things have come along in just such a short period of time. To my thinking, it has been quite a change.

Now, extrapolate out another six months, or perhaps twelve, and imagine what the AGW scene will be resemble.

Food for thought.