More inconvenient news for the ‘settled’ science
Remember that sensational claim made in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its influential report on climate change, that the Himalayas’ glaciers would all melt by 2035?
This would be the same IPCC, I should note, that maintains it uses a rigorous process of scientific peer review to ensure all its published conclusions are as sound as possible.
Turns out that Himalayas prediction wasn’t based on solid science at all. Instead — I know this is convoluted, but bear with me — it came from a comment by an Indian scientist, published in a non-peer-reviewed magazine in 1999, that was largely conjecture. That conjecture was later picked up and repeated in a 2005 WWF report. The WWF document was then subsequently cited by the IPCC as the source for the Himalayas claim in its 2007 report.
I know, you need a rigorous process just to figure out where this stuff came from.
Anyway, the bottom line is the glaciers in the Himalayas are going to be with us for quite some time past 2035, according to the actual data. A study done for the Indian government last year found the rate of glacial decline — yes, they are receding — was not at all abnormal.
That was the study, by the way, that Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial chairman of the IPCC, dismissed at the time as "voodoo science," compared, clearly, to the "rigorous" methods used at the IPCC to arrive at its conclusions.
Pachauri last week admitted, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that the IPCC was flat out wrong about the 2035 claim.
But hey, he also suggested, it’s just one error. Well, no. more...
This just keeps on getting better and better. It's like watching a train crash...