

Claims of Himalayan glacier meltdown based entirely on a single short phone call - miked
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

======
cwan
Irony: "Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed
criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science"." More on Pachauri here:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-
busin...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-
deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html)

Between stories like this and the release of the emails / climategate, you
really have to wonder especially about the validity of some of the most
alarmist claims. On one hand, I wonder how much of this is because of
confirmation bias but how much is the result of outright fraud? Something else
that I've been reading more about lately (because of another story here) is
the reporting by Gary Taubes on 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' and I can't help
but wonder about what supposed scientific consensus means and the importance
of skepticism.

Obviously there's a massive body of work out there when it comes to climate
science and it would be ludicrous to dismiss it all, but surely it's time to
agree that we need a lot more skepticism especially when these claims are
being used to advocate policies that will at least cost hundreds of billions
if not trillions of dollars.

~~~
DaniFong
The idea of skepticism is all well and good, but think about this: which
psychological force is more powerful, intellectual honesty or human laziness?
How much work have you personally done to try to understand our climate? While
you are being skeptical, are you living with less consumption than you had
before the possibility was as public, staking a middle ground between two
possibilities, or are you continuing on as usual?

This is a global issue. You will find hyperbole and mistaken predictions, and
yes, fraud, on both sides. Nature doesn't care. The question is: by how much
can we alter the planet's ecosystem before it is unsafe? The IPCC's models
predict about a 2C temperature rise in the 2090s from the 1990s if we have 450
ppm in the atmosphere. That temperature rise is further predicted to be the
point we had better not go past, to avoid more severe damage. We are currently
at 385 ppm, over 280 ppm from before the industrial revolution. That means
we've used up 60% of the slack we had towards a pretty hard (and hardening)
limit. Clearly, with the knowledge we have about the physics of greenhouse
gases, there is _some_ amount of CO2, some amount of radiative forcing, that
is beyond what the world can handle without risking severe changes to the
ecosystem and our way of life. It is not enough for skeptics to claim 'we
don't know what that amount is, we have our doubts,' if it is followed by
words or actions that support business as usual. There must be some agreement
towards an acceptable limit to the dumping of a disruptive chemical, in
massive quantities, into a finite atmosphere on a finite planet.

For what it's worth, I think it's more likely that carbon reduction policies
will create a positive, rather than negative, effect on the economy.

~~~
anamax
> There must be some agreement towards an acceptable limit to the dumping of a
> disruptive chemical, in massive quantities, into a finite atmosphere on a
> finite planet.

That doesn't tell us what said acceptable limit is.

~~~
DaniFong
I recognize this. There are different answers for different people, too. The
people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C.
Certain environmentalists want atmospheric CO2 at pre-industrial levels.
Perhaps Alaskans have a different view?

The point is that this is how to structure the debate. There are certain
acceptable limits. They are different for every person. If we're to succeed,
as a species, on a finite planet, we're going to need to figure out how to
make democracy and diplomacy work for this, possibly grandest tragedy of the
commons. Surely we can't risk a global temperature rise of 10 C? Right?

~~~
anamax
> The people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C.

Do they? Or, do they want a given sea level?

Note that sea level may well be independent of CO2. (That's part of why I
mentioned artic ice, which has been increasing.)

> There are certain acceptable limits.

And you're assuming quite a bit about a lot of things, such as the
relationship between CO2 and temperature and sea level.

> Surely we can't risk a global temperature rise of 10 C?

I don't know and that may not be the question. I've posted links showing CO2
levels several times what it is now. What was the temperature then? (Since
those times were in the past, it's absurd to argue that whatever happens at
those concentrations is irreversible.)

~~~
DaniFong
Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly.

<http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg>

But that's rather immaterial since it's land based ice, as in greenland and
antarctica, that will influence sea levels. Greater fluctuations will cause
more permanent loss of land based ice than sea based ice.

But _that's_ rather immaterial too, since much of the expected and currently
visible sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans. This is a
pretty clear temperature link.

\---

Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent to
which we are willing to change our world. This is a separate question from the
action of CO2 -- for example we already fix more nitrogen as all other life on
this planet, and three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have
been dramatically influenced by our actions. _We have changed this planet._
Are we to become conscious of this or are we to continue claiming innocence
and practicing ignorance as we accelerate our ecological impact?

A return to the atmospheric conditions of the Triassic might well be the best
thing for the world, but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and
stupid about what kind of future we want, we will continue to argue about tiny
details having little to nothing to do with the global atmospheric,
ecological, biological climatic change that is taking place, and we will
continue to be at odds as our actions annihilate biomes that we scarcely know
about.

I put the question back to you. What change in the world would be acceptable
to you? If we have reconcilable goals for our shared planet, then at least the
debate becomes on of science, of planning, of what must be done. If, however,
like many seem to think, you too believe that the changes we are making to the
world are ultimately inconsequential, the loss of biodiversity acceptable, and
our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial, then we are at odds that this
conversation will not mend.

~~~
anamax
> Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly.

Your link doesn't support that conclusion.

> But that's rather immaterial too, since much of the expected and currently
> visible sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans. This is a
> pretty clear temperature link.

And yet, you don't bother to provide any water temperature argument or tell us
the magnitude of the sea level change from said temperature change.

> Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent
> to which we are willing to change our world.

You're assuming that we're producing significant changes.

> but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and stupid about what
> kind of future we want,

Your position appears to be "now is best" but I've yet to see any supporting
argument.

> the loss of biodiversity acceptable,

There's no loss of biodiversity from CO2 unless there's climate change, so you
don't get to throw that in.

> three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have been
> dramatically influenced by our actions.

That's a combination of poverty and population. Reducing poverty increases CO2
emissions. Since you oppose that, you're arguing for reducing population. Who
do you think should get to live?

Which reminds me - we're not significantly changing the amount of cultivated
land. That ship sailed 1000 years ago. (We are destroying it in the third
world, but that's different.)

> and our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial,

and you're back to assuming man made climate change.

If, as seems increasingly likely, the CO2 changes we're making are irrelevant
to climate, you're advocating spending tons of resources on non-problems.

Acting as if something in particular is happening is a huge obstacle to
finding out what is going on. You claim to want to know yet ....

~~~
DaniFong
There is an enormous body of knowledge out there that I simply don't have time
to spoon-feed to someone playing the ignorant student. Find someone else to
stonewall.

------
akamaka
This seems extremely serious, much more than the leaked email affair. The
claim in question has been _very widely_ cited. PBS Frontline even chose this
glacier story to lead off their 2 hour special on climate change:

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/view/1.html> (see Chapter 1,
3:30-6:30. The actual claim is at 6:00 in the video)

~~~
cwan
While serious, I don't think the ramifications of this are greater than the
leaked emails - more on that here:
[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022157/...](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022157/how-
climategate-killed-peer-review/) (I suspect the words "peer review" will be
treated with considerably greater skepticism in the future)

They can and will likely chalk this up to some administrative error, but the
underlying contents of the leaked emails, charges of fraud of some of the most
prominent authors of the IPCC reports is far more significant. More from a
(formerly?) strong supporter of the IPCC reports here:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-
climate-leak-crisis-response)

~~~
Padraig
That a couple of scientists said some dumb stuff in private emails does not
call into question the entire peer review system.

~~~
cwan
It's not about calling the entire peer review system into question - it's
about being skeptical about whether or not results can be trusted on the sole
basis they've been peer reviewed - particularly in areas of scientific
controversy.

From the linked article: "As Climategate has shown, [the process of peer
review] became compromised – causing an instability. As seen in the leaked
emails, many within the climate establishment were interrelated and working
together to ensure their message of global warming wasn’t diluted. There were
even desires to redefine the peer review literature to punish journals that
published skeptic’s papers."

It's not just climate science (as I've been reading on nutritional science
with Gary Taubes and Robert Lustig).

------
hzzn
It's odd to hear all this victory hooting over a single hyperbolic prediction
with so many glaciers in retreat all over the world
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850>). Ah, but I
suppose every claim on the page linked above is also attributable to equally
bad science, or perhaps the citations were merely planted there by members of
the Shadowy Underworld Global Climate Change Cabal.

~~~
alexgartrell
I feel that, if this were the only article showing failures on the part of
climate scientists, there would be no victory hooting. However, every week
there's a new story about these scientists employing suspicious science to
arrive at more profitable [1] conclusions. I don't know that victory hooting
is necessary here, but a certain amount of "WTF?"ing is definitely called for.
Whether or not global warming is a real and man-made phenomenon (vs. a natural
cycle or just overinflated numbers), it's important to call attention to the
fact that someone is more or less pissing on our leg and telling us it's
raining.

I maintain though, as I always have, that the reduction of carbon dioxide
waste is a POSITIVE aim as is anything seeking to minimize the effect of
ourselves on our environment. The only things I'm calling into question are
the tactics currently being employed. If this data-munging is a universal
thing, I'd argue that the ends do not warrant the means. This should be a
scientific debate, not an emotional one (as it has become).

[1] I say profitable because it's hard for contrarians to get grant money as
they are generally believed to be 'quacks'.

~~~
dejb
> I say profitable because it's hard for contrarians to get grant money as
> they are generally believed to be 'quacks'.

The energy sector and other carbon emitters would have enough available money
to make the government grant money look like small change. Imagine how much it
would be worth to them to discredit man made global warming. I'm sure they do
fund many of the contrarians one way or another. But the fact that they aren't
able to fund reputable research that supports their position really does say
something about how quacky the contrarians are regarded as being.

~~~
Padraig
Indeed. Here's an example of it:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagen...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange)

------
nfnaaron
"Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a
mistake into print."

Curve fitting?

