FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Himalayan Blunder!!!





yagnyavalkya
IPCC is loosing credibility
First they say Himalayan glacier will disapper in 2035
then they say it was wrong

here goes the report was based on a story in New Scientist, published 11 years ago!

the New Scientist report was based on a telephone interview with a little-known Indian scientist in Delhi.

The scientist himself has admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.
What a Himalayan Blunder PUN INTENDED!!!
BTW can anyone give me a link on these emails
"contained within the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit"
silverdown
Wow this sounds very intresting......
Bikerman
Come on man, how hard is that to google?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Content_of_the_documents
Much ado about nothing IMHO.
The glacier thing is a bit more serious. It means that some lazy bugger on one of the committees used New Scientist instead of the peer-reviewed literature, which is bad enough, but also that nobody checked the references before issuing the document - which is very bad. I can't see any reason why they would have issued the document knowing about the dodgy source - it doesn't really change much and it was bound to come out (just think how many deniers out there pour through every statement in the hope of finding a mistake and becoming a blog-hero). I think it is professional incompetence, perhaps even negligence, but not conspiracy.
yagnyavalkya
Bikerman wrote:
Come on man, how hard is that to google?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Content_of_the_documents
Much ado about nothing IMHO.
The glacier thing is a bit more serious. It means that some lazy bugger on one of the committees used New Scientist instead of the peer-reviewed literature, which is bad enough, but also that nobody checked the references before issuing the document - which is very bad. I can't see any reason why they would have issued the document knowing about the dodgy source - it doesn't really change much and it was bound to come out (just think how many deniers out there pour through every statement in the hope of finding a mistake and becoming a blog-hero). I think it is professional incompetence, perhaps even negligence, but not conspiracy.

Thanks never thought there would a wiki page for that! Anyway was just lazy! I guess
I agree definitely not controversy and most positively negligence
Authors make mistakes in fact some just want to finish the job and go home for the day the include a reference that sounds relevant to the reader without even reading the quoted paper. But there is peer review if you want your paper published and the review points it out and corrections and revisions makes the doc better
I wonder if the IPCC does at least an in-house review if not a single blind or double blind peer review
Lessons : Check and cross check every reference even in your Term Paper and also dont quote "telephone Conversations"!!!
Bikerman
My understanding was that the working committees draw entirely from peer-reviewed papers and don't do any original research at all. That being said then somebody obviously stuck this NewScientist reference in and that should certainly not have happened. I'm pretty annoyed with them about it because it is fantastic ammunition for the deniers who want to rubbish anything 'official'.
yagnyavalkya
I think the IPCC shoudl be more stringent in its editorial process I guess they have learnt a lesson
Voodoocat
The IPCC has turned into a worldwide laughing stock at this point. It seems that the seemingly endless comedy of errors elucidates the fact that IPCC reports do not have a solid scientific foundation and should be treated as such.
Bikerman
The IPCC reports are thousands of pages, drawn from the best peer-reviewed literature out there. They have certainly made a few blunders, but to junk the other 99.xx % is irrational. I'll also throw into the mix that I personally have doubts about the suitability of the chairman, given his apparent financial dealings. That doesn't mean you junk the IPCC - it means you implement better editorial control - which is a good reason to question the curent policy of handing control of final edit to political appointees rather than leaving it to the scientists - but that is a whole other debate.
yagnyavalkya
Bikerman wrote:
The IPCC reports are thousands of pages, drawn from the best peer-reviewed literature out there. They have certainly made a few blunders, but to junk the other 99.xx % is irrational. I'll also throw into the mix that I personally have doubts about the suitability of the chairman, given his apparent financial dealings. That doesn't mean you junk the IPCC - it means you implement better editorial control - which is a good reason to question the curent policy of handing control of final edit to political appointees rather than leaving it to the scientists - but that is a whole other debate.

I second that!
Voodoocat
Quote:
which is a good reason to question the curent policy of handing control of final edit to political appointees rather than leaving it to the scientists


Exactly! Science should be driven by.......

Science! Not politics.

This committee has produced a prodigious amount of paper, lots of publicity and press coverage, and unfortunately, many errors.

Scientific theories are validated by their ablility to predict. Look at Neils Bohr- he correctly modelled the hydrogen, Meneleev predicted the existance of undiscovered elements, Mendel was able to predict the outcome of genetic crosses.

Can the IPCC make any such claim?

Uh, no.
ocalhoun
Voodoocat wrote:


Scientific theories are validated by their ablility to predict. [...]

Can the IPCC make any such claim?

Uh, no.

Well, they have made predictions. Unfortunately, they're long-term predictions, and we can only perform one experiment at a time.
So, 'validating' these theories in the sense you mention will take a very long time.
yagnyavalkya
Voodoocat wrote:
Look at Neils Bohr- he correctly modelled the hydrogen, Meneleev predicted the existance of undiscovered elements, Mendel was able to predict the outcome of genetic crosses.

Can the IPCC make any such claim?

Uh, no.

Actually it is not only unfair but also not exactly correct to compare these above mentioned scientists with IPCC. IPCC is a body and it working on a several predictive aspects including most importantly adaptation and mitigation It is not putting forth a universal theory! There is lack of specificity in the agenda of IPCC as compared to the specificity in the works of the above scientists
Bikerman
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
which is a good reason to question the curent policy of handing control of final edit to political appointees rather than leaving it to the scientists


Exactly! Science should be driven by.......

Science! Not politics.

This committee has produced a prodigious amount of paper, lots of publicity and press coverage, and unfortunately, many errors.

Scientific theories are validated by their ablility to predict. Look at Neils Bohr- he correctly modelled the hydrogen, Meneleev predicted the existance of undiscovered elements, Mendel was able to predict the outcome of genetic crosses.

Can the IPCC make any such claim?

Uh, no.

Hmm...the internet is full of people with delusions of adequacy in climate science. The number of bloggers who think that have seen some fundamental flaw which nobody else knows about is getting to be even greater than relativity cranks. I normally have to leave threads on climate science because the level of ignorance and arrogance shown make me angry.
Frankly unless you have a very good mathematical brain, a good grounding in basic physics, geophysics, thermodynamics, statistical modelling techniques (and I mean at the sharp end, not just messing around with standard deviations and Chi squared testing).
We currently have a rash of posters on the BBC Radio Science forum who are convinced that climate scientists are stupid as well as dishonest, and revealing, every time they type, that they haven't got the faintest clue about even the basics.
Prediction is certainly important in science - it is usually the way we test hypotheses. Climate models do predict, but you cannot predict climate over timespans of a few years because the climate system contains masses of different cycles - el-nino, la-nino, great conveyor, solar 11 year cycle, the Milankovitch cycle, the Atlantic Oscillator.....and so on. From month to month and year to year the variation in temperature is so great that trends only emerge over a longer timespan. We are looking for differences of about 1 degree in a signal which fluctuates daily anything up to 25 degrees and anually a similar amount.
Frankly I have little interest in the 'theories' of the amateur sceptics. Peer review is where the science is done, and unless one is prepared to submit one's 'theories' to be judged by one's peers then, frankly, I'm not even going to bother reading most of it..
I know enough science to know how difficult climatology is, and mosr of the specific criticism I see doesn't even reach high school levels.
yagnyavalkya
Yes let the science guys do their job and just not worry about what the un/misinformed public think
yagnyavalkya
Climate change is a problem and scientist will continue working at it
gverutes
just b/c IPCC messed up doesn't discredit the reality that global warming is real.
ocalhoun
gverutes wrote:
just b/c IPCC messed up doesn't discredit the reality that global warming is real.

It does (at least partially) discredit the IPCC though.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
gverutes wrote:
just b/c IPCC messed up doesn't discredit the reality that global warming is real.

It does (at least partially) discredit the IPCC though.

No, it just shows they're not perfect, and can make mistakes. The error in question was a typo - literally a typo, they substituted 2035 for 2350 or 2530 or something like that - in a single paragraph in a massive document, that wasn't even referenced in the final conclusion of the report (which is why no one noticed it until too late). To say that this even "partially" discredits the IPCC is equivalent to saying that we can call a scientist untrustworthy because they missed a comma in their paper, even though the conclusions of the paper are completely unaffected.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.