20 2 mins 12 yrs

Surely some mistake?

An official prediction by the United Nations that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 may be withdrawn after it was found to be based on speculation rather than scientific evidence.

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the claim which it said was based on detailed research into the impact of global warming. But the IPCC have since admitted it was based on a report written in a science journal and even the scientist who was the subject of the original story admits it was not based on fact.


The article, in the New Scientist, was not even based on a research paper – it evolved from a short telephone interview with the academic. Dr Syed Hasnain, an Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped.

But he didn’t. The IPCC is a political organisation which is interested in delivering pro global warming stories and debasing science to achieve this result. The odd tale of the vanishing Himalayan glaciers that aren’t vanishing is typical of this profoundly unscientific process.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

20 thoughts on “WHAT SCIENCE?

  1. At least mainstream media (Daily Mail) has picked up on this one so it will get huge coverage (no offence to your blog sir!!)

  2. David –

    Yes, the IPCC is a political organisation but it is also a deeply corrupt and criminal organisation.

    eureferendum has done over the IPCC, its Chairman (Pachauri) and his many links with lavishly funded climate groups and strange companies in fine style for the last few weeks. There’s been no point in summarising since the revelations about him have been torrential.

  3. Here is a glacier which is most definitely melting:

    "A major Antarctic glacier has passed its tipping point, according to a new modelling study. After losing increasing amounts of ice over the past decades, it is poised to collapse in a catastrophe that could raise global sea levels by 24 centimetres. Pine Island glacier (PIG) is one of many at the fringes of the West Antarctic ice sheet. In 2004, satellite observations showed that it had started to thin, and that ice was flowing into the Amundsen Sea 25 per cent faster than it had 30 years before. Now, the first study to model changes in the ice sheet in three dimensions shows that PIG has probably passed a critical "tipping point" and is irreversibly on track to lose 50 per cent of its ice in as little as 100 years, significantly raising global sea levels."

    Maybe the IPCC guys are melting it at night with blow-torches?

  4. Don’t worry, Peter. Other Antarctic ice sheets are gaining volume so any nominal increase in sea level (why is it not actually happening?) will be compensated for by the growing ice sheets elsewhere.

  5. I was in Switzerland a few years ago. We stayed for a few days at Grindelwald in the Bernese Oberland, which has a glacier beside it. That glacier has greatly retreated in recent decades as locals are well aware, and as photographs show. And all other Alpine glaciers are also retreating, as photographs show.

    Oh wait, maybe those IPCC commies have doctored those photos. Heck, Stalin used to do it. And maybe those locals are mistaken? Or maybe "global cooling" is to blame?

  6. Here is a table of all the Swiss glaciers, with their lengths compared between 1850 and 2002. All 24 of them have retreated since 1850.

    "Global cooling" is the obvious explanation.

  7. Peter take a glass and fill it with ice, add water to the brim and place it in the sun. let me know when the melting ice causes the glass to overflow

    it’s time to drill

  8. Troll


    Melting land-based glaciers, in Antarctica and Greenland, will raise sea-levels. The ice in the sea is generally called sea-ice.

  9. Peter

    What is your view on the substance here, namely that the IPCC published unfounded speculation as scientific fact? Do you think this is in any way disturbing?

  10. Peter –

    Wiki is a notorious source where environmental/AGW matters are concerned. Do be careful.

    Now I can tell you now no-one has any idea of the length of most of those Swizz glaciers since hardly any would have been climbed by 1850. Mountaineering is a sport which didn’t get going until the very late 19th Century.

    For example, your first glacier there is the Allalin. It’s on the Allalinhorn. It hadn’t been climbed until well after 1850.

  11. David

    Yes, it is disturbing that the IPCC is prepared to use dodgy evidence. And I have no doubt that many on both sides of the AGW debate are following a political agenda.

    That’s why I prefer to believe the evidence of my own eyes and do my own analysis of reliable temperature records, such as Armagh and the CET.

  12. the northern icepack what we call the noth pole is all water no land, the ice on the main contenent of antartica has been getting thicker for years.

    Either way it’s celestial mechanics mand can’t do shit to push it either way

  13. Greenland is solid land and its enormous glacier is on solid land. As it melts, it calves ice-bergs into the North Atlantic. One of them sank the Titanic.

  14. Peter, run and hide, protect yourself, the glaciers that once covered Scotland and Ireland have all melted away.

    Glaciers melt. Get over it.

  15. Peter accept FACTS,

    the Earth gets hot and the Earth gets cold. Man has nothing to do with it and any claim that they do has been proven a lie.

    get over it yourside got caught cheating YOU LOSE

  16. Man has nothing to do with it and any claim that they do has been proven a lie.
    Really? When was that proved then?

  17. Peter, oh how typical of the alarmists. Abuse the critic and do not answer the point.

    Answer the point. Why did the glaciers over Ireland Scotland melt in the absence of Range Rovers.

    Could it be natural cycles of warming and cooling?

  18. This was certainly a major goof by the IPCC, no question. Referencing a non-peer reviewed paper which in turn relied on some throwaway comment by a scientist is not what they are meant to be doing. It is fair enough for the critics to say that it undermines confidence in the area of the report that was put together by that lead author. That should be re-examined.

    That said, it is striking that the report was issued in 2007 and this is as close as the ‘sceptics’ have got to finding fault with it – indeed as far I understand it it wasn’t even the ‘sceptics’ that did so, but an expert in the field who disagreed with the statement and went looking for its provenance.

    Is it a major embarassment to the IPCC, sure. Does it undermine the overall case, no, not really. It’s still true that most glaciers are melting, which in turn is one of many lines of evidence that it has been warming and there is no real question that it is warming – even the UAH record (run by ‘sceptics’) supports that.

Comments are closed.