Brainfade Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 In an ideal world, science is done with blinders on - with little regard for the political and financial consequences of the results. But, in the real world, science is only as good as the scientists who do the work. And scientists (being mostly human) let their egos, biases, and most importantly their survival instincts (= grant funding) dictate their work. The unfortunate consequence? Non-science. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece Notable quotes from the link: In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said. Ya heard of due diligence, Sir? Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science". Who am I to question Dr. P's credentials? But, comments like this without proper data to back them up do not behoove a great mind.
The Outsider Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 There is a whole industry propping up in Climatology. The claims about melting glaciers in the Himalayas and their impact on the Gangetic Plain are grossly exaggerated because they are a good selling point for funding. The biggest veneer being thrown here is correlating the receding glaciers with the water supply in the agricultural Gangetic plain, which has been the doomsday message saying that receding glaciers will result in the rivers and soil in the Gangetic plains suffering drought. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Fact is that most of the water in the agricultural plains is ground water and not glacial. At Haridwar, the glacial content is 90%, which goes down to 25% at Kanpur, and 1% at Patna for the Ganga. Many other rivers in the plain don't have any glacial source at all. Moreover, how increased rainfall in a globally warm scenario will increase the ground water has also not been studied. But what sells, sells. And these days it's climate change and receding glaciers of the Himalayas.
Ram Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 I am extremely surprised that the IPCC did not follow proper auditing and oversight procedures when including that outlandish claim about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035. Did they not anticipate that such a sensational claim is bound to attract a lot scrutiny and attention and yet all they have to back it up is some telephonic interview with an obscure scientist and even he admits its merely speculation. Heck, I've learned that making off-the-cuff claims without having the proper evidence even on ICF can leave you badly burned. But, I am going to throw my weight right behind the bearded ones at IPCC. After all, they're tasked with proving what is essentially a theory consisting of complex science to politicians and the general populace and the combination does not gel well. These guys are not Wall street bankers, they're academics and doctors. PR is not their forte.
punjabi_khota Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Lol, as if those leaked emails about doctoring data weren't enough. It is getting really hard to distinguish reality from fiction amid all these doomsday predictions. This topic has already yielded a Nobel, and several million $ funding to numerous scientists. What an enormous ****-up this is turning out to be :lmao:
achilles Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 India is backing IPCC. Our Hon'ble PM has publicly stated that.
Brainfade Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 India is backing IPCC. Our Hon'ble PM has publicly stated that. Blind faith. The climate change crowd is turning evangelical.
Brainfade Posted February 19, 2010 Author Posted February 19, 2010 I am extremely surprised that the IPCC did not follow proper auditing and oversight procedures when including that outlandish claim about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035. Don't be. It is zeal-driven science, and scientists can be stubborn in their beliefs. Moreover, substantial grant monies are at stake. If I wrote a grant to study glaciers that were not melting, who would fund my lab? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7078565/UN-climate-chiefs-research-institute-won-grants-after-flawed-predictions-on-glaciers.html It can be revealed that The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), whose director is Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the IPCC, was awarded a portion of two grants, which were worth a total of almost £3 million for research on the glaciers after the inaccurate claims were published. But' date= I am going to throw my weight right behind the bearded ones at IPCC. After all, they're tasked with proving what is essentially a theory consisting of complex science to politicians and the general populace and the combination does not gel well. These guys are not Wall street bankers, they're academics and doctors. PR is not their forte. I felt the same way. But, as an inveterate skeptic, I kept digging to try and understand the science behind climate change. While I still don't understand the science too well (it is too computational and less experimental than I would like), I am beginning to questions the intentions of the scientists. And you are simply wrong about one thing - scientists are NOT tasked with proving anything. As a scientist, you are only tasked with (a) making sure that all the data are obtained correctly, (b) making sure you interpret the data truthfully. © admitting it when you are wrong. When the father of physiology Ivan Pavlov was shown to be wrong in his interpretation of digestive control, he said this “Of course they are right. It is clear that we did not take out an exclusive patent for the discovery of the truth”’ (Babkin, 1949)." Check this out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665254/
Recommended Posts