Texas State Climatologist: "IPCC AR4 was flat out wrong" – relied on flawed WWF report
Anthony Watts / December 22, 2009
Even though these clean cut dudes (by today's standards) may be favorite sons of 60's alarmism, at least they can add years correctly. Their signature song telling tales of doom in future years is pretty close to this issue, so it seemed appropriate.
John Nielsen-Gammon who is the state climatologist for Texas has found a serious error in the IPCC AR4.
Roger Pielke Sr. reports that "he has published an effective summary and further detailed analysis of the error Madhav Khandkkar reported on in a guest weblog Global Warming And Glacier Melt-Down Debate: A Tempest In A Teapot?" – A Guest Weblog By Madhav L Khandekar."
The story from Nielsen-Gammon is on the Houston Chronicle website, and is titled By the way, there will still be glaciers in the Himalayas in 2035
It seems IPCC made a serious error in judgement, and violated their own rules. The mistake was relying on a flawed report from WWF for a key piece of information. This turns out to be a World Wildlife Fund project report (PDF) An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China that was not peer-reviewed.
This is a problem; the IPCC is supposed to rely only on the peer-reviewed literature. Gee, where have we heard that before?
The key error is in this sentence on page 29 of the WWF report:
"glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high".
Remember that year, 2035, as you read on.
"Lost amid the news coverage of Copenhagen and Climategate was the assertion that one of the more attention-grabbing statements of the IPCC AR4 was flat-out wrong: [the IPCC text is]
Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."(IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493)."
"To recap, the available evidence indicates that the IPCC authors of this section relied upon a secondhand, unreferreed source which turned out to be unreliable, and failed to identify this source. As a result, the IPCC has predicted the likely loss of most or all of Himalaya's glaciers by 2035 with apparently no peer-reviewed scientific studies to justify such a prediction and at least one scientific study (Kotlyakov) saying that such a disappearance is too fast by a factor of ten!"
To see how that year of 2035 figures in, read the complete report here: By the way, there will still be glaciers in the Himalayas in 2035
December 22, 2009 in Climate News, Glaciers, IPCC.
← A story of conversion: Global Warming Believer To Skeptic
Met Office and CRU bow to public pressure: publish data subset and code →
152 thoughts on "Texas State Climatologist: "IPCC AR4 was flat out wrong" – relied on flawed WWF report"
crosspatch says:
I saw a commercial on TV today from the WWF that stated that the polar bears would all be dead by the time my kids were grown up. The claimed that the baby polar bears are starving to death and drowning from lack of strength to swim.
I have not seen such pure falsehood in a commercial in a very long time. It was worse than wrong, it was harmful. My kids see those commercials and when they see something from a charity like WWF that uses the same buzzwords they are learning at school ("global warming", etc) it becomes very believable to them. And for me to have to explain to them that even people like the WWF are not above lying to people in order to collect money, it is heartbreaking. It peels away another layer of innocence from a child.
Those people are sick.
Duncan says:
I used to make an annual contribution to the WWF.
My heartfelt apologies for it; I thought they were about wildlife conservation.
bikermailman says:
This story reminds me of the game of 'rumor' we all played as children. Malintent? Possibly, given what we know of some advocacy groups. Possibly not. Either way, utterly irresponsible.
Michael In Sydney says:
2035 instead of 2350…Reminds me of the guys at NASA or JPL working on the Mars Climate Orbiter who had the metric/imperial mix up.
It is funny that people didn't think 'hold on, no glaciers in just 25 years…does that seem right?' People seem to have lost their common-sense reference point when it comes to climate.
TerryBixler says:
New math?
Dr A Burns says:
Glaciers have been retreating since the LIA. Is there any evidence at all that man's CO2 has increased the rate of retreat since 1945, when fossil fuel burning skyrocketed by a factor of 12 ?
I notice that even Inhofe believes that man's CO2 is causing global warming. Is there any evidence whatsoever this is true ?
We all know the theory that doubling CO2 produces an increase in temps of 0.5 degrees, (or 2 degrees if you believe the IPCC). However, it appears that there is no hard evidence that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are caused by man, rather than by natural changes in ocean temperatures, ocean circulation, or some other effect. Similarly there appears to be no hard evidence that this increase is directly responsible for any of the warming since 1945, rather than it being a natural continuation of the warming since the LIA.
Is AGW still just a theory or is there anything at all to support it ?
Tony Hansen says:
In the year twenty three fifty or,
Give or take 300 odd years….
barbee butts says:
Gawd I loved that song when I was a kid-very apt choice-thanks for the giggle.
genezeien says:
And so.. another "mistake" slides by friendly reviewers and editors. Or did they just not bother to read it?
Ric Werme says:
That's amazing. So, the year is wrong by a huge margin, and 500,000 to 100,000 km^2 refers to something that apparently wasn't fact checked, but I guess that's for magazines and not UN documents.
2,500 scientists worked on AR4 and didn't catch this? I guess that's not enough, or the IPCC counts scientists funny. In addition to going back the the original B-91 sheets for weather data, we have to make a line-by-line review of AR4 too? Sigh.
Excuse me while I go off and be incredulous for a while.
rbateman says:
Only 315 years off.
Missed it by 'that much', Agent 99.
kadaka says:
Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035? In just 25 years?
Dear God, why aren't all the green groups over there helping the evacuations? We must get those people out of the way of the imminent devastating floods!
Oh the humanity!
Oh silly skeptics, this man's opinion doesn't matter… he's not a climatol…. oh wait.
mpaul says:
I'm in a helpful mood tonight. I just provided this advice to a poster at realclimate:
"First, I'm looking for ammunition to squelch denialist rumors, but to some extent that requires knowing your enemy, and knowing the kinds of arguments that will work against them."
James, I think you should always present fact-based arguments. A good place to start would be to point out that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035. It's very difficult for the denialists to dispute facts.
Henry chance says:
Tell the IPCC to stop using wikipedia
Gary Hladik says:
crosspatch (19:37:21) : "I saw a commercial on TV today from the WWF that stated that the polar bears would all be dead by the time my kids were grown up."
"The very last pygmy rhino is going extinct? Unless it gets my credit card number?" — Leela, in "Bender's Big Score" (Futurama)
It was just a matter of time…
MidwestGreen says:
As another winter snow storm prepares to pound the midwest after one greeted Obama after his trip home from Dopenhagen.
Make sure Cap and Trade does not pass so Gore, Goldman Sachs and co. don't cash in on the carbon trade. This scam is about money not protecting the world.
Cap and Trade does not stop any pollution it just allows for a large wealth transfer-from us to them.
INGSOC says:
Don't worry! The paper that this paper relies upon will be published shortly.
Graeme From Melbourne says:
"To recap, the available evidence indicates that the IPCC authors of this section relied upon a secondhand, unreferreed source which turned out to be unreliable, and failed to identify this source."
No kidding, and what about all the referreed papers that have since turned out to be unreliable post climategate.
Sloppy, sloppy work.
And the WWF, just another NGO peddling fear to fill their coffers…
Isn't the main definition of a terrorist someone who uses fear as a tool to extract obedience/control from other human beings.
The comparisons are obvious.
Adam from Kansas says:
You just can't make this up.
Build-a-Bear workshop using Santa Clause to peddle the AGW scare to kids.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/22/build-a-climate-scare-why-you-should-boycott-build-a-bear/
I mean child friendly companies trying to say to kids to stop emitting CO2 immediately if they want to have a Christmas. O.o
George Turner says:
Okay, a simple observation. Given that glaciers are notoriously devoid of wildlife and their disappearance leaves in their wake glacial valleys like Yosemite, shouldn't an organization that has "World Wildlife" in the name be jumping up and down on Romper Room bouncy balls at the thought of glaciers disappearing?
But I suppose they think the story resonates with all the people who don't realize that polar bear populations have exploded since the 1960's, with approximately three times more now than then. Won't someone think of the Japanese tourists?
*sobs*
It reminds me of the spoof "Glacial paradise turns into tropical wasteland" with a side-by-side comparison of a glacier and Gilligan's Island.
tpinlb says:
We all need to remember the origins of the World Wildlife Fund. This is a favorite pet project of the British and the royals who advocate an oligarchy vs. the peasants worldview. The WWF consistently supports anti-human development positions, is opposed to the development of natural resources for the benefit of human society. Prince Philip of England has stated his desire to be reincarnated as a virus so he could come back and dramatically reduce the world's population. The triumph of China and India and Copenhagen, defeating the no-growth global warmists from Europe and the Obama administration, was a great victory for those who believe in the importance of physical development projects — high speed rail, nuclear power, water desalination, etc. — for the improvement of mankind's condition. This is antithetical to the position of the World Wildlife Fund and their oligarchy backers.
Jack Simmons says:
IPCC must have had the same fact checkers as Al Gore when he claim the earth's temperature under the ground was in the millions.
mpaul,
That is sooo wrong. You are evil. Here, have a cookie.
Yet this doesn't impact AR4, since it would be a simple matter for someone in 2035 to hire David Copperfield and fly him to the Himalayas. This possibility possibly appears in magicians' peer-reviewed literature, which they keep close to their chests lest the secrets get out.
Gil Dewart says:
Another obvious error here: it is "extra-polar" glaciers, i.e., those outside the polar regions, that cover approximately 500,000 square kilometers, not the Himalayan glaciers. All the central Asian glaciers, including those in the Himalayas, cover only about 100,000 km2. If they "retreat" to 100,000km2 that would be no loss at all. It's clear that this whole presentation is hopelessly garbled and that these people know nothing about glaciers, or geography either for that matter.
RACookPE1978 says:
Is there any statement about AGW by the IPCC, WWF, Greenpeace, East Anglia, GISS, the NOAA, NWS (of UK, US, NZ, Aus, or Spain) that has been actually "proven true" and "scientifically accurate" in the last 15 years?
Keith Minto says:
This is the same whacko mentality that is shown in creativebits.org . This is a list of photographs (stills) used in environmental campaigns. Scroll 2/3 down and you will see an Armadillo in a lounge room and underneath "If you don't preserve nature by switching off your TV, who will".
You couldn't make this stuff up.
It, like the report, is a visceral scare campaign pretending to have a basis in science.
Michael J. Bentley says:
Seems to me….
I really don't have a problem in exposing the nitwits who thought they could control the world – lets say in their underwear (please no nude shots – some of these guys shouldn't be seen in spandex). BUT….
We do need to support clean activites (EG removing soot from stack gasses)
There are lots of efficient and cost effective ways of keeping crap out of the atmosphere and world – and third world counties need to employ them – and can with a """little""" help from the rest of us, like in-kind engineering help. I wouldn't give money any more than giving a street person cash instead of a non-negotiable voucher for a meal at a local diner or some such. Send qualified consultants to assist.
None of us (I hope) is in favor of energy use for use sake, or pollution because we can. Anthony drives an electric car to work – cool, but here in Colorado, that just wouldn't work at the moment – so I drive my mid-sized SUV at 20 mpg. When the tide turns, and it will I think, we need to get that message out. We can have a clean environment, but we need to follow the FACTS not some nitwit control scheme.
A dog is twice as bad as an SUV.
Pets are horrible things for the environment. They are destroying our planet. We should immediately get rid of them.
Notify the WWF, to save the planet the pandas and the polar bears at the zoos need to be put down!
And the koalas as well!
Jack Simmons (20:22:12) :
Fahrenheit, Centigrade, or perhaps was that the Kelvin scale?
Olle says:
Crosspatch!
I fully agree.WWF propaganda is of the lowest kind.Bears killing and eating cubs is natural behavior its common among ALL big predators Lions asf.
WWF are activist in taking belife of the future away from our kids, and for no other reason to fill thier own pockets.They are preditors of our childrens innocens och empathy.
There are so many pure lies in this propaganda so they should be sued fore fraud.The Icebear population is stable and been so since the middle of the eighties. The population is held under control by hunting.In Svalbard where hunting is forbidden the population is growing.Notice that Svalbard is the icebear habitat that has "suffered" of the biggest "lost" of ice of all habitats.
So I hate all this lies! Our children should instead be encouraged to know that the Icebear population was down to 5000 individuals in the beginning of the seventies and has grown to 20-25.000 by hunting banns and held under control by hunting since then.The inuites has stil the right to hunt icebears and arranges huntingtrips where the hunters pay 30.000 $ for a bear.
To be an Icebear is an risky buissiness but there is absolutly no evidence what so ever that "globalwarming" is a problem for the bear.The indication is the other way around.On the contrary the coldest areas have the populations that has shown a small decline.WWF claims to be "scientific" thats probably true when it comes to steeling childrens belif in the future. But when it comes to enviromental "science" its pathetic.
The hole enviromental activist industri is driven by misantrophy.Children are filantropes and easy victims.
Commercials says:
Slightly OT, but speaking of commercials.
I saw a bizarre EXXON commercial during Monday Night Football. The spot opens with a scientist (or an actor, who knows) saying that while natural gas was a cleaner burning fuel, some natural gas contained impurities like CO2. I played it back (DVR) several times to make sure I understood.
CO2 is now an impurity in some natural gases.
George Turner (20:14:03) :
Yes, the Polar Bears have discovered what Yosemite Bears have known all along: You can be fruitful and multiply at the town dump.
2035 doesn't even come close to the 'build-a-bear' site listed above by Adam from Kansas. Apparently the north Pole will be gone by tomorrow unless the kiddies do something or other to save it (couldn't watch any longer as I vomited a bit into my mouth).
REPLY: That's our next WUWT story, coming up in a couple of hours – Anthony
longshadow says:
Three impertinent questions:
1. who were the reviewers for this section of IPCC AR4?
2. even if they "forgot" to demand a primary source for this stunning claim, did they also forget how to do a sanity check on it? Seriously, that much ice melting in the next 25 years is going to create prodigious contributions to some downstream rivers. Did anyone check to see if they calculated rate of loss of ice is corroborated by a corresponding increase water flow, to corroborate this stunning claim? If they didn't independently seek out a primary source for this claim, and didn't do a sanity check, what on earth DID they do that constitutes "fact checking"?
3. Were the reviewers paid to perform their reviews? If so, they should be sued for fraud.
Just how bad is this?
Well, think of it this way: if the IPCC was your pharmacist, they just buggered the dosage of your medication, and you just swallowed ten times the prescribed dose of your meds.
No big deal, except you will probably be dead.
And these are the people who we are supposed to believe when it comes to the definitive conclusions about climate change and its effects on the planet.
IPCC needs an independent audit with a fine-toothed comb before I believe anything they say.
Peter S says:
From the opening scenes of the video, looks like there's a CO2 count of around 200,000 ppm in the year 2525! Has anyone told Al Gore?
Is the quote sic? ("livelihood" vs. "likelihood")
tim stevens says:
From that song 2525 by Zager and Evans
…In the year 3535,
aint gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
is in the pill you took today….
I guess the global warmers have taken it to heart
Mike Lorrey says:
The WWF is in a deal with the UN where they're trying to get international law to award soveriegnty over seamounts outside EEZ's to WWF, making WWF a nation, and giving it the authority to tax fishing boats that fish on these international seamounts.
Spenc Canada says:
Why is this not front page news everywhere.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/23/2779498.htm?section=justin
K-Bob says:
Whenever I run into others who are not well educated on the GW issue, they always respond to me with "What about the glaciers and polar ice caps?. How do you explain those?" I think we clearly need to have a campaign that explains to the masses that skeptics are skeptical of claims of man-made or CO2 caused warming, not warming in general. Otherwise were going to continue to hear MSM claims (including this garbage from the IPCC) that the world's ice is melting, melting, melting……………….and mankind is guilty!
jorgekafkazar says:
MidwestGreen (20:08:05) : "…Cap and Trade does not stop any pollution(;) it just allows for a large wealth transfer-from us to them."
The Cap and Traders want to destroy America.
Squidly says:
On Build A Bear, I sent the following email directly to them:
Dear Build A Bear,
Do you really think it is appropriate to be telling children that, because of "global warming" (a hoax by the way), that the North Pole will disappear tomorrow? Do the terms indoctrination or propaganda exist in your particular vocabulary?
This is beyond poor taste and completely reprehensible. My family and I will no longer buy any products from your company and will certainly encourage others not too as well.
Dave F says:
Impossible! It was peer reviewed!
Rereke Whakaaro says:
tpinlb (20:18:12) :
I think if you check the history of WWF, you will find that they started up with a genuine desire to protect animal species in Africa and Asia that were being decimated by poachers. At one time, certainly, they sponsored a number of biologists doing fieldwork.
This was the time when the British Royals got involved.
Conservation groups tend to have a social structure rather than a hierarchical one. It is a sharing and supportive environment, where people are united by a common cause.
On the down-side, their structure permitted most of the european conservation organizations to become deeply infiltrated by militant greens from eastern europe, following the collapse of the USSR.
Socialism (or Communism) is the only political system they really understand (and trust), and Democracy (and Capitalism) have always been the enemy – it was the way they were brought up and educated.
So although borders move, and regimes change, for them, the fight goes on.
Conservation, and climate change, are only means to an end. We are now starting to get a glimmer of what their desired "end" might be.
It is the political fight that is important. I am sorry to say that the science that is dear to the hearts of most people on this blog, is only a side-show in the bigger story.
Cromagnum says:
A very good short article describing the Science issue: Laws vs Models
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/12/21/the_perverse_economics_of_climate_modeling_97559.html
Brian Macker says:
WWF like any single issue non-profit is going to be alarmist in order to raise funds. That's why they make unsubstantiated claims about the number of species going extinct, to raise money.
Leon Palmer says:
RC has a new post titled
Unforced variations — Open thread for various climate science-related discussions. Suggestions for potential future posts are welcome.
I posted the following, as a suggestion for a potential future post 🙂 Y'all might want to suggest it too!!!
"I don't know, how about this topic? Something y'all can really whack around like a pinata for egregious failure to peer review!
In the case of melting glaciers in the Himalayas, the IPCC 2035 claim has led to, in Nielsen-Gammen's words, an egregious mistake becoming "effectively common knowledge that the glaciers were going to vanish by 2035." Like the common (but wrong) knowledge on disasters and climate change that originated in the grey literature and was subsequently misrepresented by the IPCC, on the melting of Himalayan glaciers the IPCC has dramatically misled policy makers and the public."
Scott Gibson says:
Mike Lorrey-
I couldn't help but laugh with your post. How is the WWF going to enforce the tax, build a fleet of pirate ships? WWF courts? WWF prisons?
RE: Commercials (20:41:49) :
Yes, CO2 in natural gas is an impurity just like water in gasoline … you can't burn it, but you're paying for it.
Build-A-Bear update:
… Our intention with the Polar Bear story was to inspire children, through the voices of our animal characters, to make a difference in their own individual ways. We did not intend to politicize the topic of global climate change or offend anyone in any way. The webisodes concluded this week with Santa successfully leaving on his journey to deliver gifts around the world. The webisodes will no longer be available on the site.
Politicize global climate change? No! Never happens. Telling little kiddies the North Pole is vanishing and Santa and the elves will be homeless, that's not politics, that's entertainment!
Bill Parsons says:
I think this is the referenced section of the IPCC, if you want to read it for yourselves.
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/SOD/Ch10.pdf
Now erratum – or would that be errata?
Neo says:
no glaciers in just 25 years…does that seem right?'
As long as they keep diverting the heat to the glaciers, there are going to be problems like these …
WARSAW – Ten people have died of cold in Poland over the past day, taking the toll since winter set in earlier this month to 79, police said Tuesday.
Robert Bissett says:
A glance at temperature fluctuations derived from Greenland ice cores shows that during the last five hundred million years it's a series of sharp peaks much warmer than today followed by a sharp trough much colder than today. Technically speaking we are still in the last ice-age, ice-box earth, because we have polar ice caps. Gaia does not want this to continue. Through the mechanism of evolution She has raised up a species able to break this vicious cycle. That would be us. First with CO2, then deforestation, urban heat islands, soot, etc. We must fulfill our destiny returning earth to a lush, warm planet of plenty. Spread the word.
Norm in Calgary says:
2035 or 2350? Mistake, possibly, but very convenient for grabbing headlines, while the correction appears on p41 in the advertisements. I wouldn't put it past Fast Al and Company to do it on purpose knowing they could claim it's just a typo, nothing to see here, move along!
tokyoboy says:
UAH satellite data for mid-troposphere, covering most of the Himalayan highlands, shows practically no temp trend for these 30 years…………..
As always, the people who are not paid do all the work and get no credit. I appreciate all of the detective work that goes into helping educate myself and every skeptical person out there. The authors of these FREE blogs follow better protocol for citing sources and fact checking than any MSM.
Thank you Bloggers!
By the year 2035 they may well be advancing rather than retreating. Maybe even before that. Who knows? Maybe someone does, but certainly not Al Gore, Pachauri or the IPCC.
Peter of Sydney says:
It's time to complain to TV stations for advertising lies.
yonason says:
Great video by John Coleman posted here.
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2009/12/great_moments_i.html
Found somewhere on the Internet:
According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!
So it looks like someone did some creative data entry.
Oh, and there's this.
Monty says:
I hear you brother. Aside from the damage all of this does to science, I am worried about the damage to legitimate pollution abatement/conservation efforts. The pendulum always swings too far either direction. Although it is beyond our capability to "save" the Earth (just look into the solar nuclear fuel cycle or do the math on NEOs. For however long we strange pink primates are at the top of the food chain, I think it best we not soil our cage and preserve our biosphere……
The only way to do that without mass murder is with technology and an increased standard of living for all-thus reduced birth rates. But where would that leave those who wish to be our masters? They are only good at telling us what we can't do. They seem to fail to grasp their tenuous hold on things……ahh well hubris will do that to you. Nuclear pitch forks await.
Although I am relatively pessimistic, I do have some hope that at least we are aware of each other to some degree (thanks for the internet El Gordo) and perhaps we can realize how much we have in common and not allow ourselves to be divided against each other this time.
It all boils down to economics and ultimately money.
Maybe not. From the posting above it appears the authors were all Asian – from Japan, Vietnam, India, Philippines, China. The Lead Authors were Yurji Anokhin (Russia), Punsalmaa Batima (Mongolia), Yasashi Honda (Japan)…
There are drawbacks to the "team approach", among them the very real dangers of transcription errors. At the very least, they needed a good proofreader.
RE: my last ( yonason (22:18:34) : )
I seem to have entered the wrong URL. This is the correct one for the video of John Coleman. Sorry.
http://exileonthewing.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/valid-comment/
Read the article "By the way, there will still be glaciers in the Himalayas in 2035".
Excellent sluething / investigative work.
Most ironic – "The Indian environment ministry released a report in November by Vijay Kumar Raina that concluded that Himalayan glaciers on the whole were retreating, but not at an alarming rate or any faster than glaciers on the rest of the globe. According to The Guardian, countryman Rajenda Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, was furious. "
Pachauri said the report was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".
And the IPCC report was not only not peer reviewed, it had NO scientific citations! NONE! The scientific study it was in all probabilty plagiarised from gave the date as 2350 and didnt say they would disappear even by then!
Pachauri "With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."
Established? By whom? The IPCC – out of thin air! Pachauri is accountable in more ways than one.
OOPS! last post was a response to:
Michael J. Bentley (20:35:16) :
Stinking wireless hookup lost connection during my post. fortunately I had it on the clipboard….without the quote for the original. I really have to learn to use html.
BTHW I've been a lurker here for a long time and really appreciate all of you!
One of my fav all time songs. Thanks for the memory.
And I thought (almost) that WWF was World Wrestling Federation until you spelled it out. I wonder what their global warming credentials are? 😉
Wathing the video in the post, the performers are up to their knees in CO2 or some other planet-destroying gas while singing about the far futue of mankind. Being a skeptic, I put it down to artistic effects instead of writing a pamphlet likening it to the end of the Mayan calendar.
Mapou says:
The way I see it, peer reviewed or not, it's all based on crap. After all, Michael Mann's hockey stick was peer reviewed, right? Here is a little something that I think is appropriate in this context. It was written by the inimitable Paul Feyerabend back in 1975:
"And a more detailed analysis of successful moves in the game of science ('successful' from the point of view of the scientists themselves) shows indeed that there is a wide range of freedom that demands a multiplicity of ideas and permits the application of democratic procedures (ballot-discussion-vote) but that is actually closed by power politics and propaganda. This is where the fairy-tale of a special method assumes its decisive function. It conceals the freedom of decision which creative scientists and the general public have even inside the most rigid and the most advanced parts of science by a recitation of 'objective' criteria and it thus protects the big-shots (Nobel Prize winners; heads of laboratories, of organizations such as the AMA, of special schools; 'educators'; etc.) from the masses (laymen; experts in non-scientific fields; experts in other fields of science): only those citizens count who were subjected to the pressures of scientific institutions (they have undergone a long process of education), who succumbed to these pressures (they have passed their examinations), and who are now firmly convinced of the truth of the fairy-tale. This is how scientists have deceived themselves and everyone else about their business, but without any real disadvantage: they have more money, more authority, more sex appeal than they deserve, and the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society."
From Against Method by Paul Feyerabend
Greg (22:39:02) :
Wrestling lost the lawsuit, thus it's now WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment.
Although a merger to share the acronym would have been interesting. Hulk Hogan vs a giant panda during a fund-raising Wrestle-thon?
Richard111 says:
Not long ago there was a WWF report about sea levels rising a metre or more in the next ten years and causing the demise of many species of animals in Pacific islands.
It is simple enough to calculate that some 97,000 cubic miles of land based ice must melt to achieve this result. The total energy required is horrendous, it equates to a "forcing" of 0.75w/m^2. I was unable to discover a mechanism that could deliver this energy to Greenland and the Antarctic continent in the specified timescale.
kwik says:
I just read this report here;
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
I dont know whether its peer reviewed or not, but its made by
V.K. Raina
Ex. Deputy Director General
Geological Survey of India
And the conclusion os totally differnt from the IPCC / WWF conclusion. Its a long report, whit lots of stuff, but the conclusion at the end seems to me to be that the claciers shows a delayed reaction to the climate cycles the planet is experiencing. Not CO2 in particular, in other words.
If soot is a problem on the east side, then better living conditions for people in India and China surely is the cure.
And how to get better living conditions?
UN stathistics shows that democracy and free markeds is
the best way to go;
OT- Has anyone read this paper?
"Evidence for two intervals of enhanced 10Be deposition in Antarctic ice during the last glacial period"
G. M. Raisbeck, F. Yiou, D. Bourles, C. Lorius, J. Jouzel & N. I. Barkov
We have previously reported concentration profiles of cosmic ray produced (cosmogenic) 10Be in deep ice cores from Dome C and Vostok, Antarctica. In both these cores we found a concentration of 10Be approximately two times larger in ice from the late glacial period than in the Holocene ice. We interpreted this as probably resulting from a lower precipitation rate on the Antarctic plateau during glacial periods, compared to interglacial periods. In the Vostok profile there was one sample, corresponding to approx60,000 yr BP, which gave an unusually large 10Be concentration, not correlated with any obvious climatic event. We suggested that this sample might be reflecting increased 10Be production, as for example during a period of reduced solar modulation. We have now measured a much more detailed concentration profile for 10Be in the Vostok core. The results confirm a 10Be 'peak', lasting approx1,000–2,000 years, at approx 60,000 yr BP, and show another similar peak at approx 35,000 yr BP. We have also observed the latter peak in the Dome C core. We discuss possible sources for these peaks, and their potential as stratigraphic markers.
The notion of an unusually quiet sun for 1,000 to 2,000 years is fascinating.
Looking at this graph the times would coincide with periods of very cold temperatures and very dusty conditions (generally thought to be associated with cold/dry periods).
In fact, those two periods would coincide with the two coldest periods of the last glacial period.
Just wondering if it is worth the $35 bucks it would cost me to download the paper through the pay wall.
And the WWF report is cited in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
I added a section under the talk page to address the use of the WWF as a supposed RS (Reliable Source) and the unreferenced claims in the Asia section such as: "In India the Gangotri Glacier, which is a significant source of water for the Ganges River…" which is contradicted by scientist Kireet Kumar:
"Our data indicate the Ganges results primarily from monsoon rainfall, and until the monsoon fails completely, there will be a Ganges river, very similar to the present river." Glacier melt contributes 3% to 4% of the Ganges's annual flow, says Kireet Kumar."
We'll see what the gatekeepers allow.
peeke says:
@ Duncan (19:44:38) :
That is where environemtal organisations should return to, imho: Saving wildlife, landscapes. That is their core business, and the public would appreciate them for it.
Mapou (22:42:52) :
Same thing as Bernie Madoff and his super-secret investing formula. Any sensible person knows that a super-secret investing formula is a load and should be treated as such. There are no magic bullets, and CO2 causing climate change is a magic bullet. People are just searching for a way for humans to be in control of everything. I think this is why they want to believe so badly that we are affecting the climate terribly.
hro001 says:
Speaking of WWF and IPCC (not to mention the CRU Crew), there are 8 eamils from 1997 through 2003 involving WWF and CRU people; Considering all that we now know, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the CRU Crew provided some assistance in this latest revealed travesty!
FWIW, on the CRU side, the common thread seems to be Mike Hulme.
Here's a sampling. (The second one I discussed in some detail in http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/the-fog-of-uncertainty-and-the-precautionary-principle/ )
[Source: http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=152&s=kwWWF%5D
876250531.txt
From: Angela.LIBERATORE@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "m.hulme" , "Martin.OConnor" , alcamo , jaeger , [and several others]
Subject: Copy of: climate: Japanese proposal
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:55:31 +0200
From: Andrew Kerr, WWF Climate Change Campaign
re.: "scandalous" Japanese climate change proposal
[long list of recipients]
[interesting rant] and:
WWF PRESS RELEASE
JAPAN PROPOSAL FOR KYOTO SUMMIT SCANDALOUS, WWF SAYS
KYOTO, JAPAN, 5 October 1997 ? The World Wide Fund for Nature condemned as
"scandalous" the Japanese government?s proposal for reducing greenhouse
gases responsible for climate change, Sunday, and called on industrialised
nations to flatly reject it. [,,,]
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
[Tom Wigley, quite correctly – but well beyond the deadline saying this is a very bad idea]
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Tim Mitchell wrote:
> Reference: Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
> Global Climate
> Dear Colleague,
> Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is
> to bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of
> emissions of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised
> countries in the negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in
> December 1997. The Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European
> scientists concerned with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after
> the Statement and who are acting as formal sponsors of the Statement.
[…]The UK and other European WWF offices have agreed to assist in
> this activity, although the preparation of the Statement itself has in no
> way been initiated or influenced by WWF or any other body. This is an
> initiative taken by us alone and supported by our 11 Statement sponsors.
[Methinks he doth protest too much -hro]
From: Mike Hulme
To: Jennifer F Crossley
Subject: Re: masking of WWF maps
Date: Thu Jul 29 09:13:24 1999
Thanks for these.
After entering into debate with Barrie Pittock, I have decided to shift to using the 1 sigma level as a mask for all maps. This will not affect any of the temperature plots you have done until now, but means that the China and C.America precipitation maps will need re-drawing using 1 sigma. Please let me know when these are done.
Note also for Russia and that everything from now on for WWF (both T and P) should use 1 sigma as the mask.
Sorry about this and I realise this squeezes even more time away from the RCM.
Given what has happened and your role in producing these plots, you may interested in the exchanges I have had with Barrie Pittock – it illustrates nicely the nuances of presenting climate scenarios in different Fora. Read these three emails in reverse order.
Thank you for your careful consideration of my "trenchant comments". I
am now much happier with what you are doing, and indeed grateful for
your hard work and enterprise is getting the new scenarios out so
quickly for both IPCC and WWF. […]
941483736.txt:
From: Tom Wigley
To: Mike Hulme
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL: CRU scenarios
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:15:36 -0700 (MST)
[A fascinating E-mail in which Wigley tears a strip off Hulme]
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Bob,
> You will have seen Tom Wigley's email asking me about the climate scenarios
> I prepared for WWF and which were distributed 2 weeks ago. I have just got
> back from a trip away and am concerned that *you* are concerned, hence >my immediate reply.
MichaelL says:
In Australia, for the first half of my life, and before, WWF stood for Waterside Workers Federation – a communist controlled union of longshoremen, who held the country to ransom – both for reason's of their leader's ideology and their need to steal and abstain from work. It then transferred to World Widelife Fund and my children used to bring home "save the whale" type stuff which no one except the Norwegians and the Japanese disagreed with. It has turned full circle. The initials now represent an organisation which has ideals even to the left of our old "wharfies" – and still "on the take". WWF – initials of infamy!
E.M.Smith says:
MidwestGreen (20:08:05) : As another winter snow storm prepares to pound the midwest after one greeted Obama after his trip home from Dopenhagen.
Not only is a large storm slowly going to cross the USA and dump ANOTHER load of snow, but TWC is predicting a 3rd blizzard after that… (And Europe is getting whacked a bit too…)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/twc-another-usa-blizzard-or-2-and-100-dead-in-eu-from-cold/
Looking forward to a couple of more weeks of "From the Climate is not Weather" department…
(Oh, and wondering if Australia / New Zealand got a summer yet…)
Texas, we know, is getting buckets of rain dumped on it (but sometimes those Canada express storms bring snow… maybe a Texas weather story too?…
But if we are shuddering under the stuff that left Canada, what's happening to the Canadians?!…
So much weather, so little time… or CO2 impact…
TheGoodLocust says:
Ok, I added this to wikipedia, under the criticism of the IPCC, right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Use_of_Non-Peer-reviewed_Literature
Anyone want to take bets on when it will get erased and by whom (likely Schulz, Connolley, or Petersen)?
Too bad I don't have an email list of people to help me scrub wiki articles I don't like.
Flints says:
I wonder what Coca-Cola has to say about this?
Water is vital to both World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and The Coca-Cola Company. Beverages are The Coca-Cola Company's business, and water is the main ingredient in every product we make. Safe water also is vital to the sustainability of the communities we serve. WWF's mission is the conservation of nature and the protection of natural resources for people and wildlife. Protecting freshwater ecosystems is a top priority in WWF's work. Now, through a partnership announced on June 5, 2007, we are combining our international strengths and resources to support water conservation throughout the world.
Here is what we will do together:
Measurably conserve seven key watersheds;
Improve the efficiency of the Coca-Cola system's water use;
Support more efficient water use in the Company's agricultural supply chain, beginning with sugarcane;
Decrease the Coca-Cola system's carbon dioxide emissions and energy use; and
Inspire a global movement by uniting industries, conservation organizations and others in the conservation and protection of freshwater resources around the world.
Nigel S says:
Well they could be right about the loss of 'livelihood' (theirs) by 2035.
just added this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Within minutes in was reverted 🙁
It is not possible to talk to these people is it 🙁
1DandyTroll says:
What quality can you expect from an organization that spends what 3.5-4 times more on AGW propaganda than they do on saving the polar bears.
Their budget report seem to be of higher quality.
And at least they give the polar bears a bit more than they give their head honcho per year and that's always something I guess.
Micajah says:
Back in 1999, Syed Hasnain was apparently putting out the word about his opinion that the Himalayan glaciers would soon be gone. The WWF cites the June 5, 1999, article in New Scientist that cited Hasnain as its source. Here are two other articles from 1999.
One in the Independent predates the New Scientist by a couple of days:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/himalayan-glaciers-are-melting-fast-1097703.html
Himalayan glaciers are melting fast
Charles Arthur Technology Editor
THE GLACIERS of the Himalayas are under threat from global warming, which could melt most of them within 40 years – perhaps unleashing floods across areas inhabited by millions of people.
Another, in the Christian Science Monitor in November 1999 comes after Hasnain presented his unpublished paper at the July ICSI meeting. Its wording seems very close to the WWF report, so it looks as though they were both based on an actual written report–just one that was never published anywhere, much less in a "peer reviewed" journal:
http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/1105/p7s1.html?s=widep
By Robert Marquand Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / November 5, 1999
The 1,000-year-old Hemis Buddhist monastery in Ladakh is one of the world's oldest and most famous. Yet in August….
"Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world," according to a study by the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI). "If the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high."
"Even if the waters dry up over 60 to 100 years, that is an eco-disaster of stunning proportions," says Syed Iqbal Hasnain, the head of ICSI, and a leading professor of environment at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.
, and here's one in the Christian Science Monitor dated two days earlier–June 3, 1999–that seems very close to the wording in the WWF report:
Oops, I didn't notice that my editing to correct my mixup about the Independent and CS Monitor articles left that remnant in the last two lines. Can you delete ", and here's one…WWF report:" for me, now that I've posted without knowing it was still there?
John Hooper says:
What took you so long? Even the BBC reported this weeks ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stm
REPLY: Climategate pushed aside many news articles. Cathing up with important things we missed. – A
P Wilson says:
kadaka (22:57:28) :
Bill Tuttle says:
Brian Macker (21:38:46) :
Has the WWF noticed that the Yangtze River dolphin have been pretty much polluted into extinction while everybody was wailing about polar bears?
Decrease the Coca-Cola system's carbon dioxide emissions…
New, improved, and environmentally-friendly — Non-Carbonated Coke!
Chris Wood says:
Why anybody would accept information from WWF or any of the others jokers is beyond me, since none have any scientific creditability, unless of course they knew that what they got was what they wanted.
This from the BBC page linked by John Hooper (01:37:23) shows that even they have figured out what it's all about.
'Copenhagen fails green investors' (also 'Copenhagen depresses carbon price' link on the same page)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8426036.stm
Peter Dare says:
I resigned from WWF(UK) this year, having been a member for some 30 years, when it became clear that this NGO had diverted its attention away from front-line conservation of highly endangered tigers, rhinos, habitats etc to join the political AGW activists. The last straw was a members' magazine showing satellite images claiming to show large losses of Arctic ice cover between two recent summers. Closer inspection showed that the ice extent (and minute edge irregularities) in the two images were identical except that a large expanse of ice near Canada had been air-brushed out!
Gregg E. says:
I haven't taken the World Wildlife Fund seriously since they sued the World Wrestling Federation over the use of the letters WWF, and managed to win by "jurisdiction shopping" until they found a judge who'd rule in their favor.
The WWF claimed "Public confusion resulting from the misuse of the name persists, especially in the United States, where the organization is forced to couple the global WWF name with World Wildlife Fund, to clarify its meaning."
Wow. "Forced" to print out three words, along with their panda logo they use in all their PR material (which I bet they don't pay China for using), to "avoid confusion".
Well gee, maybe I can see their point. http://wrestlingclique.com/avatars/crocker.gif Sorta looks like a Giant Panda, eh?
The suit would most likely have been tossed out in an American court (but maybe not the 9th circuit) due to it being an obvious NON-infringement of trade dress and copyright.
Two organizations with totally different "products" and logos and names, which only coincidentally have the same initials – WWF.
Can some lawyer round up a bunch of people born prior to 1961 with the initials WWF and file a class action suit against the WWF? 😉
Robert of Ottawa says:
I always suspected this sort of thing in the IPCC; well done for digging up the roots of this vine of lies, Mr. Nielsen-Gammon.
So, the greenshirts jsut repeat any lie that is convenient to their cause. Sierra Club, Enviromental Defence Fund, WWF, Greenpeace, how about a little 'coming to Jesus', a little Mea Culpa, an ending of charitable status, an opening up of your books?
Dave Wendt says:
There are an estimated 100,000+ glaciers on the planet. The World Glacier Monitoring Service, which claims to be a primary repository of glacial data worldwide, has mass balance data 0.1-0.2% of them and front variation data on somewhat more
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/index.html
Their website has these nice maps
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/MB_world/index.html
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/FV_world/index.html
which show their monitored glaciers. If you click on the colored dots,you get a popup box which, if you scroll to the bottom, displays the years they were first and last surveyed and the total number of observations.
If your interested in the state of our knowledge of the glaciers of the world I recommend trying the exercise. I haven't done a comprehensive survey, but I hit a fair percentage of the longer term sites and found quite a few on both maps which hadn't actually been surveyed in over a decade, some not since the 80s, and many with total observations in the low single digits. Given the large possibility of a selection bias in favor of declining sites and the gaping holes in the observational sequences, it seems to me, that anyone who suggests they can say anything definitive about the state of the world's glaciers is either fooling themselves or trying to fool the world.
paul jackson says:
Black Soot Might Be Main Culprit of Melting Himalayas, http://www.livescience.com/environment/091214-black-carbon-himalaya-glacier.html. This is obviously a regional not global problem right now.
D. King says:
rbateman (20:04:19) :
It was Max, not 99.
http://www.entertonement.com/collections/4300/Get-Smart
SteveS says:
Thank you for bringing that to my attention,you wonderful person! I may well start an advocacy group for the elimination of pets after christmas.
Ursus maritimus says:
> peeke (23:08:35) :
>@ Duncan (19:44:38) :
>I used to make an annual contribution to the WWF.
>My heartfelt apologies for it; I thought they were about wildlife conservation.
>That is where environemtal organisations should return to, imho: Saving
>wildlife, landscapes. That is their core business, and the public would
>appreciate them for it.
I second the sentiment. I've been involved in many environmental organizations over the years, and it's sad to see that almost all of them have hitched their carts to AGW, regardless of their original missions. Unfortunately, I think they are all going to pay a price ultimately for blindly chasing the goodies on offer from the IPCC/AGW funding stream. There are some good environmental causes out there (really, there are) that could use some support, but I suspect a huge backlash from the average citizen against these organizations when this fraud finally winds down.
2035-2350: On another issue, I've been wanting for a while to make a webpage that collects all of the bizarre predictions made about AGW, including links to the source, and publish them in a simple table with countdown timers attached to them. It would be fun over the years to watch the various clocks tick down to armageddon, while nothing at all unusual happens in the world around us. Of course, I barely have the computer skills to fill in this comment box, so someone out there will have to take up the challenge for me!
Regards from the ice floe. Stay warm.
Stephen Goldstein says:
crosspatch (19:37:21) :
"I saw a commercial on TV today from the WWF that stated that the polar bears would all be dead by the time my kids were grown up."
The ad I saw some time ago claimed "most will die in our children's lifetime." Parsing carefully . . . let's see, my kids are in their 30s, polar bear life span in the wild is 15 – 18 years . . . yup, THESE bears will be dead. Their offspring? That's just a distraction.
Couple weeks ago we received a brochure for National Geographic arctic tours. On the cover, polar bears and the subtitle, "It's his world, we're just in it." How did that happen? Was there an election? Did the bears win? How did the seals vote?
2035!!! I was told it was all over in 2012. I spent all my money.
Larry Geiger says:
Keith Minto (20:33:47) :
I had to go look at this picture. It's not an armadillo, it's an anteater! Armadillos and roaches will be fine and happy long after we're gone!
Jimbo says:
"Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035″."
What I'd like to know is how many peer reviewed papers have cited this non-peer reviewed reference?
Tom in Florida says:
One must have a working knowledge of algorean math to figure this one out.
Please follow:
First we must find the "discrepancy ratio" which is:
2035 / 2350 = .866
Next we find the time difference which is :
2350 – 2035 = 315 years
But since the discrepancy ratio is .866 so we must multiply 315 x .866 = 273 (rounded). This gives us the real time difference in years as 273 which we then subtract from the later date to give us the true date in error:
2350 – 273 = 2077
We now have a correction of 42 years (2077 – 2035 = 42) to which we must again apply the discrepancy ratio and get the actual correction as
42 x .866 = 36 years.
If we then subtract those 36 years from the original year in error (2035) we have:
2035 – 36 = 1999
And 1999 was the year of the original publication of the report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) so it all fits.
Mark Bowlin says:
bikermailman (19:46:13) "This story reminds me of the game of 'rumor' we all played as children. Malintent? Possibly, given what we know of some advocacy groups. Possibly not. Either way, utterly irresponsible."
In the sea of moral relativism where many of the environmental advocacy groups swim, there can not be mal-intent (at least on their part). Their intent is to save the planet and any and all means to that end are acceptable. It's unbridled consequentialism by people that are nominally inspired by altruistic motives.
Roger Knights says:
Spenc Canada (21:15:11) :
The headline reads, "Eyewitness: How China Sabotaged Climate Talks". The story is pretty meaty.
Dave F (21:23:30) :
A hit! A palpable hit!
"59. Garhwal Himalayas, India — Glacial retreat at record pace. The Dokriani Barnak Glacier retreated 66 feet (20.1 m) in 1998 despite a severe winter. The Gangorti Glacier is retreating 98 feet per year. At this rate scientists predict the loss of all central and eastern Himalayan glaciers by 2035.
Reference: 1998. Himalayan glacier backing off. Science 281: 1277."
http://www.climatehotmap.org/references.html
cba says:
It's not just the domesticated ones. It's the ones in the wild too.
If a domestic dog is bad, then what about wild dogs, or wild pigs, or deer, or any other mammal? It's beginning to sound like these envirowhackos are not just self loathing human haters but maybe they are anti mammal or even anti animal, perhaps even anti-living organism.
It's becoming apparent that they spend so much time saving the whales and baby seals to feed to the baby polar bears to co-opt new recruits into this self loathing human hater's cult. Once they're in, it must expand to a loathing for all life.
3x2 says:
Bit of a shame we couldn't have selective glacier melting. Could have left a couple of Km depth on top of Washington and London amongst other places. Why the love affair with ice? As far as life is concerned, ice is death.
SteveS (05:09:49) :
I'll take care of it Steve. I'll take out all the people and animals.
It will just be me and the Swedish bikini team left to
repopulate the world. Oh yeah, and all the beer.
I saw a commercial on TV today from the WWF that stated that the polar bears would all be dead by the time my kids were grown up. They claimed that the baby polar bears are starving to death and drowning from lack of strength to swim.
Peter of Sydney (22:16:28) :
Don't know about Australia or wherever crosspatch lives but in the UK we have an Advertising Standards Authority which is supposed to deal with adverts which infringe the Advertising Codes.
Some extracts from the website of the ASA:
Advertising Codes
The Advertising Codes lay down rules for advertisers, agencies and media owners to follow. The Advertising Standards Codes are separated out into codes for TV, radio and all other types of ads ('non-broadcast advertising'). There are also rules for Teletext ads, interactive ads and the scheduling of television ads.
(a) This Code (for television) applies to all the Ofcom licensees listed below1 and is designed
to inform advertisers and broadcasters of the standards expected in television
advertising. It is based on enduring principles; that advertising should not
mislead, cause deep or widespread offence or lead to harm, particularly to the
The Codes contain wide-ranging rules designed to ensure that advertising does not mislead, harm or offend. Ads must also be socially responsible and prepared in line with the principles of fair competition. These broad principles apply regardless of the product being advertised.
In addition, the Codes contain specific rules for certain products and marketing techniques. These include rules for alcoholic drinks, health and beauty claims, children, medicines, financial products, environmental claims, gambling, direct marketing and prize promotions. These rules add an extra layer of consumer protection on top of consumer protection law and aim to ensure that UK advertising is responsible.
On the other hand the ASA website also states:
It's not just the climate that is hotting up, so is the race to be seen as the greenest. A growing trend over recent years has seen more and more businesses beginning to tout their eco-friendly credentials. Being green is one thing but being seen to be green is fast becoming a key commercial battle ground.
So thy seems to have been taken in by the AGW crowd.
Maybe there is something similar in Australia and crosspatch's country.
Cromagnum (21:33:27) :
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/12/21/the_perverse_economics_of_climate_modeling_9755
Excellent — recommended.
Olle (20:41:36):
"In Svalbard where hunting is forbidden the population is growing.Notice that Svalbard is the icebear habitat that has "suffered" of the biggest "lost" of ice of all habitats."
"Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic WARMS up'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html
Wasn't there some green organization that notoriously wanted to "off" the cute abandoned polar bear cob in the Berlin zoo? Was that WWF?
DirkH says:
re yonason (22:31:47) / John Coleman video:
The page links to
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Thanks for the link, yonason, Coleman gives the most accurate and fastest rundown of the sceptics position i've seen yet. He runs rings around Al Gore as a speaker. Great stuff.
Why is this not front page news everywhere. […]
The story has hit german news outlets now. Very funny in my eyes, they're talking about Merkel throwing her arms in the air in desperation when the chinese negotiator wouldn't even allow the EU to express their own goals in the "accord". I'm usually not a fan of an autocratic government but the chinese really did something right there.
But i guess it's not about the form of government but about the stage of development a national economy is in. And for the Chinese, sabotaging the throttling of development was crucial. Same for the Indians.
Turboblocke says:
Although the author of the original report claims that the WWF report was based on a New Scientist article, he's not telling the whole truth. The WWF report is 70 pages long and has over 200 references, one of which is the New Scientist. It seems to be a synthesis report of the peer reviewed literature.
BTW NG wrote a paper on the film An Inconvenient Truth. His conclusion may surprise some of you: "AIT likewise is both effective and annoyingly misleading. For each statement in AIT that goes too far, there are perhaps ten other scientifically valid statements that could have been made but were left out in the interest of time or persuasiveness for a lay audience. The IPCC reports remain the best available comprehensive summary of the
scientific basis of global warming causes and effects."
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf
cba (06:36:44) :
If a dog is worse than an SUV, Al "The Liar" Gore is a quadrillion times worse than a dog. He should be exiled to the Moon.
Bill in TN says:
Re: Tom in Florida (06:16:24) :
– Bill
3X2,
Ice is good
in Scotch.
Ian L. McQueen says:
Ursus maritimus: "…..I've been wanting for a while to make a webpage that collects all of the bizarre predictions made about AGW….."
Ursus-
Start with http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
IanM
Sorry, that is already being covered by PETA. Better dead than enslaved, eh?
"But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals' environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets' protein-rich meat intake.
"Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals' blood. "
Looking solely at the carbon pawprint, it is better for the cat to have a manufactured product made with farmed ingredients that was transported, than for it to munch on a mouse it finds in nature? Wait, I thought living "naturally" was what they wanted as the ultimate in low-carbon living for humans. Now they say something with a measurable carbon impact is better than something just wandering around in nature?
Of course, these are the days when they market dog food with "healthy vegetables" mixed in. Ah, when I think of all the times I've caught a dog munching down on the pea pods in the garden for a snack, or calling a carrot or two its lunch…
SteveSadlov says:
Z and E actually nailed it. Much of what they described seems to be taking shape, in the debauched halls of Washington DC, and, in state subsidized "biotech" labs here in the SF Bay Area. How prophetic.
PUTTING ICEBERGS TO GOOD USE
Warren Rutherford says:
If the WWF wants to be in show biz, where its all about a fictional story line, they should go to being the World Wrestling Federation!
Layne Blanchard says:
Monckton has given many examples where data within the report was adjusted by an order of magnitude in the SPM. This appears to be an extension of that practice.
Kitefreak says:
Michael In Sydney (19:46:56) :
And a number of other things, I would like to add.
KDK says:
WWF and GreenPeace are funded by rockefeller, the supposed FOE. It is insane… the truly dreaded humans, those that manipulate, play on all sides. They are intertwined so they win no matter… well, until we expose them.
I love wildlife, and I, and my children, respect living beings. We don't consider humans as the king of the planet, only ONE species–the most destructive and abusive, by far, as we surely know.
We need to live in harmony with nature and all its beings… Then, and only then, will we move forward. This PLANET is AMAZING and we should be sure we do keep it that way… Let's prove we are the most intelligent beings.
Don't get me wrong from the above post…. I love CO2, but hate pollution, manipulators and thieves.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
Gil Dewart (20:24:11) :
That is what happens when you "extra-polate" too much.
Statistics can be fun. Obviously they were having fun when extrapolating from recent glacier trends and hundreds of years into the future, to the year 2350….
Which reminds me that in Norway there is a humorous story on statistics based on actual data from our Central Bureau of Statistics. The data showed that young men doing military service in 1977 were on average 179cm tall and the average height increasing significantly each year. When extrapolating the measured trend back to the famous Viking battle of Stiklestad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stiklestad in the year 1030, it was found that the soldiers back then had been on average 29cm tall. 🙂
The story was told by author and humorist Kjell Aukrust, brother of the lead scientist of the Central Bureau of Statistics (Statistisk Sentralbyrå). It is still referred to on their website
http://www.ssb.no/emner/03/00/sa94/del-v-1b.pdf
I tried to check up on this in the official IPCC documents via their front page http://www.ipcc.ch/
I can't access the AR4 WG2 document, others work ok
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html
The requested URL /publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html was not found on this server.
Apache/2.0.52 (CentOS) Server at http://www.ipcc.ch Port 80
The WWF is a purchased front group for Western European government policy decisions, hidden by the appearance of charity and environmentalism. The EU's "you control the climate" P.R. campaign is engendered to usurp the UN's role as arbiter of the value of global carbon credits and allocation of moneys supposedly going to the undeveloped world, one crook taking over another's turf.
Mercurior says:
once an organisation, grows to a certain level, it becomes a organism, with feedback loops, all there to feed and make it grow. The WWF Used to be to help, now its a power in itself, and it pushes these things to make itself grow.
Steve Blackstone says:
Another example of the lack of critical review of IPCC publications. Time for a complete reconsideration of the established science. Time out!
>>>I have not seen such pure falsehood in a commercial in a
>>>very long time. It was worse than wrong, it was harmful.
If you are in the UK, make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority – not sure if the USA has an equivalent. I have sent in ten complaints this year. They will eventually get the message that these adverts are unacceptable.
[snip – just a bit over the top, sorry]
>>>What took you so long? Even the BBC reported
>>>this weeks ago:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stm
Correction, the BBC did NOT 'report' this story.
The BBC is a television company, and I did not see this report on the television, despite watching every BBC World and BBC News report for the last two weeks.
What they did is fairly standard nowadays. If there is anything in the news that is anti-Green, anti-Multiculturalism, or anti-Warming, the BBC bury it in an obscure web page. That way they can always say 'we did report this – we are a balanced media outlet' – but only five people ever get to see the report, and the BBC's propaganda objectives continue undimmed.
The BBC has to be closed down for good.
ralph (15:21:09) :
When you are a captive audience, and if you don't watch it will make no difference, why should they care? I've seen people complaining for the past 10 years, some at very high levels, and nothing has been done. Complain if you want, and I hope it does some good, but all I'm saying is not to be too disappointed if nothing comes of it.
As to the USA equivalent, it's called "ratings." If people don't watch a show, sponsors will drop it, and when that happens, the show is dropped. It's called "the free market," and is about as responsive to the customer as you will ever get. State run media is a bureaucracy totally independent of what a forced customer wants. They aren't responsive because they don't care. And they don't care because they don't have to.
saltdatecity says:
Yeah? So what? Is this new? Never before has there ever been a statement made in science that isn't substantiated? Give me a break.
So a typo 2035 instead of 2350 propogated through to the IPCC report in 2007. Big deal. If it was deliberate, they would have kept on pushing it don't you think? Funnily enough it doesn't appear in the 2008 technical paper on Climate Change and Water published by the IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers_climate_change_and_water.htm
Layne Blanchard (09:37:20) :
Monckton has given many examples where data within the report was adjusted by an order of magnitude in the SPM.
I remembered that paper too, but when I went to his site, I couldn't locate it among the scores of other papers, articles, etc. Do you happen to remember its title or have a link?
NASA took the erroneous 2035 date and moved it forward another 5 years to make the statement:
Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030.
See around the 5th photo down on the NASA page that gives the evidence for climate change: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The reference NASA cites is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, pp. 5, 7; but the only place I found Himalayan glaciers mentioned was in the body of the report.
Was there originally a reference to the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers in the AR4 Summary for Policymakers?
RE: My last: yonason (16:59:53) :
@ralph (15:21:09) :
OK, I've found what I was following for a few years, but which has had no impact.
Have you heard of Trevor Asserson, who founded http://www.bbcwatch.com/
back in 2000? That's what I was referring to in my last to you.
(see, also)
http://www.bbcwatch.com/reports.html
Some commentary from 2004.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp511.htm
Finally, here's one of their reports, available from internet archive, that documents many breaches of the BBC charter in just it's MidEast reporting.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020806101345/http://www.bbcwatch.com/
If they were to do the same with it's Greenie advocacy, they would have no shortage of material.
Note that they weren't able to effect any changes and don't seem to be very active anymore. If they didn't get anywhere, I doubt anyone else will succeed, short of a major BBC viewer revolt. And what are the odds of that?
Charlie (10:26:53) :
It got washed away by the melting glaciers?. Yet more proof how dangerous "climate change" really is. With any luck in a few years the IPCC itself will have disappeared.
Martin Lewitt says:
This was in the executive summary for the AR4 Working Group I:
"Glaciers in several mountain regions of the Northern Hemisphere retreated in response to orbitally forced regional warmth between 11 and 5 ka, and were smaller (or even absent) at times prior to 5 ka than at the end of the 20th century. The present day near-global retreat of mountain glaciers cannot be attributed to the same natural causes, because the decrease of summer insolation during the past few millennia in the Northern Hemisphere should be favourable to the growth of the glaciers"
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-es.html
Why include this strange comment in the summary? What is important is whether the retreat might be due to natural causes, not whether it is due to the "same natural causes" as these earlier events in the paleo record. The implication is left that the retreat isn't naturally caused. The full text of the WG1 noted that the retreat started shortly after the end of the Little Ice Age. That was a naturally caused period that may well have been more favourable to the glaciers than the subsequent warmer period could sustain, even without a significant anthropogenic contribution.
It turns out that the IPCC is still promoting the "himalayan glaciers will be gone in 2035" meme. Here's what Jean-Pascal van Ypersele*
(Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC Vice-chair, said at UNFCCC, Barcelona, on 3 November, 2009):
ImpactsGlacial retreat in the Himalaya
•receding and thinningof Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming; in addition, high population density near these glaciers and consequent deforestation and land-use changeshave adversely affected these glaciers
•the total glacial area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2(or disappear entirely) by the year 2035
Ref: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/unfccc-barcelona-nov-09/jpvy-nov-09-bcn.pdf
Girma says:
Is Global Warming Manmade?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4910
IPCC models did not predict the current global warming pause (assuming there is no "hide the decline")
ray johnson says:
The IPCC got it wrong by 300 years. Thank goodness. It makes me fell a lot better that we will have no glaciers in 300 years rather than 30 years – that's not so bad at all. Lets keep polluting and those poor sods in the future can deal with it. Now that I am sure that it won't affect me, who cares.
Glaciers both increase and decrease following the temperature. Until about 2030, they start to increase as shown in the following temperature chart:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52