A Real Problem for the IPCC

By BJ Bjornson

Admittedly, I ignored this when I first saw it popping up on some of the usual suspects blogs. Given they cry wolf over anything and everything under the sun and persist in spreading debunked propaganda in support of their ideological agenda, their credibility isn�t exactly high. However, like the stopped clock and blind squirrel, it appears they�ve actually found an honest-to-FSM problem with the IPCC report this time.

If you haven't heard by now, a section of the Fourth IPCC report, which came out in 2007, cited a prediction for the complete disappearance of all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas by 2035. This alone would be sufficient justification for describing the consequences of climate change as catastrophic, as something like 40% of the world relies on annual meltwater from the area.

But now we learn that the authors in questions took the prediction from a 2005 WWF publication, which wasn't peer-reviewed. And the WWF paper took it's warning from a 1999 New Scientist story by Fred Pearce, who reported that Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi wrote that "all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline."

Now, New Scientist is a fine publication (and one in which my byline has appeared from time to time), but it's not peer-reviewed. Neither was the WWF paper. And yet we're told time after time that the IPCC based its reports on the best peer-reviewed science available.

A much more detailed analysis of the issue can be found here. I can only agree that this was a foolish mistake and that the IPCC�s response to the issue was handled badly.

The main problem going forward is that this error hurts the IPCC�s credibility and is going to energize those opposed to doing anything about limiting emissions or increasing efficiency.

But then what else is new?