Last week the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued an apology over a flawed prediction concerning the pending melting of Himalayan glaciers. The global climate change organization included in its 2007 report, which won the IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize, the claim that the probability was "very high" that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
The IPCC now says the prediction was "poorly substantiated" and that "clear and well-established standards...were not applied properly."
As the Times Online (U.K.) points out, this lapse in judgment has caused shock for billions of people in Asia who depend on the glaciers for fresh water supplies. Now, it seems, their years of worry and concern were based upon poor standards of practice by the chief organization warning about global climate change.
This news comes about two months after hackers obtained emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showing inside attempts by climate change scientists to crowd out skeptics of anthropogenic global warming from peer-reviewed journals, among many other serious issues and cover-ups.
Given that the CRU is a chief data source for the IPCC, the two research bodies have operated in tandem for major publications such as the 2007 report, a document which now, at least partially, has had its credibility undermined.
The IPCC now says the prediction was "poorly substantiated" and that "clear and well-established standards...were not applied properly."
As the Times Online (U.K.) points out, this lapse in judgment has caused shock for billions of people in Asia who depend on the glaciers for fresh water supplies. Now, it seems, their years of worry and concern were based upon poor standards of practice by the chief organization warning about global climate change.
This news comes about two months after hackers obtained emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showing inside attempts by climate change scientists to crowd out skeptics of anthropogenic global warming from peer-reviewed journals, among many other serious issues and cover-ups.
Given that the CRU is a chief data source for the IPCC, the two research bodies have operated in tandem for major publications such as the 2007 report, a document which now, at least partially, has had its credibility undermined.
