According to the UK government’s chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, the impact of climate change has been exaggerated by climate scientists.  He also says that scientists should be more honest about how difficult climate change is to predict  and less hostile to those who question anthropogenic global warming, according to a Mail Online article.

And he condemned those who refuse to publish full report data, adding that public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

Professor Beddington was speaking in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) admission that it had made a mistake by claiming that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035.

That followed the ‘Climategate’ row over whether researchers at East Anglia University manipulated evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming.

Read more the rest of the Mail Online article.

Fern Lake Trail, Rocky Mountain National Park.

Gallery: Fern Lake Trail – September 5, 2009

See more of our Image Galleries at Haw Creek.

From October 8, 1999 through November 13, 2007, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clearly stated on their “about” page that the role of the IPCC was specifically related to “understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”

At some point after November 13, 2007, the IPCC deleted the about page and has shifted its definition of climate change: “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.”

The original about page and it’s variations can be found on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm which will show the following:

October 8, 1999 to December 8, 2002 – The role of the IPCC is to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature.

November 13, 2007 – The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the “Principles Governing IPCC Work”

I found the  following material related to human-induced climate change in the most recent IPCC assessment report.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties

The WMO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the IPCC in 1988 with the assigned role of assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for understanding the risk of human-induced climate change. The original 1988 mandate for the IPCC was extensive: ‘(a) Identification of uncertainties and gaps in our present knowledge with regard to climate changes and its potential impacts, and preparation of a plan of action over the short-term in filling these gaps; (b) Identification of information needed to evaluate policy implications of climate change and response strategies; (c) Review of current and planned national/international policies related to the greenhouse gas issue; (d) Scientific and environmental assessments of all aspects of the greenhouse gas issue and the transfer of these assessments and other relevant information to governments and intergovernmental organisations to be taken into account in their policies on social and economic development and environmental programs.’ The IPCC is open to all members of UNEP and WMO. It does not directly support new research or monitor climate-related data. However, the IPCC process of synthesis and assessment has often inspired scientific research leading to new findings.

Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Executive Summary

The concept of this chapter is new. There is no counterpart in previous IPCC assessment reports for an introductory chapter providing historical context for the remainder of the report. Here, a restricted set of topics has been selected to illustrate key accomplishments and challenges in climate change science. The topics have been chosen for their significance to the IPCC task of assessing information relevant for understanding the risks of human-induced climate change, and also to illustrate the complex and uneven pace of scientific progress.

A report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Summary for Policymakers

Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

The original mandated role of the IPCC has been removed from view.  However, the IPCC still operates under the presumption that current climate change is largely human-induced.

Autumn Leaf, Seven Hollows Trail, Petit Jean State Park, Arkansas.

Information: Petit Jean State Park and Petit Jean Mountain

Gallery: Petit Jean State Park and Petit Jean Mountain

See more of our Image Galleries at Haw Creek.

From the United Kingdom’s Times Online comes word that IPCC wrongly linked climate change to increases in the number and severity of natural disasters.

The new controversy… goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

The “Glacier-gate” IPCC climate scandal continues to unfold. According to the UK’s Mail Online, an IPCC lead author admits that the claim that Himalayan Glaciers would melt was included for purely political reasons.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

Old Faithful Geyser, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, September 14, 2007.

This photo was taken from the large porch over the Old Faithful Inn entrance.  It had been raining and we didn’t want to wait at the normal view area for the geyser.  With the dark background, our location made for a nicely different perspective from all of the other photographs taken of Old Faithful over the many years we’ve been visiting.

The Old Faithful Inn porch also serves as a roof over the vehicle unloading area at the entrance to the inn.

Gallery: Old Faithful Area, September 14, 2007

See more of our Image Galleries at Haw Creek.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) has published a 149 page analysis of the leaked climategate emails, placing the emails in chronological order, with comments on each message.

In the Introductory Essay, John P. Costella says,

The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works.

The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is (rightly or wrongly) abundantly depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication.

The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public consumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in the results of climate science.

Until now.

See the rest of the analysis of the leaked climategate emails.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is getting a lot of heat these days on the claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035.

While the information used by the IPCC is supposed to be peer-reviewed and well vetted, it turns out that this gem is derived from a magazine article in New Science several years ago that was based on a single phone call to an Indian scientist.

An IBD Editorial says:

The scientists who said that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 have admitted the claim has as much credibility as sightings of the mythical Yeti. It’s their fraudulent claims that are melting away.

We hesitate to call it Glacier-gate, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. body tasked with scaring us to death about global warming, has admitted that the claim in its 2007 report about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing was not based on any scientific study or research. It was instead based on one scientist’s speculation in a telephone interview with a reporter.

This issue has been hitting a number of other media sites over the last week or so.

Read the rest of the  IBD Editorial at Investors.com.

Farmers’ Market in Madison at Wisconsin State Capitol, September 20, 2008

Gallery: Dane County Farmers’ Market on the Square – Madison, Wisconsin, September 13 and 20, 2008, on the streets around the state capitol building

See more of our Image Galleries at Haw Creek.