Sentences with word «glaciergate»

Specifically, he addresses the accusations of error referred to (somewhat absurdly) as Glaciergate, Amazongate and Africagate.

The IPCC, which according to its rules should be run by our governments, delegated the decision on which IAC recommendations should be accepted and when to very people that run the IPCC on a day to day basis and under whose watch Climategate and Glaciergate happened.

The IAC noted not only the aforementioned Glaciergate problem but also other problems regarding not only sources of information but also the lack of transparency, lack of ability to answer questions, election of an executive director (sounds like they didn't like Pachauri), and the lack of a probability scale to show how much of a chance some of their outrageous claims have of actually happening (like slim & none should be one).

Glaciergate occurred because India's scientific authorities on Himalayan glaciers told their government that the IPCC assertion of complete loss of the glaciers by 2035 was impossible — a fact that all glaciologists knew — but the IPCC Chairman (Rajendra Pechauri) replied that this fact was «voodoo science».

Indeed, information that is complete rubbish is included in IPCC so - called scientific reports when the rubbish provides support for the IPCC's political purpose (as glaciergate and Africagate demonstrate).

Here's a roundup of recent criticism and commentary on Climategate and the IPCC, organized by five issues: 1) «glaciergate,» 2) African crops, 3) disaster losses, 4) whether panel head Rajendra Pachauri has too many conflicts of interest to run the IPCC, and 5) the future of the panel.

> Murari Lal, at center of «glaciergate» storm, says he never told The Daily Mail newspaper he knowingly included errant climate finding: / / j.mp / IPCCdeny.

The Glaciergate scandal has even led the Indian government to withdraw from the IPCC and found its own agency to investigate climate change.

The climate - change theory was dealt another serious blow when the «Glaciergate» scandal further undermined the credibility of studies published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Some are already using the word «Glaciergate» in reference to the scandal over a scientifically untenable claim in the fourth IPCC assessment report, which the UN climate body publishes every five years.

You can take one such example, the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, (Glaciergate) whose source was a magazine article.

The «Glaciergate» story, as it has come to be called, was caused by the report contending that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, a date that is now found to have been alarmist and erroneous.

The latest slandering of climate science in the press has been dubbed «glaciergate «-- about the Himalayan glacial melt issue (see David Spratt's response here).

The «Glaciergate» controversy which became public in January 2010 was part of the next round of revelations which called the scientific credibility of the IPCC into question.

But the «Glaciergate» scandal — just one of many — still plagues the IPCC today.

Deeply embarrassed by, first, the stolen emails that claim to reveal the suppression of research questioning global warming, and now by the revelation that the «scientific study» that «proved» that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away in 25 years was bunk — «Glaciergate» — the eco-movement is furiously deflecting.

Fang also takes a bite out of the media, particularly the left - leaning, liberal eastern giants such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, which opened their front pages to Glaciergate.

Even if the glaciers melted — which we now know, as a result of «Glaciergate», is a prospect that has been deferred by some three centuries — rain and snow would still fall on the mountains, and make their way to the sea.

As a result of these flubs, the «Glaciergate» scandal has grown vastly larger than it should have, and skeptics are calling not only for the resignation of Pachauri, but even the revocation of the body's 2007 Nobel Prize.

But no one, it seems, is more embarrassed by «Glaciergate» than Dr Pachauri himself, whose expa...

This scenario is now somewhat dated: it appears to depend partially upon the famous «glaciergate» error in the Working Group II portion of AR4, which incorrectly stated that Himalayan glaciers were to disappear by 2035, rather than 2350 (as estimated in 1996 by hydrologist V.M. Kotlyakov.)

Like attempting to find excuses for the «glaciergate» scandal.

When I wrote the post, I was pretty harsh with science journalist, Fred Pearce, who had been involved in the Glaciergate story.

This was in the wake of «Glaciergate», of course — the discovery that «grey literature» had been included in IPCC reports, which are supposed to be produced by «science».

But as controversy continued to simmer last week over the bogus «Glaciergate» claims in a report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which he heads — Dr Pachauri showed no apparent inclination to cut global warming in his own back yard.

To reiterate, I have no basis for this other than past bad scientific behavior, (climategate, Pachaurigate, glaciergate, the hockey - stick, NASA's using CRU data because their own was a mess, etc), and an inquiring mind.