Resources for a sustainable future

8/2/2010 Guardian Climate scientists who worked on the UN panel on global warming have hit out at “sloppy” colleagues from other disciplines who introduced a mistake about melting glaciers into the landmark 2007 report.The experts, who worked on the section of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report that considered the physical science of global warming, say
the error by “social and biological scientists” has unfairly maligned their
work. Some said that Rajendra Pachauri, the panel’s chair, should resign, though
others supported him.
The IPCC report combined the output from three independent working groups, which
separately considered the science, impacts and human response to climate change,
and published their findings several months apart.
The report from working group two, on impacts, included a false claim that
Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035, which was sourced to a report from
campaign group WWF. The IPCC was forced to issue a statement of regret, though
Pachauri and senior figures on the panel have refused to apologise for the
mistake.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, several lead authors of the working group
one (WG1) report, which produced the high-profile scientific conclusions that
global warming was unequivocal and very likely down to human activity, told the
Guardian they were dismayed by the actions of their colleagues.
“Naturally the public and policy makers link all three reports together,” one
said. “And the blunder over the glaciers detracts from the very carefully
peer-reviewed science used exclusively in the WG1 report.”
Another author said: “There is no doubt that the inclusion of the glacier
statement was sloppy. I find it embarrassing that working group two (WG2) would
have the Himalaya statement referred to in the way it was.”
Another said: “I am annoyed about this and I do think that WG1, the physical
basis for climate change, should be distinguished from WG2 and WG3. The latter
deal with impacts, mitigation and socioeconomics and it seems to me they might
be better placed in another arm of the United Nations, or another organisation
altogether.”
The scientists were particularly unhappy that the flawed glacier prediction
contradicted statements already published in their own report. “WG1 made a
proper assessment of the state of glaciers and this should have been the source
cited by the impacts people in WG2,” one said. “In the final stages of finishing
our own report, we as WG1 authors simply had no time to also start
double-checking WG2 draft chapters.”
Another said the mistake was made “not by climate scientists, but rather the
social and biological scientists in WG2 … Clearly that WWF report was an
inappropriate source, [as] any glaciologist would have stumbled over that
number.”
The discovery of the glaciers mistake has focused attention on the IPCC’s use of
so-called grey literature: reports that do not appear in conventional scientific
journals, and are instead drawn from sources such as campaign groups, companies
and student theses. The IPCC’s rules allow such grey literature, but many people
have been surprised at the scale of its inclusion.
The report from WG2 cited the erroneous WWF report again, though not the glacier
claim, in a separate section on human health, and also referenced reports from
Greenpeace, the World Resources Institute, wildlife trade group Traffic as well
as insurance companies Swiss Re and Axa. Working group three draws extensively
on grey literature, including a newspaper article from the Asia Times.
Most WG1 scientists contacted by the Guardian defended the use of grey
literature. “In many cases these reports have to use grey literature and
anecdotal evidence because there is nothing else available, for example reports
of sea level rise on small island states.”
Another author said: “Part of the problem is that WG2 largely involves the
social science community. They are more used to referring to a diversity of
sources, in fact, expert opinion is also an important analysis tool in the
social sciences.”
Several authors defended Pachauri and the IPCC process. “The IPCC is not a
hierarchical, top-down organisation. The chapter authors have great freedom in
writing their assessment without interference from the top, and so it should
be.”
The IPCC correction combined with the release of private emails from global
warming scientists at the University of East Anglia has raised suggestions of a
crisis in climate science.
“This is a transient and manufactured crisis and will likely go away with time,”
one IPCC author said. “What the science community needs is a few huge donors to
throw millions of dollars behind PR campaigns to counter the propaganda out
there. We are being attacked through baseless smear campaigns and we are not PR
experts.”
They added: “The sad reality is this whole manufactured climate controversy is
like arguing over the dinner menu on the Titanic as it sinks. The fact is, the
climate is warming. Do we want to deal with this problem or not? Do we owe
anything to future generations who are not here today to be part of the
decision-making process. Science and the IPCC cannot answer these
  questions.”

Go to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/08/climate-scientists-melting-glaciers