EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Scientists Hit Out at 'Sloppy' Melting Glaciers Error
Experts who worked on the IPCC report say the error by social and biological scientists has unfairly maligned their work
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.
Climate scientists who worked on the UN panel on global warming say they are dismayed by 'sloppy' work by their colleagues that introduced an error about melting glaciers. (Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images) 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."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllThe IPCC authors joining in the criticism of the IPCC Reports are certainly right about one thing: "we are not PR experts."
Also, Theft has now been spun as "the release" of private emails from global warming scientists at the University of East Anglia.
"Release" of emails. Right. Good point. The following lines in the article just about sum up the situation:
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."
genaman
A rather strange thing about this glacier material mistake.
Most of those that are saying off with their heads?
Most likely never knew much of anything about those glaciers.
Do we feel more comfortable having people such as them/GW Attackers setting policies for the yet unborn children?
I for one do not.
We need to start doing something for those future children.
Not hide behind some junk slogans for the status quo.
genaman
I take no comfort that the 2 peccadilloes - stolen e-mails (showing horror of horrors scientists are human beings) and that some of the Himalayan glaciers may still be here in 2035 contrary to an error in the IPCC report - have completely preoccupied the corporate media. It is what I'd expect from the denizens of the 4th estate with their preoccupation on "drama" & "plot" and their aversion to facts and hard work.
It was, I think, close to unanimous that the stenographers, aka journalists, avoided any analysis or fact checking with the e-mails. It's far too boring to actually cover a story by reading all the e-mails and testing the accusations against reality when you can copy from a press release or crib from a delusional blogger I guess. And I didn't see mentioned that any so-called reporter had gone out to check whether the Himalayan glaciers had grown back because of the error in the IPCC report. So did any reporter ask have they not been melting? If they asked I didn't see it. The focus, of course, was not on reality but the manufactured plot, stroyline drama tactics etc. etc. . I've yet to see an explanation for what David Brancaccio and Conrad Anker witnessed on their trip to the Gangotri glacier, shown in the NOW special “On Thin Ice.” (link here: http://bit.ly/dC9x9p ). Maybe they documented a mirage or maybe since they went before the error was found the bloody ice has instantaneously reappeared.
The emails do media merit scrutiny, particularly since there is not a lot else to cover coming from the anti-warming side.
Also, the warming deniers put forward a case that the emails are evidence that the scientific consensus on warming is manufactured. Since dramatic widespread changes are being called for based on the scientific consensus behind a human caused warming model, the emails are important, and I am glad that they have been made public.
The email scandal will either wither or blossom under scrutiny, another 3-6 months and the dust should be settled on this one.
I am far more concerned about the Cap and Fake schemes being promoted by the usual corporate bankster suspects.
In America we need massive available plug in electric cars and recent advances in thin membrane battery technology in the UK may be the ticket on this, turning the chasis of the car into a battery. Combine this with re-invigorated and electrified rail passenger lines and we could cut a wide variety of pollution problems.
Electric cars and solar plug in stations should be sold on a mass production scale for suburban commuting and local urban driving.
The resources are there if we can just bring down the Pentagon spending.
Step 1 - No more wars for ExxonMobileChevronShellBP profits!!!
Step 2 - Massive investment in electric transport and solar and wind production.
Step 3 - Tax credits and low interest loans for homeowner installation of solar and wind generation.
It's a tragedy, but Obama is hip deep in blood and oil and the damn fool says press on.
I'm just now working my way through Hansen's book, and he's bringing home to me factors I was only dimly aware of before and didn't understand at all.
The major one is the problem of aerosol/greenhouse balance. We are *SO CLOSE* to the methane-release tipping point that it might be only the aerosol pollution that's saving us.
The horrible part is *we don't know* (or didn't when he wrote, but I haven't found anything more recent).
The continuing deforestation and population increase around the world, both driven by feudalist greed, appear to be far more dangerous than fossil-fuel use is right now. Counter-intuitively, our fossil-fuel use might actually be most of what's holding off the final disaster!
What happens when the tundra starts warming up and releasing methane gas -- along with the increasingly acid seas reaching saturation point in absorbing CO2?
Runaway climate change seems to be the answer with glaciers melting like they were on hot skillets, seas rising almost visibly daily, vast storms, and higher temperatures moving pests into the flora and fauna unused to dealing with them. Wide spread famine as fields become overrun with pests, land dries up, and water becomes scarcer.
Yet the deniers continue their madness.
Gary
“Why this is very midsummer madness.”
-- William Shakespeare
Mairead, sorry to bring this up again: your insistence that population increase is "more dangerous" than fossil-fuel use is WRONG. Even if the current world population is somehow magically held at the same level - no more babies, except those that are already on the way - the CO2 concentration will still rise, UNLESS there is a conscious reduciton in emssion. I am *NOT* arguing against the need to reduce population (I can't stress that enough - that I'm *NOT* arguing- beyond using *CAPS* within asterisks :), but the current CO2 levels need to be reduced drastically - if we are to avoid further warming, destabilization and some unpredictable feedback loops such as the methane release from under the permafrost.
This *POSSIBILITY* alone is dangerous enough, that anybody demanding further proof should be considered INSANE. I DON'T care if this particular scenario never comes about. I PRAY that it never happens. I do care about the next generation and the ones after that. I don't want to be an arrogant pr*ck demanding further proof when whatever warnings from well-meaning scientists are enough to warrant a major change in the way we go about our lives right now.
Reduce population, reduce driving, become vegans, use renewable energy, give up wasteful vacations - whatever it takes, and whatever is in our power - we should do it. But let's not confuse the priorities. And let's also be realistic. While I'm ready to volunteer to get 'snipped' personally, I don't want to put that as number one on my list - because logic and common sense shows that the people ALREADY HERE need to cut down their emissions first. While you are free, and right, to include overpopulation as *a* problem that MUST be addressed, I hope you'll stop putting it at the top of your list. You are only muddying the issue. You should be able to see the logic of what I'm saying, *especially* since you say you are reading Hansen's book. I am talking about priorities here.
Even among the people that exist right now, it's those that are in the western countries, and westernized countries (such as Japan, even Korea), and the rich in *ALL* the countries that have the largest carbon footprint per capita. Since killing them all is not an option, I suggest any forced sterilization that you may recommend should also start with them. While Bangladesh and India clearly have other reasons to restrict their populations, a small increase there at the current average consumption levels will have LESS impact than a corresponding increase in the USA at current emissions levels per capita. I would have thought this is *SO* obvious to anyone. Since you are among those that keeps putting population at the top of the list, I had to belabor this point. I am only asking you to rearrange your list - not drop it from your list.
I agree that even the current population cannot exist without massive fossil fuel use to grow their food. If eating is necessary, then let's make food production efficient, and our own food-related footprint as small as possible. Sharing equitably can never be a bad idea for a *human being* - no matter what your philosophical or religious persuasion is.
I think we might be in violent agreement here, Alcyon :-) I'll try to clarify my thinking for you on this:
Correcting overpopulation shares space at the top of my list for 2 reasons:
(a) human overpopulation *itself* -not what we do, but how many of us are doing it- is the driver for every problem we face. It's obvious when we consider that there are two breakpoints for human population: get below the lower one (whatever it is) and Earth can source even our most profligate desires and sink even our most careless wastes. Similarly, get above the upper one (whatever that is) and no amount of responsible frugality can save us from systems collapse.
(b) it will take A Long Time for any corrective action short of actually killing "excess" humans en-masse -which I couldn't possibly oppose more strongly than I already do- to have an effect. But the most optimistic assessment is that even with an all-in effort we have barely enough time left before everything explodes out of our control forever.
The psychologist William James (1842-1910) is noted for his prescription for how to change anything that's important: start *immediately* and pursue the goal with obsessive energy and attention, refusing to be deflected. Those who do that are usually criticised by those around them, but if success is possible from their efforts, they succeed.
What follows is not something I think you don't know, but things I'd like you to know that I know too (if that makes any sense!).
I couldn't possibly agree more with you about how urgently we must reduce the GHGs.
But there are different ways to do that, and if we choose the wrong ones, goodbye high-order life. The wrong ones are the ones that also eliminate the protective aerosols.
I first heard about the aerosols from one of Lovelock's interviews, but he only mentioned them in passing without making clear (or perhaps the reporter elided it) that they're very possibly the only thing that's preventing a temperature rise sufficient to catastrophically release the methane. Looking at the slop in Hansen's Fig. 1 for the aerosol contribution almost had me boaking.
Combustion creates both CO2 and aerosols (in the case of diesel fuel, a harmful aerosol as well). But since aerosols precipitate out of the atmosphere *much* faster than CO2, stopping combustion probably should not be our first move. Better that we do things to restore carbon uptake first. Re-forestation would be favorite.
De-forestation is driven by the need to survive in the presence of Capitalist greed.
People illegally clearcut forests to make a living, because Capitalism dictates that only those who are willing to spend their lives supporting the owner class in luxury will be allowed to take crumbs from the table for themselves.
They clearcut for lumber to sell, to make farms (as in the US and other countries, in the past), and to make ranches to raise non-humans for slaughter to feed the apparently unbounded desire in western countries.
And as we now know, if we'd never thought of it before (I hadn't), digestion by those future victims is a *massive* source of methane, and the more land that's cleared to raise cattle, pigs, and chickens for slaughter, the smaller the CO2 sink and the larger the amount of unbound methane.
How can we stop that deforestation? Probably the simplest way would be to get rid of the driver: the appetite for eating non-humans.
One way, maybe the only way, or the only painless way, to eliminate the driver would be to fully burden the cost of non-human flesh, and at the same time offer easy access to nutritious vegetarian or near-vegetarian meals at actual cost. How many people, harrassed by serving their feudal overlords all day, could resist the lure of nearly-free restaurants? Not many, I bet! Especially women who work all day and then have to cook in the evening and shop for groceries in the weekends. When my kids were at home, I'd have *jumped* at the chance to eliminate cooking and shopping from my schedule.
Another step, more difficult, would be reforestation, restoration of infrastructure, and universal home superinsulation (to the German 'Passivhaus' standard or better). To get there, we have to have control of government. Once in control of government, we can *delicately* begin to lower combustion by undoing the underpinnings of economic feudalism: make the necessities of life a property of citizenship, eliminate commuting and the zoning and transportation models that compel it now, create a terabit communication network to reduce the need for travel (the biggest savings are always achieved by eliminating some activity), abandoning the monarcho-religious belief in "economy of scale", et lengthy cetera.
To get control of government, we have to accept James's dictum: start *now*, and pursue the goal with obsessive energy and dedication, deferring or abandoning less-important goals.
That's where my thinking is, anyway. I hope it helps.
Mairead, thank you for a great reply - although when I read the word 'violent' right at the top, my heart skipped a beat :)
Your sentence "De-forestation is driven by the need to survive in the presence of Capitalist greed" just about sums up the situation in many countries. In fact, I have even thought about poor people, especially women, having to turn to demeaning "professions" simply to survive, as a related phenomenon. When capitalists close down or restrict the access to resources needed for survival, deforestation and other ills are inevitable. I could elaborate on this, but maybe some other time :)
pangloss, thanks for that link to the NOW video. I cannot believe the stupidity and the arrogance of the Indian environment minister to make that claim - that “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." I have suspected that some of the Indian ministers can be bought by corporate interests. Don't know what the motivations are for this man to make that kind of a claim.
I should have mentioned that the point in the NOW video is about at the 27:30 mark that the presenters measure the melt of the glacier.
I think, for his Himalayan mistake, Pachauri should be banished to Naked National Park (which used to be Glacier National Park, but was recently renamed).
I think his hometown is a small hilly town - in the hills that are 'connected' to the Himalayas, I believe. So, it may turn out to be a retirement - not so much a banishing.
It is very unfortunate that glaciergate has been followed by amazongate, netherlandsgate, africacropgate, madagascardatagare, boliviadatagate, russiantreeringgate, chinesestationgate, computererrorgate, and some other tiny, tiny slip-ups in a otherwise exemplary report. Is there any way we can stop these skeptics from finding all the tiny, tiny errors in the IPCC reports? After all, the authors are famous scientists and should be treated more respectfully.
Do you remember as a USan youth being introduced to your occupational choices? You might choose to be a climate scientist, for the betterment of the world, or you might choose to be a Bernays "public relations" psych-ops warrior, to the detriment of the world. But no distinction was made, among the higher education faculty, career counselors, was there? A dangerous trap camouflaged under open-mindedness, hmm?
awakening observation...thank you...
rather the flip side of what I think of as Life's Funnel...the continuing pressure to reduce life's many options, settle on one 'identity', and go all the way down within...to not continue to learn or grow or evolve outside of one's 'place'...
I can only imagine the feelings of the scientists who have contributed to the IPCC reports before. It has taken this long for them to come out and explain the difference between the working groups - and that too, anonymously. WG-1 authors have the right to be "annoyed", but they clearly keep things in perspective. It would be easy for them to just point fingers.
Does it feel like a mob hysteria and a witchunt to anyone? Really, the gist of the IPCC warnings have NOT been questioned by any climate scientist. ALL science academies of various nations are unanimous on the urgency of the problem. Those who are baying for blood should stop and think: what exactly are you mad about? Isn't it some kind of a righteous indignation? Are you sure these scientists have set out to make life hell for you? And not the likes of Exxon and the corporate world? And paid deniers must also ask themselves - is this the best cause you can sell your services to? I know times are tough, but still...
Action on climate change does not mean cap-and-trade alone. What was brought to Copenhagen was itself a result of sabotage by the USA and other countries - including the host country, Denmark (shameful!) - that did not want to accept any binding targets. Some of these countries are also under the grip of extreme capitalist control, and bankers in these countries are more powerful than bankers in other countries. So, first choice: kill the prospect of any binding targets. Second choice: if there has to be serious reductions in emissions, find a way to make money off of it. Just as they've always made money in the stock market - whether the stock goes up or down. Short selling, derivatives, etc.
The corporations saw what happened in Kyoto in 1997: there, the serious negotiators and the activists influenced the outcome. The targets under the Kyoto Protocol were modest, but they were considered as the first step by most: 5-6% reductions in emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2012, starting with the rich countries (that have historically emitted most CO2). Kyoto Protocol was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the countries *despite* the efforts of the denial industry that had been going on for a few years by then.
After Kyoto, the denial industry went into overdrive. The gloves were off, so to speak. First off, the US Congress showed the finger to the rest of the world. Though the USA signed the treaty, Congress never ratified. While the EU is on course to meeting its targets for reduction, Canada and Japan will not. Australia, which had not signed on earlier, joined later, after a change in government. Seeing that there was *no* sign of the USA committing to any serious emission cuts, the other countries - especially the richer ones, and the so-called "emerging" economies, decided they were not going to press for major cuts. That was decided before everyone got to Copenhagen. The bankers still kept their options open - in the form of cap-and-trade. If it failed, no big loss to them. Either way, they win. It was a failure - a massive failure - of the host country to not show leadership and press for a solid successor treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Nope. The people had changed in Denmark. The lead negotiator resigned in disgust shortly before the conference.
To the people who brought cap-and-trade to the table, failure at Copenhagen was *perfectly* acceptable, and desirable. But those who attack the IPCC and the entire need for action on climate change - solely on the basis of cap-and-trade (COP-15 at Copenhagen was NOT organized by IPCC) and whatever lapses there have been with their reports, should stop and see what the majority of the scientists have to say on this issue. Paid deniers are excused.
The error is a simple arithmetical mistake. The only issue is whether it was intentional. Sloppy editing ... yes. But global warming doesn't hinge on someone using the wrong multiplier or divisor in a simple calculation.
"The fact is, the climate is warming. Do we want to deal with this problem or not?"
Some clearly 'not'.
That's a sad fact, not to be dismissed. The 'notters' apparently believe they can and will survive and prevail no matter how strong and bad the effect of Climate Extreming becomes.
On this background, the Climate Extreming issue becomes a classic struggle between interest-groups.
That means a struggle, as we indeed can see happening, between those of man(un)kind who percieve their interests and themselves served by Climate Extreming - yes, such views do exist - and those of us who see their interests threatened by Climate Extreming and its cause in unproportional greed and continuation of the global exploitative system based on Compound Interest and the uncontinuable notion of eternal material growth.
This means there's no unified 'we' in what 'we want'.
This we who see our best interests threatened by Climate Extreming must deal with. Preferably NOW.
peacekeepertwo:Maybe we should approach the idea of Climate Change differently. We are are using our planets Natural Resources,more rapidly than Nature can Replace them. We know we have a problem, because we are forced to find Creative ways extract Oil & Natural Gas,and those creative ways, are poisoning our Ground Water.
All the talk about the oil companies in it just for greed what about the scientist? Anyone ever think they are in it just so they can say "I saved the world!! Put me in the history books I saved the world and I need more MONEY to prove I save the world!!!" or are scientist not narcissitic?
Actually, yes, most of the people who go into science are motivated by achievement and peer-group recognition, just as most people who go into sales are motivated by money. This is not arcana, for heaven's sake!
I think it must be the case that internet trolls are motivated by the desire for attention, even when it's attached to being reviled and looking stupid.
could this not be a typo? 2350 becomes 2035? proof reading is certainly suffering these days in many venues...
Hell, I could guess 2053 just out of my ass, and I bet I wouldn't be THAT far off...
I agree, dubet. But I think the problem is not so much with the number, but with the process by which it got in the report. Clearly sloppy work by the author(s) of that part of the report. But there was no logical reason for it to be blown out of all proportion - unless it was a hatchet job by the denial industry and media entities trying to outdo each other.
Also I noticed that all the denialist stories of recent times seem to originate in Britain. Even a US-related story is given a different spin - such as in the subtitle of yesterday's story on the 'Noaa Climate Service' in The Guardian. I don't know if this means Britain has become the climate change denial capital (as can be seen by the survey results showing 25% of British having doubts about climate change happening), or is it a case of outsourcing of the attack job by the denial industry. There is already an "efficient" (!) and competitive tabloid culture there in the media - so it's not difficult to turn those skills on the climate change issue. Plus the general credibility that British media seem to enjoy, over the US media - such outsourcing should make sense.
hey, alcyon!
one of the interesting things about the changing environment is the sporadic nature of the change...while heading in a definite direction, things are not necessarily taking a definite path to get there...
here in Seattle, we just had our warmest January...ever...not by a huge amount, but, nevertheless...I am also keeping close watch on the northern shores of Canada and the arctic...
one has to wonder at what point climate change deniers become the equivalent of fire deniers in the middle of an inferno...
the old 'who you gonna believe? me or your lyin' eyes' joke...
of course, while the climate thing is important, and interesting, my play is chemical...manage what you can...stop industrial activity, and quickly, before it is too late for living cycles to survive, no matter the temperature...
peace, alcyon!
The second of two huge snowstorms (each one could be all time record breakers in some areas) is underway in the mid-Atlantic US. My wife's family in Maryland Nw of Baltimore will likely see snowdrifts reach the roof of their 2-story house today. Leaving ones house, even on foot (forget driving), is becoming impossible (unless you have or fashon some snowshoes)
The initial part of the storm here in W. Pa. consisted of wet sticky snow falling at 2-3 inches per hour, that felled numerous trees - something I've never seen snow do, or even heard of it doing. Wires down everywhere. It is worse than any summer storm. Many homes in my area have been without power for 5 days and had to be abandoned. Hope they shut off and drained their pipes.
The denialists will be having a field day with this weather event. But of course, if anything, they are not a refutal of AGW, but a confirmation. Both were a result of relatively warm tempeatures and unprecendented amounts of preciptable moisture in the atmosphere (some areas has lightning and rhunder with the snow) these are predicted efects of AGW.
This all goes back to Jacques Cousteau's point maybe 25 years ago--That we will not have totally definitive data until it's too late and that what we need is clean, renewable energy whether or not CO2 is a problem.
And, if we are experiencing climate change just because it's a natural phenomenon, why are we not reinforcing sea walls, etc. The whole thing is becoming a joke, except for the fact that we are headed into a disastrous mess.
Everyone on CD sounds like they took a page right out of GW's fear mongering book, hahahahahahahhahahaha
WMD/AGW hmmmmm sounds the same to me! Jump right on that no questions asked wooohooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
Scientists have been getting things wrong for all sorts of reasons for thousands of years. It doesn't mean all scientists are wrong. Are we really so far gone we can't acknowledge that? Everyone makes mistakes. The fact that well over 90% of the scientific community still concurs that global warming is a real and present danger should more than make up for the fact that every so often one of those scientists is going to screw up in some way. What I think is sad is that their fellow scientists would go after them like this... undoubtedly due to undue media pressure to constantly reprove what's already been demonstrated, as if there were any legitimate science running against their theory - which likely led to the mistake in the first place.