London: Reports indicate that climate scientists who worked on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report say they are dismayed by 'sloppy' work by their colleagues that introduced an error about melting Himalayan glaciers, which has unfairly maligned their work. According to a report in The Guardian, the experts,
who worked on the section of the IPCC report that considered the physical science
of global warming, say the error by "social and biological scientists" has unfairly
maligned their work. 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 Rajendra
Pachauri, the panel's chair, 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 that 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," he added. "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 author 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," said another author. 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," he added.
