London, Feb 9 (ANI): 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. (ANI)
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. (ANI)
Oneindia Login