Oh Come on !!! They were pretty close. The prediction that glaciers in the Himalayas would all disappear by 2035 were wrong, they were off by around 300 years.  The reason for the mista ke, I kid you not, the numbers were transposed instead of 2035, it should have been 2305. But don’t worry the Global warming moonbats say they are sorry and it wont happen again.  Feel better now?

Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world’s most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful.

The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by 2035, hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicate. Digits in 2350 apparently were transposed as 2035.

The climate panel and even the scientist who publicized the errors said they are not significant in comparison to the entire report, nor were they intentional. They also do not negate the fact that worldwide, glaciers are melting faster than ever.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

However, the mistakes open the door for more attacks from climate change skeptics.

“The credibility of the IPCC depends on the thoroughness with which its procedures are adhered to,” wrote Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. “The procedures have been violated in this case. That must not be allowed to happen again because the credibility of climate change policy can only be based on credible science.”

The incident follows a furor late last year over the release of stolen e-mail messages in which climate scientists talked about suppressing data and freezing out skeptics.

In a statement, the climate change panel expressed regret over what it called “poorly substantiated estimates” about the Himalayan glaciers.

Patrick Michaels, a global warming skeptic and scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called on the head of the U.N. panel, Rajendra Pachauri, to resign. “I’d like to know how such an absurd statement made it through the review process. It is obviously wrong.”

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, said: “Even a small glacier such as the Dokriani glacier is up to 120 metres [394ft] thick. A big one would be several hundred metres thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300 metres thick so to melt one even at 5 metres a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”

The Problem is these man-made climate change scientists are so desperate to prove their theory which is falling apart a little more each day, they are making really stupid mistakes.  This was a mistake was very obvious.

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”.

Gee didn’t George HW Bush call Reaganomics voodoo economics when they were competing for the Republican nomination.  Maybe voodoo means truth.

Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.