BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

The IPCC is now damaged goods. Pachauri is toast, and nobody will be able to cite the IPCC AR4 again without this being brought up.

The Daily Mail’s David Rose in the UK broke this story, it is mind boggling fraud to prod “government action” and grants. Emphasis in red mine.

From the Daily Mail

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

h/t to WUWT reader “Konrad”

Sponsored IT training links:
We offer VCP-410 training for IT professionals to help pass 646-363 and 642-359 exam in easy and fast way.


238 thoughts on “BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

  1. Ok… that one little part was wrong… but… oh yeah and NOAA and NASA are deliberately fudging data… and sure the claims of massive sea level rise are purely bogus… and the weather stations aren’t to spec… and colder stations aren’t used… but other than that and every other piece of flimsy evidence, CAGW is ROBUST!!!!
    I know that the world will shortly burst into fire… as soon as the rotten snow melts…
    Mike

  2. Spread the word folks, like Climategate this is a where were you when you heard moment…the more your friends and colleagues are aware that the IPCC was prepared to use dubious (turned out to be utterly false) data to frighten the public and politicians, the more some real heat will build for accountability.

  3. Given that the IPCC report in question is riddled with errors of monumental significance, shouldn’t the IPCC be forced to retract it immediately or face fraud charges?

  4. Thank you, thank you, thank you for keeping the spotlight of public attention focused on this scandal.

    Scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits.

    The money trail will led you to the unholy alliance of politicians, scientists and publishers that have misused science and destroyed its integrity.

    What a sad state of affairs!
    Oliver K. Manuel

  5. From: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Google cache of this page from earlier in the week promoted the 2030 claim:

    Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030.

    Today it reads as such:

    Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas.

    Seems like NASA is even retracting their outlandish claims.

  6. Anyone who is still defending these crooks must have a financial interest in this scam. Looking forward to Pachuri stepping down.

  7. “Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’”

    The WWF Funds the Climate Research Unit.

    Fund the fiction, publish the fiction, get the donations and other funding to fund more fiction to publish more fiction…..

    There was no ‘mistake’. They are as guilty as the rest of the funding organizations.

  8. Why am I not surprised? Because I’ve been coming to WUWT for long enough to get the news before it is the news; to learn the basics of what is good science in this area and what isn’t; to figure what stinks like fish three days old.

    Despite all this, I am still surprised when the glib layers of BS have been scraped off and the squalid facts emerge.

    Apologies and retractions would be nice. Resignations or firings would be good. Indictments would be excellent.

    I suspect that there will be much quiet covering of behinds and people slinking quietly away. The new shape of things will take time to emerge.

    Thank you, Anthony and all, for holding fast to the best standards throughout. We are not at the end, or even the beginning of the end; but as Churchill said, we may be at the end of the beginning.

  9. Wow, just wow.

    The only appropriate tagline I can think to offer is from an old joke –“We’ve already determined what you are; now we’re just haggling over the price.”

  10. Who knew, what did they know, when did they know it?

    Actually, I’d like to know who first caught this funny business and reported it? Does any one have an answer?

  11. Yeah, this is big – this the first open confession of intentional fraud at the heart of the “science.” It’ll take some time, but this will eventually take down the entire IPCC. Their credibility is gone forever.

  12. Humanity’s Rogue’s Gallery, once the realm of politicians and lawyers, is now admitting scientists. They’re just moments away from becoming late night comic fodder.

  13. The IPCC CYA is here.

    “The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.”

    The problem now is that, apparently, they knew about the error and did nothing about it. I suppose either laziness or fraud are one of the “well-established IPCC procedures” they refer to in their statement…

  14. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, but is it possible to launch a world wide class action suit against the IPCC?

  15. Cognitive dissonance:
    (Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information.)

    We are seeing bucketloads of CD from Hansen, Pachauri and their ilk and this story is developing into a journalists dream. “Pachauri is toast”….. for us he is, but over there in CD land the PR people are working overtime. What a battle.

  16. Even better: Right now that NASA propaganda page reads as follows–
    “Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.5″

    The “may disappear” has disappeared, so far as I can tell.

    Its footnote 5 now refers to something other than IPCC’s “summary for policymakers page 5″ which it started out with. It’s now a link to a “World Glacier Monitoring Service” page.

    REPLY: Got a link to that?

  17. Since in the UK MSM the Mail, the Telegraph and the London Times have all carried major stories be sure the IPCC is melting indeed. And far faster than those glaciers.

    A defence is being put up up but it is very weak of the one mistake does not invalidate the whole etc. Yet the Times itself pointed out two errors, glaciers and disastrous weather, and that these were the very arguments Mr.Milliband, minister for climate change was advocating only a week ago.

    No it is not just that the tide has turned and and is sweeping away the sandcastle with every wave but that, as a rising tide floats all boats, it is spreading around the world.

    And with terrifying speed too: which must shock the politicians who hate to be on the wrong side of public opinion. And made to look conspicuous, credulous and avaricious fools to boot.

    But then if you perpetrate a fraud once found out it does tend to collapse rather quickly.

    So run rabbit run.

    Kindest Regards

  18. I will be forwarding these important revelations regarding the outright fraud to my two Senators here in California so that they may be better informed prior to making any rash decisions on how to treat the Earths’ fever.

  19. The logical question everyone should be asking is what else in the IPCC reports is fabricated??? My guess is more “data” will be found to be fabricated &/or incorrect in their support of AGW

  20. Good point Frank.
    It makes you think they are so used to having everything they utter taken as gospel, that they have become sloppy and careless about the facts. Overstating the case is a dismaying habit of all of the warmers.
    I suspect that is closer to “well-established procedure.”

  21. Pachauri had better hurry up and resign while there is still something left of the IPCC for him to resign from.

  22. As aluded to in prior thread start; and as we’re fond of saying here in the Great American West:

    Yup; High Noon in Dodge City:
    ClimateGate and now GlacierGate; hard to see how propagandist in chief Mr. P. can hang on much longer.

    SIDEBAR; for those who read the Times of India online:
    The piece in the TofI that was linked to in immediately prior thread start was 2nd from the top on the home page; in the India section. Especially given that Pachauri has now managed to get some of the senior leadership of the Indian government mad at him, probably only remaining question is how long will it take before he is forced to walk the plank.

  23. I hate to say this, but I doubt this will make much of a difference. AGW is an agenda, it has never been about science. This too will be ignored by an ignorant and gullible media. I pray I am wrong.

  24. Re Michjah,

    You are absolutely right, it has changed again!

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    You are right about the footnote too, it used to say “ibid” referring to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which is cited in footnote 3.

    They are really running scared and trying to cover their tracks.

  25. I’m sorry–I forgot to provide a link to that NASA propaganda page. I was actually “answering” Kate S @ 19:49:38 above. She provided a link to the page and an excerpt of its text at that moment. When I looked a little later, even the “may disappear” had disappeared.

    Here’s the link as provided by Kate S:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    And here’s the link to the Google cache from January 19 of the same NASA page:

    http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:0osmsixKS-sJ:climate.nasa.gov/evidence/+Mountain+glaciers+and+snow+cover+have+declined+2030&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

  26. So Gore, Pachauri, Boxer and Kerry were in on this but due to Obama’s required transparency they were required to only discuss it behind closed doors. Obama conferred with Gore on the relevancy of their respective Nobels in a separate fact finding mission. Glaciergate has shown that the “science” is settled and is not part of a political AGW agenda.

  27. I’m not a scientist but I don’t think this is science. Don’t forget about the Copehagen Treaty which I am sure they would have liked to have signed without question. This Treaty called for the acceptance of IPCC AR4 and the recommendations in it. The treaty called for Cap and Trade and the transfer of funds sent to the UN for distrubution. Who benefits from Cap and Trade and the sale of Carbon Credits?

    I think there are some rats in the lab.

  28. An imagined response from the IPCC….

    Yes we are corrupt, yes we manipulate the science to keep the dollars flowing in, yes they are your dollars, yes your government is complicit since they never get enough of your money…. And no dear people, you can’t stop us, we will continue taking as much of your money as we want. Everyone who needs to be paid off, has been paid off…. again, with your money. Just look at all the revelations of the last five years. We are in control… YOU LOSE…
    Love and Kisses,
    The IPCC

    Time for the people to take control again….

  29. Whoa!

    Let me get this straight – “Big Climate” (IPCC et al) used fake data to pressure policy makers?

    No!

    Whom am I to ‘trust’? (as “Big Climate” climate-scientists have check-kited or ‘Enron-ed’ the data to their advantage)

    .
    .

  30. Re: Kate S (19:49:38):

    Regarding the NASA website, you wrote:

    “Today it reads as such:
    Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas.”

    Did you notice this evening? As Micajah (20:17:45) notes above, the page now reads something completely different and references a source other than the IPCC.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Someone is at NASA on a Saturday night scrubbing their webpage? That alone is evidence of how big this is. They know what a pack of lies is involved here and they also realize that the British journos smell blood in the water. They are scared.

    Notice how the IPCC glacier claim went down the memory hole at NASA. No correction, no explanation, just gone like it never existed.

  31. It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’

    So, he admits that he knew implicitly it was ‘grey’ material, but because nobody corroborated that fact officially, it was fine to pretend he didn’t know.
    That’s not clever, but he appears to have believed (and maybe still does) that the picture painted was a true likeness of reality, and that’s clearly not clever, either.
    Not clever, not honest, not successful and, very probably, not the only instance of Planet-Saver’s Syndrome in AR4.

  32. It would be useful to trace the number of publications that have relied on the original IPCC claim of shrinking glaciers. And the number of publications that relied on those. With the right tools somebody should be able to draw the network that shows how the falsehood has proliferated. Once that’s done, somebody can assign dollar values to the decisions made in reliance on the various nodes of the network.

    With that in hand, the worldwide class action becomes a good deal less plausible. Certainly it would add to the pressure to get the miscreants fired, and it would add substance to the argument that this kind of stuff is cost-free. That’s actually an irksome point for me: we are hectored with dire warnings that this is just climatic apocalypse, billions will die tomorrow, urgent action is required, cost be damned. Then when the facts turn out to be otherwise, there is the sound of crickets. The prophets of doom have conveniently absented themselves.

    This asymmetrical warfare has to stop. Add up the money that’s been wasted on the strength of the BS, and use it to challenge the next claim.

  33. Sorry, don’t know how to edit my comment. “The worldwide class action becomes a good deal less IMplausible” is what I meant to say. D’oh.

  34. “how long will it take before he is forced to walk the plank.”

    Not long. The individual is expendable for the agenda. My guess is that Pachauri may have been ready to go rogue and now he is being turned into an evil scape goat. Remember the CRU emails? The insiders didn’t want him or trust him. He is collateral damage. But what do I know? I am an ignorant, evil, white, Christian, conspiracy believing right-winger.

  35. Midwest Mark (19:48:36) :

    “Now the question is…..will any mainstream media outlet report this??”

    Good question. I emailed the story to the Detroit News. I hope others will send it to their local newspapers. If one of them picks up the story the rest will have to follow or risk being left out.

  36. Micajah (20:17:45) :

    Even better: Right now that NASA propaganda page reads as follows–
    “Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.5″

    The “may disappear” has disappeared, so far as I can tell.

    Its footnote 5 now refers to something other than IPCC’s “summary for policymakers page 5″ which it started out with. It’s now a link to a “World Glacier Monitoring Service” page.

    REPLY: Got a link to that?

    I followed the links from here:

    Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.5

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#no5

    To here :

    General remarks
    .
    WGMS provides standardized observations on changes in mass, volume, area and length of glaciers with time (Fluctuations of Glaciers), as well as statistical information on the distribution of perennial surface ice in space (World Glacier Inventory). In addition, information on special events are available, such as surges, calving instabilities, rock falls onto glaciers, lake outbursts, ice avalanches, eruptions of glacier-clad volcanoes or related protection work including prospection and scientific analysis.
    .

    http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html

    Notice that it is just a portal to maps and an excel spreadsheet.

  37. I think the second sentance in this statement is as impoertant as the admission of non-peer reviewed literature:

    “Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.”

    This adds to the fallacy that ‘peer review’ is a valid method for determining if published data/results/studies/etc is worthy of being considered. NONE of these people/organisations/governments checked the source of the 2035 quote.

    Maybe the ‘reviewers’ were merely hand-picked warmists who either blindly believe whatever they are told or just needed to know what the ‘story’ was so that they could repeat it. It certainly makes a joke of the term ‘reviewer’.

  38. MikeL (20:26:43) :

    I will be forwarding these important revelations regarding the outright fraud to my two Senators here in California so that they may be better informed prior to making any rash decisions on how to treat the Earths’ fever.

    Mike, I don’t know about Senator Feinstein, but trying to inform Senator Boxer (and with luck, soon to be ex-Senator Boxer) of anything is like trying to teach a pig to sing the National Anthom–it ain’t going to happen in our lifetime.

  39. Google cache of climate.nasa.gov as it appeared on 19 Jan 2010 09:48:55:

    http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:0osmsixKS-sJ:climate.nasa.gov/evidence/+site:http://climate.nasa.gov/+%22may+disappear+altogether%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

    “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030″ [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, pp. 5, 7]

    REPLY: thanks!

  40. In reply to Kate S:

    “Kate S (19:49:38) :

    From: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Google cache of this page from earlier in the week promoted the 2030 claim:

    Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030.

    Today it reads as such:

    Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas.

    Seems like NASA is even retracting their outlandish claims.”

    And now it has changed again!:

    “Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. 5″

    Note that it is not now linked to the IPCC either! It now links to (5):

    http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html

    I note that site says: “Note: the location coordinates are given as reported to the WGMS and may not exactly match the glacier position.” So I thought I would dig a little more on the basis that if the locations may be wrong I wonder what other caveats there may be. Downloading the excel file (WGMS_FoG_v2007.xls) on that page we have this statement in it:

    “The data might be subject to errors and inaccuracies. We, hence, strongly suggest to perform data quality checks and, in case of ambiguities, to contact us as well as the investigators and sponsoring agencies of the glaciers!”

    Not exactly confidence building is it. And that is where the reference from NASA’s fast evolving “evidence” page points to now.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    This is beyond a joke.

  41. “According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493! ”

    So there you go. That’s how they came up with 2035. It was supposed to be 2350.

  42. The govt case rests entirely upon the IPCC,the collaspe of credibility of IPCC =fall of govt case.I just recieved 2 non answers to written enquiries,as to who at Environment Canada verified the science of the IPCC,or what evidence independant of the IPCC proved AWG,or CO2=warming.No answers but assurance that E.C relies on and builds upon the IPCC 4th report.I feel the continuing unravelling of this fraud cannot be stopped.The agenda masqueraded as science,this is what is destroying it now.Science holds a special place in our mythology,out of the unreason of our past we developed a method to help avoid the pitfalls of mob hysteria.Attempts to destroy the method enrage me.I do not see the agenda surviving public recognition of “we have been scammed and abused.”2010 will be very entertaining.

  43. the end is nigh.
    for starters, jones, mann, hansen, pachauri, lal must go….NOW.
    class action by farmers and other directly affected.
    class action by the public against the govt for funding this rubbish.
    i can dream, can’t i? let’s make it real.
    as someone said, we must inform everyone we know…for starters, notify everyone on your mailing list.

  44. Just a follow up on my previous post, what upsets me the most about the NASA “evidence” page is not so much the fact that they used heresay as “evidence” but that they have now changed their evidence without comment. The fact that they are trying to “hide the decline” in their evidence says more about the evidence than the fact that no such evidence of glaciers dissapearing by (according to NASA’s original “evidence” 2030, faster even than the debunked 2035) 2030. Why do this if you have such strong “peer reviewed ” or “consensus” evidence. Why do it if you are not trying to justify a belief already held rather than a conclusion built up by “the science”.

    Is it that the means justifies the ends? Do they have their conclusion and anything contrary to that is ignored and anything supporting it, even heresay, gets cited UNCHECKED. Shame NASA. An absolute disgrace.

  45. Dr Murari Lal:

    “The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.”

    Just a poor application? OK, I suppose that means those people are off the hook. Anyone can make a poor application.

    “The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035″ rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF. It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

    OK, I suppose they shouldn’t use a quango/NGO for their info. But it sounded reasonable at the time, and the grants were generous, so I guess Dr Lal and his team are off the hook.

    …the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

    Well, if they were humiliated for being unsound, and since they regret any confusion, I guess that lets them off the hook. They’ve suffered enough.

    Dr Lal said: “…it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group…”

    So I guess that lets Dr. Lal off the hook. Why didn’t the working group notify him? It must have been just an unfortunate mis-communication. These things happen.

    “…nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.”

    Well, that would certainly leave the Working Group off the hook. And five hundred external reviewers all missed these obvious errors? And each of their governments missed the errors, too? Well, who can blame the IPCC reviewers for missing something like that, if everyone else missed it too ? Taxpayers of the world will simply have to pay them more to catch errors like these.

    With all these people pointing at each other, it will be impossible to assign blame. And who would adjudicate it? Ban Ki Moon? The University of East Anglia? The prosecutors in the formerly Great Britain?

    No, these misunderstood people know by now they need to go back and work on the problem. They understand that mistakes were made – but we’re all human, right? With a slight meaningful bump in pay, these problems can all be worked out, given sufficient time. Next time they will really get it right. They will give us their solemn promise: “Trust us.”

    .

    See what’s happening?

  46. Perhaps already a comment …

    Okay this is a “minor” point in such a large report and they will claim “Just one wee error. Pfft.”

    But if this keeps escalating, one wonders when the folks over in Oslo will think they erred in handing out the Peace Prize to Dumb and Dumber. (Al Baby and Pachauri.)

    What would it take to have the prize rescinded?

  47. Anthony, you are always welcome to edit or delete my comments. I am on your side and will not take offense. I sometimes have a very sharp tongue that can be controversial. If you choose to not include my comment, I do understand and bow to your good judgment.

  48. The three Bs of Big Brother:

    1. Big unethical climate.
    2. Big unethical bureaucracy.
    3. Big unethical media.

    Question is, will the people put up with it? Don’t bet on it.

  49. Verified? VERIFIED?
    The idiotic speculation would require a number of highly unlikely events to occur. A 10C degree rise in the upper Himalayas. Or the total absence of snowfall and a significant rise in temperature. Or 200KPH winds for 20 years with no snowfall.
    All this nonsense is even more unlikely given that the rivers have flowed within historical limits for 200 years. Hello. Are these people moron’s?.

  50. Connecting the dots:
    + The 4th IPCC report is released.
    + Government scientists in India decry the glacier section. Lots of glaciologists register complaints.
    + Pachauri declares the complaints “voodoo”
    + Intrepid reporters tracked the facts and found the “Himalayan glaciers melted by 2035″ claim is pure speculation.
    + Five errors found in one paragraph, including “Himalayan glaciers would shrink from 500,000 km^2 to just 100,000 km^2,” when in fact, Himalayan glaciers currently cover only 33,000 km^2.
    + Initally, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, lead author of the offending IPCC chapter, defended the IPCC and Pachauri. Lal reports directly to Pachauri.
    + Pachauri is assailed, and when cornered, said “… It was a collective failure by a number of people. I need to consider what action to take… I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs. Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation…”
    + Lal reads the handwriting on the wall, that he is about to be the scapegoat!
    + Lal takes the plea-bargain and confesses to the Daily Mail’s David Rose that
    :: the glacial melt scare was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders
    :: he was well aware the glacial scare statement did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research
    :: It related to several countries in this region and their water sources… if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action…

    When faced with crucifixion, the small-fry roll-over on the big fish.

    Given the micro-management of the IPCC by the egomaniac Pachauri, it is hilarious for him to assert that he was unaware of the fabrication of the melting glacier claim. It is much easier to believe that he directed all his chapter chairs to find compelling punch lines, and he and Al Gore were ecstatic that Lal told them that they could allege that the fresh water supply of many Asian countries would be destroyed unless politicians “went green” and ceded control of the worlds’ carbon economy to the IPCC.

    Pachauri should never have threatened to hang his subordinate out to dry. The subordinate’s self-preservation functions kicked-in. I hope that Phil Jones, Michael Mann and James Hansen make the same mistake.

    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow: Modeling, Simulation & Analysis

  51. Has NASA been reading WUWT? They changed this:

    Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030

    to

    Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.5

    Perhaps WUWT enlightened them earlier this week that snow cover is increasing, not declining.

  52. Will US MSM carry this story? For PeeB.S., silence is golden– Except when it comes to out and out propaganda. In the lead up to Copenhagen, on the PBS Newshour Margaret Warner interviewed the UN’s de Boer and she stated [18 September NewsHour] that “this huge team of scientists from all over the globe issued these unanimous warnings about the really extreme danger to the planet.”

    But not a word has been heard about Glaciergate now that 2035 has been shown as a sham, and Climategate was only grudgingly noticed long after the event.

    Now PBS, as an agent of Minitrue, certainly subscribes to the Newspeak of AGW. But if enough of us would complain about their coverage, I believe that they would have to change a bit.

    We need to send them articles like this.

    Here is the link to Newshour feedback:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/letters.html

    email: onlineda@newshour.org

    And link to the PBS Ombudsman:

    http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html

  53. ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action”

    Like this?

    http://tinyurl.com/yed3my8

  54. Glad to see the “f” word is back in use. I hope that “hoax”, “con game”, “snake oil”, and “global extortion” trickle back in, too.

    How can 2,000 scientists be wrong? Easy. Happens all the time.

    How long ago was the debate declared over? That the consensus was so overwhelming that only kooks and flatearthers were still skeptical? That deniers were being paid off by coal train of death merchants?

    This game is not over, not by a long shot. Too many $trillions in carbon credits and “green” energy are at stake. Rajendra is a puppet, and will be swiftly replaced by another. The AGW conspiracy is big, very big, global in fact. Kudos to all you who have fought this beast so valiantly for so long. But armor up; the battle is not the war.

  55. Glaciers have been declining for 15,000 years. Anyone seen any glaciers in Yosemite Valley or Chicago recently? They used to be a mile deep in both places.

    Astonishing that NASA and the IPCC could cite “retreating glaciers” as evidence of global warming. Did any of these people actually attend a science program at a University?

  56. Doctors Doctors Everywhere,
    Not an Honest Scientist Among Them.

    Am I the only one who gets the urge to chant “auumm auumm” when I see that mans pic?

  57. Is it this Dr Murari Lal?

    From the WWF web site:

    Climate Witness Science Advisory Panel (SAP)

    Prof. Dr Murari Lal, specialises in global and regional climate variability, scenario development, regional environmental change, sectoral vulnerability assessment (water, biodiversity and agriculture), landscape ecology, biophysical remote sensing – GIS applications, ecosystem modeling, regional adaptation & mitigation potential, water resource management; Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India

    http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/about_cw/cwscientists/

    About Prof. Murari Lal
    Lead or Co-ordinating Author on several chapters of IPCC Assessment Reports

    http://4dweb.proclim.ch/4dcgi/proclim/en/Detail_Person?lalm.newdelhi

    About Halcrow Consulting:

    “Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India”

    http://www.halcrow.com/html/documents/pdf/india/halcrow_india_environment_brochure.pdf

    Carbon Trading is part of the Environment Division, now that is a surprises.

    Murari Lal->WWF->CRU

    Murari Lal-> Halcrow Consulting->Carbon Trading

    How about we skip the middle man:

    Carbon Trading-> Halcrow Consulting-> WWF->CRU

    Does that look right?

  58. Unbelievable. Well, in a normal world it would be so. But this is no longer a normal world, unfortunately. It has already been discussed recently, so I will propose the following: not only should Pachauri immediately resign, but IPCC should be immediately disbanded, dismantled, and the political employees/bureaucrats who worked over there should all be fired and never allowed to work again on ANY international science matter whatsoever. Unemployment should suit them just fine – they know how to grub for money, they’ve obviously been doing it for years.

  59. Steve Goddard (21:54:34) :

    Yes Steve, and the point all to often missed, is that those mile thick glaciers were there just yesterday in geologic time. Far to many people confuse them with dinosaurs, and other things older by four orders of magnetude.

    I’ve been skeptical from the go, because of my science background. I have been at odds with some friends and family for ten years. I am enjoying these days.

  60. I just posted this over at Real Climate…. lets see if it gets through.

    Mail Online 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

    The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
    Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
    In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dVUqBoet

    If Dr. Lal is quoted correctly he is admitting the use of Progoganda…..

  61. Is the WWF embarrassed enough to give back the donations they raked in using the false claim?

    Let me know when that happens, okay?

  62. Australia’s Minister for Climate Change is still strongly defending the IPCC as quoted in th Melbourne Age sat 22 of January – CLIMATE Change Minister Penny Wong has leapt to the defence of the United Nations’ benchmark document on climate change as it faces a fresh challenge to its reputation as the world’s most credible study on the impacts of global warming. for the rest of the story see link: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/wong-unfazed-by-challenge-to-ipcc-20100120-mls2.html We still have a long way to go in Oz,

  63. Why are these climate “scientists” still running around loose?

    They have harmed people all over the world by creating a fraud that wasted massive amounts of money. And they will continue the fraud unless someone does something!

    Defund the IPCC, NOAA, NASA and every university that houses the “top” climate research units!

  64. Clive (21:35:55)

    Does it really matter? The Nobel Peace Prize is clearly up for sale. I feel sorry for those who actually earned it, as there can be no respect left for the selection process and hence no respect for the prize.

  65. Popcorn. Beer. Popcorn. Beer.
    Now this is definitely human (stupidity) induced weight gain….

    Circus and bred.

    LOL

  66. Personally I would like Pachauri to stay at the IPCC for as long as possible. If he goes, his replacement might leave a lot of people yearning for the days when all the IPCC chair did was throw accusations like ‘voodoo science’ around. All the time he stays, the IPCC gathers an aura of being untrustworthy. If he’s replaced, the mantra will be ‘we’ve fixed the corruption, now we’re better, trust us’.

    Better the devil you know, as the saying goes.

  67. Sorry for the spelling. I meant:

    If Dr. Lal is quoted correctly he is admitting the use of Propaganda…..

  68. ‘The science is scuttled.’

    Excellent joke from the comments on Christopher Booker’s article (see above).

  69. D. King (21:47:36) :

    I wouldn’t be so quick to point to Hoover.

    http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services-miscellaneous-business/4224309-1.html

    Just sayin’. I realize that Vegas wastes water like nobody’s business also.

    http://images.google.com/images?q=vegas%20water%20fountain&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

    I know a metaphor, but I am absolutely positive it will get snipped. Let’s just say that in Vegas you can’t blow your cash as fast as they blow their water.

  70. Michael Mann is next. This from his hometown news paper.

    “The only way to resolve the conflict of interest is for the Pennsylvania General Assembly to commission an external and independent investigation of Mr. Mann’s research and conduct.

    The economy and social structure of our country stand to be significantly altered by climate-change legislation that has been, in part, driven by Mr. Mann’s erroneous research and his defense of it. Only with a credible and thorough inquiry can the general public know that its state and national policymakers are making important policy decisions based on sound science. Taxpayers have the right to know before legislation is enacted what role, if any, scientific misconduct played in its development.
 
Recently, the Commonwealth Foundation released a report entitled, Climategate & Penn State: The Case for an Independent Investigation, which explains why it’s critical for the Pennsylvania General Assembly to launch a thorough investigation of Mr. Mann’s actions.

    This report notes: other paleoclimate research scientists questioned Mr. Mann’s conduct; Mr. Mann lashed out at anyone challenging his research data, methods, and techniques; Mr. Mann tried to hide errors and prevented the collegial pursuit of accuracy; and Mr. Mann attempted to subvert the scientific peer-review process and blacklist critics from key academic journals.

    Whether people believe in global warming and the need for government action or not, they should care about the credibility of Mr. Mann’s research because it’s influencing state, federal, and international economic and environmental decisions, which affects their lives dramatically. Too much is at stake to simply allow Penn State to have the final word on Mr. Mann’s questionable academic behavior.”

    ‘Mann-Made’ Global Warming?

    http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/01/23/commentary/op-eds/doc4b5a2e41299e5579065379.txt

  71. The IPCC AR4 is rapidly being exposed as a fraud. Now I understand why it was so important for the Hockey Team to delete their emails about AR4.

    The science isn’t settled, it’s unsettling.

  72. Sorry I missed a step;

    Carbon Trading-> Halcrow Consulting-> WWF->CRU->IPPC

    So, solve and simplify

    Carbon Trading-> WWF->CRU->IPPC
    Carbon Trading-> CRU->IPPC
    Carbon Trading-> IPPC

    Carbon Trading-> IPPC->Carbon Trading

    Halcrow Consulting, was a step I was missing. I should have look more closely at the WWF, I had been looking as the fuel and battery companies.

  73. Triple Bay (20:43:38) :
    says “I’m not a scientist but I don’t think this is science.”

    But you know a lot about climate.

    You can explain what the climate is doing to-day.

    You can read and maybe crunch easy numbers to describe climate in the past.

    You do need training in the relevant sciences to measure and investigate known factors affecting climate. Like astronomy, though, climate sciences are mainly of academic interest. For practical purposes of any importance, they cannot tell you much that you don’t already know.

    There is one good thing to come out of the AGW kerfuffle. It is clearer now than ever that factors affecting climate are natural. They are gigantean compared to the much-maligned GHG emissions, for example. AGW is a failed hypothesis, if ever it had any credibility.

    Predicting climate is a mug’s game. Climate is chaos personified. Predictions are all over the shop even a few days out. Nobody knows what climate will do next month, next year or next century. NO BODY.

    Sadly, there have been and always will be, those who profess to know. They will speak knowledgeably. They will have computer modelling coming out of their ears. They will shout you down if you disagree. They will close their minds to reason. They will call you denier, crock, idiot and anything to subdue debate. That’s fine. Cranks of all descriptions make life interesting.

    What is despicable, though, is when corrupt people of that ilk combine and collude to promulgate their deceit for profit and power at your expense. Apparently for them, wrecking economies and trashing science mean less than personal gain.

  74. Micajah (20:17:45) has a moderator comment of “got a link for that”.

    The section that he and Kate S are referring to is at climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ , about halfway down the page, next to a photo of the disappearing snowcap of Mt Kilimanjaro.

    NASA made the change in response to a web feedback I submitted a week or so ago.

    I have also gotten them to change some of the many, many errors on the Key Indicators page of climate.nasa.gov , but there are some that they have not yet changed and I’m now in the appeal phase of a Request For Correction per the Quality of Information Guidelines. My request for correction is from August 2009. I submitted my appeal December 7th and their reply is overdue, but a week has gone by with nothing but silence from NASA in response to my request for info on the status of the appeal.

    I can do a data dump to you of the files and correspondence, if desired.

    REPLY: Good for you. Did they balk at it? Did you have to argue to get this change made? – A

  75. I think it is time for a new definition of “Robust”

    Robust — short hand contraction referring to :

    “Man the life boats, and Row we are Busted”.

    Larry

  76. I’m waiting for someone to file a class action law suit for child abuse due to all the school kids that have been systematically terrified by bogus propaganda that they were going to die before they reached adult hood.

    Have any school district boards or Department of education curriculum committees, been formally asked to explain the tripe they have been serving up to our children for over a decade?

    Like the British court decision to include disclaimers on the movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, I think we are rapidly reaching a point where there is enough evidence to toss out some administrators and some text books, and start a “truth and ethics in science” program in the school systems, where the students are taught how they were systematically deceived because some scientists intentionally corrupted the scientific process, and ignored the fundamental tenants of the Scientific method.
    They need to have a formal discussion of ethics in professional life and this is a very good example how the cancer of corruption slowly bleeds through an entire professional field once ethics get tossed on the heap.

    Larry

  77. This website claims that:

    “But that is not how the IPCC behaves. AR4 is the shorthand name for the 2007 Nobel-winning IPCC report. When one types “WWF” into an AR4 search box dozens of references are returned.

    For example, a WWF report is cited twice on this page as the only supporting proof of IPCC statements about coastal developments in Latin America. A WWF report is referenced twice by the IPCC’s Working Group II in it concluding statements. There, the IPCC depends on the WWF to define what the global average per capita “ecological footprint” is compared to the ecological footprint of central and Eastern Europe.

    In a section on coral reefs and mangroves, a WWF report is the IPCC’s sole reason for believing that, in “the Mesoamerican reef there are up to 25 times more fish of some species on reefs close to mangrove areas than in areas where mangroves have been destroyed.”

    There are other allegations too … I have no way of checking their veracity — but it would be useful to know if the IPCC was doing more than just glaciers on the basis of the WWF.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

  78. I think all the climate scientist frauds are going to b thrown under the bus. None of the lay people or government officials are going to be touched for their involvement in this scam, unless some of their scientists turn states evidence.

  79. Dave F (22:43:15) :

    I wouldn’t be so quick to point to Hoover.

    The post is about Himalayan glaciers.
    I think you missed the point. I used Hoover as an
    example of “concrete action” that can be taken to
    store water from seasonal runoff. In years of plenty,
    the dam is filled, in years of drought, they draw from
    the dam. Nobody is talking about Vegas or waist.

  80. Well I’ll be darned SBS1 ( Australian global warming channel ) actually reported the story but with clips of Pauchauri refusing to resign. They left out juicy bits of course but at least did say that billions did at least have 300 years before their water ran dry!

  81. We need to remember that this is very far from being the first example of fraud revealed in the IPCC’s reports.

    Most obviously our old friend Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick.

    But also the Snows of Kilimanjaro, the spread of Tropical Disease into temperate zones, Rising Sea Levels, Species Extinction, Antartica Melting, Increased Hurricane Frequency. The list just goes on and on.

    Anthony’s archives of postings on WUWT are stuffed with examples.

    A good recent account is at:-

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_18?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=christopher+booker+the+real+global+warming+disaster&sprefix=christopher+booker

    The IPCC isn’t the fruit of the toil of 2000 honest and expert Climate Scientists, which is how it has invariably been portrayed, it is a tendentious and thoroughly dishonest propaganda document designed to mislead and to promote the destruction of the economies of the developed world. And the vast majority of western politicians just went along with it, due to their scientific ignorance and the fact that they had deliberately appointed some of the most egregious Alarmists as their ‘scientific advisors’.

    The only difference with the Glacier story is the fact that – very belatedly – this has been picked up by a few of the mainstream media.

    Nothing else has changed.

    We still have a mountain to climb. But at least we’re above the foothills.

  82. Should Pachauri “go rogue” and turn on the IPCC and company in an attempt to save his own arse, there’s a ready-made defence…

    He’s not a “climate scientist”, so who is he to criticize the experts?

  83. The 2035 figure for Himalayan glacier melting does seem to have been plucked from thin air. It’s habit forming. The IPCC claims that there is more than 90 percent likelihood that warming since midcentury is largely due to human emissions. This is put forward as if it were settled science based on some precise calculations and directly corroborating observations. Yet it too appears to have materialised from thin air.

  84. >>>Now the question is…..will any mainstream media
    >>>outlet report this??

    The Mail is fairly mainstream – 4 million or so direct readers.

    .

  85. >>>This is not that new

    >>>the BBC broke this story a while ago

    >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

    .

    No they did not ‘break this story’. You are being sucked in by BBC spin and mirrors here.

    What the BBC does is to take ‘controversial’ news that it does not like, and hide it on its website, where no one will see it. This item was NOT on the BBC news – I watch it every day (I don’t know why I do sometimes – hilarity perhaps?).

    The BBC were very good at highlighting the fact that the recent cold weather in the N hemisphere was weather not climate, and that “temperature trends are still upwards”. They said this every day. They were also good at highlighting a single very hot day in Australia – but for some reason this was climate and not weather.

    Be ever so cautious with all BBC output – they are the paramilitary wing of Green Peace (along with their close cousin, New Scientist). They are purveyors of propaganda with an output volume not seen since the heady days of PRAVDA.

    .

  86. Here in Australia we seem to be a bit slow, BUT, SBS World News, just ran the story, complete, unbiased, Himalayan glacier melting.

    AT LAST, may be the MSM here in OZ will start to pick up on this story and what has perceeded, CRU, NASA etc

  87. Will Mr. Stoere, the Norwegian foreign minister, excuse himself to the Refutnics in Norway now?

    I dont think so.

    Mr. Stoere will forever be remembered as Al Gore’s buddy in Copenhagen.

  88. ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

    Apparently India and China are not as dumb as the ipcc thinks, not that reality ever affects them, except insofar as they always deny it.

  89. As *most* the ‘Media’ are keeping silent about all of this, what we all must do it to spread this censored news *anywhere* and *everywhere*, until the mainstream media is utterly overwhelmed and embarrased into reporting the truth about this scam.

    Of course those in denial will make a valiant effort to remove all of our annoying Facts and Links from public view, so me must post the truth in such volumes as to overwhelm their attempts to censors us.

    Post the facts to *all* sorts of web sites, blogs, newsgroups, even write it accross the sky if you have access to an aircraft, or in the ground if you have a farm and suitable equipment :D

  90. This gets curioser and curioser.

    On checking the IPCC web site to ensure they hadn’t changed any information in their report following the glacier debacle, it seems the IPCC synthesis report (Summary for Policymakers) core writing team was Pachauri and A Resinger.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

    This unit was funded by Defra (now the Dept of Climate Change) who passed the money to Cambridge University who passed the money to TERI -Pachauris unit

    http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/political-blogs/70670-eu-referendum-pachauri-money-laundering.html

    Reisinger is described as working for TERI and the Met office/Hadley centre (Who also receive tens of millions of pounds annually from Defra).

    The Dept for climate change is highly politically motivated as was observed in my article here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896

    This is of course the Govt dept determined to impose carbon ration cards on the UK.

    The world of ‘climate science’ is very small and incestous. The tentacles of the British Govt much bigger it seems.

    Tonyb

  91. crosspatch (21:20:15) :

    “According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493! ”

    So there you go. That’s how they came up with 2035. It was supposed to be 2350.

    No, that was just a first guess as to where the mistake had come from, because someone noticed the 2305 number and speculated that a transposition had been made. Now we know the true source, the Hasnian cliam via the New Scientist report via WWF, because the footnote in AR4 referenced the latter, and the parties involved in making and reporting the claim have disclosed what went on.

  92. Oliver Ramsay (20:54:20) :
    That’s not clever, but he [Lal] appears to have believed (and maybe still does) that the picture painted was a true likeness of reality, and that’s clearly not clever, either.
    Not clever, not honest, not successful and, very probably, not the only instance of Planet-Saver’s Syndrome in AR4.

    This glacier exaggeration doesn’t directly affect the overall AR4 report; it only indirectly does so, by calling the impartiality of its creators into question. Monckton claims the most egregious example of partiality is in the IPCC’s exaggeration in estimating three or four factors that go into calculating the sensitivity and extent and impact of GW.

    Those estimates are the keystone of alarmism and discrediting them is what we critics should chip away at. Glaciergate, like Climategate, is comparatively small potatoes in itself in terms of its direct impact on “the science” and “the politics.” Glaciergate’s importance, like Climategate’s, is that it provides the justification for treating Monckton’s critique more seriously and asking the IPCC to justify or modify its estimates.

  93. @JohnWho (19:59:07) :

    “Good Grief!

    CRU, NASA, the IPCC – now if we can just find something that Al Gore has said that is wrong we can wrap this thing up.”

    I wouldn’t want to attempt a listing of things that the Reverend Al Gore has said that are wrong, as there would be too great a risk of wearing out my keyboard. :-)

  94. @tom (00:20:07) :

    “If the climate will continue to cool at the current rate, the IPCC will be gone by 2035…”

    They will move onto plan B long before then. They will have to figure out a method to rationalize Anthropogenic Global Cooling. An amazing scientific breakthrough will be announced soon. It will be a breathtaking discovery, that due to the newly discovered clumpiness of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is now known to cause global cooling.

  95. Margaret (23:30:45) : please do some WWF research if you can. I suspect there is another Can Of Worms ready to spill there, too. Bjorn Lomborg would probably agree from his statistical work on green issues.

  96. Oliver Ramsay (20:54:20) :

    It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’

    So, he admits that he knew implicitly it was ‘grey’ material, but because nobody corroborated that fact officially, it was fine to pretend he didn’t know.

    ……………

    Smokey:

    Dr Lal said: “…it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group…”

    So I guess that lets Dr. Lal off the hook. Why didn’t the working group notify him? It must have been just an unfortunate mis-communication. These things happen.

    “…nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.”

    Well, that would certainly leave the Working Group off the hook. And five hundred external reviewers all missed these obvious errors? And each of their governments missed the errors, too? Well, who can blame the IPCC reviewers for missing something like that, if everyone else missed it too ? Taxpayers of the world will simply have to pay them more to catch errors like these.

    Lal appears to be attempting what we Watergate aficionados remember as a “modified, limited hangout.” He’s implicitly denying, astonishingly, the claim of one of the lead author’s of Working Group I, Georg Kaser, as reported by Agence France-Presse and posted on Pielke Jr.’s blog at http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/stranger-and-stranger.html :

    Kaser said some of the scientists from other regional groups took heed of suggestions, and made corrections ahead of final publication in April 2007.

    But the Asia group did not. “I pointed it out,” he said of the implausible prediction on the glaciers. “For a reason I do not know, they did not react.”

    What’s needed now is pressure from the MSM to get to the bottom of the question, “What did the Asia group know, and when did they know it?” I.e., who and how did Kaser tell at the IPCC? Who did THEY tell? Is there a record of his communication on file? If not, why not? Etc.

    Eddie (22:32:42) :
    Keep the pressure on these guys. Someone is bound to reveal even more.

    Another question should be, Did any of the reviewers who “missed” this glaring error do so deliberately, because they supported sexing up the report and hyping the alarm? None of them will confess to this, of course, but it’s a reasonable conjecture that at least a few of them sinned by omission, so it’s question we should keep asking.

  97. The joy is not that the world is not going to end because of us… we knew that.
    The joy is that people used to shun us when we talked about the climate change scam, the saf smiles as they walked off and tried to avoid eye contact…
    now they come up with statements like…” i never really believed the whole climate….”
    Were I driven by ego, I would carry around a little bag of signs that says “I told you so and you laughed..” that I could hammer into their foreheads.

  98. Oliver Ramsay (20:54:20) :
    … probably, not the only instance of Planet-Saver’s Syndrome in AR4.

    An instance of what Mencken called “the messianic delusion.”

  99. toyotawhizguy (02:09:10) :

    Failing that, there’s always meteors, oxygen depletion, ocean acidification, ozone layer (again) to keep the scam machine ticking over. To be sure, this Incorrigable Plague of Cunning Crooks will not roll over suddenly.

    If it’s this hard to secure the demise of the IPCC beast, how much more so would it have been had emissions targets been adopted globally since Kyoto? Who would have taken the credit for the arrest/decline in warming since then? Nightmare scenario that!

  100. It’s been evident from the start that *lots* of “proof” of current AGW-influence is fabricated or blown out of proportion.
    Because, and I’ve asked several AGW-proponents, no one can mention a single person or animal or other that evidently has been damaged due to weather or other caused by man exhausting CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Too much correlation and no causation what so ever.

  101. Am I right in saying that at that time the WWF was led by John Hirst, the man who now heads the UK Met Office and is about to be rewarded with a £200,000 bonus?
    The words “Usual Suspects” seem to be hovering around here somewhere.

  102. I just put this on Nujij.nl, a well read website in the Netherlands. Over the last few months I have noticed quite a shift in public opinion about AGW. More and more people are beginning to question whether CO2 is all that bad as it is made out to be.

    There is hope yet.

  103. According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

    Let me offer a toast here to the IPCC (in a celebrity roast):
    comprehensive (How much $$$ do we get?)
    objective (get the dough…and quick)
    open & transparent (Tell Jim to hide the tracks)
    scientific (make it up, and use a scientists interview)
    technical (don’t tell me how you did it, just make it obfuscated)
    socio-economic (did we mention we’re in it for the $$??)

  104. I notice many comments saying “IPCC is corrupt” and similar…

    But the IPCC is anything but corrupt. They are not, and never were, intended to find any “truth”. The IPCC exists solely to make a case that human activity is causing serious harm to the planet. They cherry-pick data at will, they ignore valid comments and objections from reviewers, and yes, they make sweeping unsupportable claims about future climate. Magically, their results show exactly what they were supposed to.

    In fact, admitting what most of us posting here know WOULD be corrupt for the IPCC. They can never admit that human input to CO2 is trifling, that CO2’s influence on the climate is trifling, or that the historical temperature record is faulty (probably fraudulent, but I’ll stick with faulty). They can’t admit that the peer review system as applied to “climate science” is almost completely corrupted. They can’t admit that they have no reason to even exist, other than political. They certainly can’t ever let anyone know that THEY know that the CO2-is-driving-climate hypothesis has been disproved.

    It’s not possible to pull their funding, because they are being funded by people who WANT them to come to the “conclusions” that they do.

    Now, NASA… NASA we can do something about. And possibly CRU-UEA. They’re publicly funded and in theory should be answerable to a properly motivated government. Unfortunately, one of those will be extremely difficult to find at the moment, since governments are essentially being given a blank taxation cheque. And don’t count on the media, who are SUPPOSED to be the public watchdogs on these matters (things just haven’t been the same since the 60s).

    Virtually everything the IPCC has released is now suspect, and virtually all Science done on the basis of IPCC reports, GISS, and CRU data has essentially been rendered useless, since the data and conclusions are suspect.

    Unfortunately, we don’t live in a world where that kind of justice will happen. The only way is to pull them down by their errors, omissions, deeds, and financial interests. One at a time, since they’ll each go kicking and screaming. And maybe one day the remaining structure WILL come crashing down… but not soon enough to prevent the damage they are still able to do.

  105. The Sunday Times has followed the big money paid to the IPCC from Carnegie Trust and the EU – in detailed article here:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

    The chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

    Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

    It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.

    The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 – an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.
    Background

    * Carnegie grant announcement from The Energy and Resources Institute

    * EU grant announcement of research into rapid glacier melt

    * How bloggers helped break the story

    Related Links

    * Global warming and disasters link ‘wrong’

    * Sloppy science is seeping into the climate watchdog

    * World misled over glacier meltdown

    Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.

    One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.

  106. “UK Climate panel blunders again” Jonathan Lake in The Sunday Times

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

    “The UN climate science panes faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.”
    “IPCC knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert world leaders”.
    You must read the full text in The Sunday Times.

    This revelation is definitely worth another thread on WUWT.

  107. Sunday, Bloody Sunday. It’s good to see the UK dead tree press slowly waking up to this and more sceptical articles appearing. Perhaps we have finally reached an AGW tipping point, and the public is finally waking up to how man-made warming has been man-made to enrich the few and impoverish the many.

    Must admit I was looking forward to AR5, which promised even more dramatic global meltdown scenarios. But I suppose that’s getting difficult to assemble given the number of lead authors under investigation.

  108. “Andrew30 (22:53:21) :

    Sorry I missed a step;

    Carbon Trading-> Halcrow Consulting-> WWF->CRU->IPPC

    So, solve and simplify

    Carbon Trading-> WWF->CRU->IPPC
    Carbon Trading-> CRU->IPPC
    Carbon Trading-> IPPC

    Carbon Trading-> IPPC->Carbon Trading

    Halcrow Consulting, was a step I was missing. I should have look more closely at the WWF, I had been looking as the fuel and battery companies.”

    Andrew – do you know that one of Richard North’s charges against Pachauri is that he has a financial interest in the Indian and Chicago Carbon Trtading Exchanges.

    so you might put

    Carbon Trading -> money in the pocket of Pachauri’s institutions

  109. CodeTech (03:15:27) :

    Kicking and screaming did you say?
    Then keep up the tranquilizer shots, which is unearthing thier doings.
    The more the world knows what they have been up to, the more the leaders of the world will see thier careers flash before their eyes. Now, you KNOW that they value thier careers and esteem over anything else, even money, for power is thier drug.

  110. The main message I took from Mosher and Fuller’s “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” was that the case for climate alarmism was contrived.

    The invention of this glacier melting rate story may prompt some minds to open enough to read that book.

    I am looking forward to the arrival of “The Hockeystick Illusion.”

  111. Interesting. It shows that (naive) scientist have no idea how their output is being used by politics. It is a classical case of one sector preying upon another.

  112. Newt Love (21:44:09) :

    Great summary.

    My understanding is that the dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir is really a fight over water.

    http://www.strategicforesight.com/sfgnews_106.htm

    India currently has most of the water and Pakistan wants more.  Why would Dr. Murari Lal, an Indian, feel the need to call attention to this issue?  Did he think that the world would buy Pakistan off?  I suspect that more is going on here than has been revealed.

  113. Re
    vic (20:20:32) :
    This is not that new
    the BBC broke this story a while ago

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

    Thanks for the link Vic

    This story contains most of the elements of the recent “Glaciergate” scandal, but is dated 5 December! Perhaps most interesting is that the reported sought comment from Mr Pachauri:

    When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

    A more recent report in the TimesOnline, dated 23 January, reports thus;

    Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

    This is clearly untrue, as he commented on he matter in early December.

  114. Both Al Gore and Steve Schneider have made statements to the effect that it is ok to bend the truth because of the seriousness of the issue of global warming. This appears to be just and extension of this philosophy.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg for the Nobel winning IPCC report. Also of questionable substantiation are dangers of increased tropical storms, species extinction, and regional 30-50% reduction in food production.

    But the biggest flaw in the IPCC report is their acceptance of the fallacious argument from ignorance as scientific evidence. The IPCC accepts the argument that the fact that if climate models using natural causes cannot replicate observed warming then the warming must be caused by man.

    I discuss this further on my website http://www.socratesparadox.com.

  115. @ Midwest Mark (19:48:36) :
    Now the question is…..will any mainstream media outlet report this??

    Um, the Daily Mail *is part of the mainstream UK media, an isolated right-wing outpost perhaps, but nevertheless MSM. The Times has also been reporting the glacier story:

    UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

    UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

    Sloppy science is seeping into the climate watchdog:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6999815.ece

  116. Copenhagen’s devolution into Hypenhagen was one of the most fortunate failures in recent history.
    AGW is a pile of junk not really any different from eugenics, and as goofy as UFOology.

  117. Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

    ‘regrets any confusion caused’? Let’s get a full judicial inquiry into the operations of this WWF organization, including a full forensic audit of their finances over the past 20 years, and we’ll see how much “regret” they feel.

  118. “Bruce (05:15:27) :

    Both Al Gore and Steve Schneider have made statements to the effect that it is ok to bend the truth because of the seriousness of the issue of global warming.”

    Can we then infer that he who bends the truth the most should be the boss? That would explain Hansen’s and Pachauri’s positions….

  119. hunter (05:17:28) :

    Copenhagen’s devolution into Hypenhagen was one of the most fortunate failures in recent history.
    AGW is a pile of junk not really any different from eugenics, and as goofy as UFOology.

    Hypenhagen just turned into the Elephant’s graveyard of Lost Grant money.It is all
    going down.The SS Copenagen just got hit by the iceberg before it left the dock.
    and we will see all the rats go down the hauser.When some of the big rats get their
    tails cut off by the now betrayed media,that will be the sign that things have changed…
    The US MSM is still on the deck playing “Autumn leaves” but that will change…

  120. Write this down.,.
    Pachauri will only leave when forced to walk the plank.
    The monkey’s hand is stuck in the jar somehow. Laws of physics explain a clenched fistfull of dollars increase his hand diameter and the neck of the jar is not elastic.

    George soros wanted $100 billion from Copenhagen. His sock Puppett Joe Romm is also feeding on dirty dollars.

  121. Maybe, like Churchill said, this is not the beginning of the end – but it may be the end of the beginning. There’s still a long way to go but the venal mendacity and the “voodoo science” (thank you Pachauri!) behind AGW scares are finally being exposed, even to people who have never given any of it much thought before. You can see from their responses that people like Pachauri are still full of nervous braggadocio but clearly looking for where it’s safest to run, even if that means cutting their own pals down in the rout.

  122. Having just read Pielke’s blog on this issue, I followed his link to

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/

    where a list of WWF “evidence” used in AR4 is examined.
    e.g.
    “When the IPCC advises world leaders that “climate change is very likely to produce significant impacts on selected marine fish and shellfish (Baker, 2005)” it doesn’t call attention to the fact that the sole authority on which this statement rests is a WWF workshop project report (see the “Baker” document below).”

    Plenty more there.

  123. Is it inaccurate to say that the water of the region is threatened? The point of the report is that the glaciers are melting — is there anyone who denies they are melting, and that adds to the water woes?

    It seems more inaccurate to me to say that the glaciers are not melting if they are, and that there is no water problem, if there is. In short, the IPCC report, with errors, is more accurate than the view one gets from the first paragraphs of this column.

  124. “If it’s ok to manipulate stupid politicians with voodoo-science, why not earn some money along the way …” … and, as whipcream on top, get even a peace nobel price for it. What a smart ass.

  125. Al Gore did say, during an interview with Grist magazine that, “Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem” and “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is…”

    http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/

    Even Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff for then President-elect Obama stated in 2008, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122721278056345271.html

    And leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider said:
    “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
    ( in interview for “Discover” magagzine, Oct 1989)

    http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm

    The journalist Henry L. Mencken once said that the primary goal of political leaders is to “…keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
    (Henry L. Mencken, “In Defense of Women”, Alfred A. Knopf publishing, New York, 1922, p.53.)

    Given this perspective it does not seem cynical to expect politicians and scientists involved financially to treat good times as if they were bad in order to influence people such that they are all “clamoring to be led.”

  126. PaulH (05:29:46) :
    I agree 100%
    WWF has worked with massive funding from private, coporate and tax payer resources.
    They have been misleading their supporters.

    Keep pushing this wreck of AGW until it falls over the cliff.

  127. Clive (21:35:55) :

    But if this keeps escalating, one wonders when the folks over in Oslo will think they erred in handing out the Peace Prize to Dumb and Dumber. (Al Baby and Pachauri.)

    What would it take to have the prize rescinded?

    So far it isn’t even debated. It has never happened in the past (and this isn’t the first controversial Peace Prize), and I don’t think it is possible.

    To me it is a major embarrassment that Gore and Pachauri got that prize.

    Unfortunately, former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland, now heading the Nobel Peace Prize comittee is even dumber than “Dumb and Dumber”. Jagland is famous for resigning as Prime Minister after winning an election! He had the curious idea that if his party didn’t get the same number of votes as in the previous election (36.9%), he would resign. He won the election by a large margin, got a little less then 36.9%, and resigned. The opposition took over. We know the former PM as Thorbjørn “36.9%” Jagland these days.

  128. “Carsten Arnholm, Norway (07:18:48) :
    […]
    He won the election by a large margin, got a little less then 36.9%, and resigned. The opposition took over. We know the former PM as Thorbjørn “36.9%” Jagland these days.”

    well, at least that’s a very dumb person NOT governing you now, that sounds like a good outcome… Hilarious!

  129. @Graham Dick (22:53:49)

    That’s right, I am not a scientist and do not pretend that I know anything about climate. Anybody can read an article and pretend they have knowledge in this area. The release of the CRU-e-mails/computer codes and the admitted errors in IPCC AR4 have put the science regarding climate change is disrepute.

    We need legitimate environmental legislation and we also need R & D into Green energy. We do not need Cap and Trade based on exagerated or manipulated data.

    The fact that our politicians and main stream media ignore this is very frustrating. When are they going to wake up. The information that is being released regarding the IPCC and Dr. Pachauri should be all over the front page. The e-mails/codes themselves should also be generating articles in the press.

    We need a legitimate and honest investigation into this mess. It is our tax dollars that is being spent here and we need to know they are being spent wisely and honestly. I really feel bad for the scientists who are doing honest research and working by the rules within the scientific community ie, peer review.

    COP 16 is in Mexico this year. How can any government enact Cap and Trade legislation based on what we now know about IPCC AR4?

  130. Those estimates are the keystone of alarmism and discrediting them is what we critics should chip away at. Glaciergate, like Climategate, is comparatively small potatoes in itself in terms of its direct impact on “the science” and “the politics.”

    If we can’t take Petersburg at once we can attack the Weldon Railroad.

    http://www.craterroad.com/weldonrr.html

  131. after reading these coments reminded me of an artical about the amount of co2 increase, on the lines of 50-60% . The cause of all this warming .
    pre industrial revolution levels 380ppm & now 385ppm do the maths yourself but i make the increase @ 0.00005% give or take a nought.
    all the scientist of the world will have to bite the bullet & admit to the biggest scientific climdown since they discovered the world was not flat after all

  132. Once again, I have to jump to the end to comment before I’ve read all the others. So sorry if this has been pointed out already:

    Not only can a Nobel Prize not be rescinded, the documents relating to how it was awarded are to be kept secret for at least 50 years.

    http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/statutes.html#par10

    § 10.
    “No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize.

    Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. Should divergent opinions have been expressed in connection with the decision of a prize-awarding body concerning the award of a prize, this may not be included in the record or otherwise divulged.

    A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.”

  133. Pachauri is a liar. He was touting this nonsense even before AR4 came out. He is reported in the Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 22 July 2006 as follows:

    “R.K. Pachauri, who heads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says: “In the next 25 years half of Himalayan glaciers will be lost to warming, affecting adversely crops and people of the region.” ”

    Look at this from the London Times of January 23, 2010:

    “Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme.”

    Then look at this from December 5, 2009 before the Copenhagen summit:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stm

    “The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says…When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.” ”

    So, he is a liar. And look at this unscientific arrogance, reported in The Hindu (New Delhi) on January 22:

    “Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Friday said the chances of the U.N. panel having made more errors in its benchmark 2007 report were “minimal if not non-existent”, while again admitting the “regrettable error” that has raised questions about its credibility.”

    One can’t believe anything this clown says.

  134. tom (00:20:07) :

    If the climate will continue to cool at the current rate, the IPCC will be gone by 2035…

    They know this, they know they’re advertising a belief. They know it’s marketing, and it’s been working.

    They had hoped to have cap and trade passed and implemented quickly.

    That way, in 10 years when their alarming predictions clearly were not coming to pass, they would say, “see, we were right about CO2, we saved the world, cap and trade must continue.”

    This is a strategic investment for them, they aren’t day trading.

  135. Even I am surprised, and I’ve always VERY skeptical. But to realise just how blatant and false have been the IPCC, and its climatologists, is still a shocker.

    Just the enormity and ambition of the hoax, to con the WHOLE world and it’s governments. Just staggering.

  136. It boggles my mind to read how many of the people posting here assert that this single admission of error invalidates evrything the IPCC has written. Here is my challenge to WUWT: put together a list of what you assert is every single false claim in the IPCC 4AR, listed by report reference number (this one would be WG2-10.6.2), with a properly formatted citation that “proves” your assertion. I promise to read it int its entirety.

  137. “Norman (09:09:48) :

    It boggles my mind to read how many of the people posting here assert that this single admission of error invalidates evrything the IPCC has written.”

    Of course it doesn’t. Maybe one of their findings is actually factual. Who knows. But which one? If they bamboozle such simple facts, can they be trusted with more complicated facts? The glacier retreat and the length of a glacier can be easily verified. Complicated GCM’s and Radiative fluxes are harder to verify. They messed with the simple facts, do you trust them with the complicated ones?

  138. Well this is just great. I was READY to promote the new definition of faking data by calling it the “Mann fake”, but the list of folks who, seemingly at the same time, put forth fake data has grown so long I don’t know WHICH name to use!

  139. Norman, for the “verifying” part, read my post over on

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/highnoon-for-pachauri/#comment-298234

    this one:
    DirkH (08:39:35) :
    and this one
    DirkH (08:45:49) :
    They had a silly number like 23m/year retreat in their report (and it’s still online) for a glacier of 30km length and didn’t seem to notice that the year 2035 looks completely outlandish ON THE SAME PAGE OF THE REPORT. So much for quality. You wouldn’t let a high schooler get away with that.

  140. >>Norman (09:09:48) :
    >>Here is my challenge to WUWT: put together a list of what
    >>you assert is every single false claim in the IPCC 4AR, listed
    >>by report reference number (this one would be WG2-10.6.2),
    >>with a properly formatted citation that “proves” your
    >>assertion. I promise to read it int its entirety.

    Ha, ha, ha. Norman is a Sunday Times reporter, who wants someone else to do his work for him. Nice try Norm.

    Tell you what – you contribute $5,000 to WUWT and we shall see what we can do.

    .

  141. Let’s get something straightened out here. Glaciers that are in mountain ranges like the Himalayas are not affected by climate change (their altitude guarantees cold weather that will freeze the brass balls off a monkey). And certainly not in the 1000 year plus time frame. They are affected by weather pattern variation. To prove me wrong, you must come up with how these glaciers acted contrary to the natural weather pattern variations that occurred over these glaciers during their receding years as well as their advancing years.

    As it stands, ultra high altitude glacial receding and advancing behavior is fully explained by humidity, precipitation and temperature directly tied to weather patterns, and these are directly tied to oceanic/large water body vicinity affects, jet stream position, and regional pressure gradients.

  142. This admission continues the once “acceptable exaggeration policy” of Al Gore who in an interview asserts that it’s ok to “exaggerate” aka LIE to get people to act.

    Given that political leaders such as Al Gore spearheading a policy that permits deception towards political goals it’s no wonder that others follow in that culture of deception and continue with and expand upon the lies and exaggerations towards political goals such as the Alleged AGW Climate Change Hypothesis (AAGWCCH).

    What is really shocking is that scientists would participate in the propagation of lies. At least shocking to those of us with some sense of integrity, honesty and professional ethical standards of conduct.

    I invite you to send Al Gore’s Al Gore’s quote to your elected officials along with your comments about acceptable standards for scientists and politicians that exaggeration and distortion of important issues is an unacceptable form of FRAUD that must be stopped, and those attempting to use public monies or monies raised from such FRAUDS be prosecuted.

    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/11/08/when-scientists-fail-to-present-all-the-known-facts-including-the-ones-that-contract-their-hypothesis-they-become-propagandists-and-bad-scientists

    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/17/there-is-a-100-chance-that-al-gore-will-get-it-wrong-again-and-again-and-again-since-he-intentionally-exaggerates-lies-and-distorts-the-science-to-promote-his-vested-business-interests-in-blood

  143. Norman (09:09:48) :

    It boggles my mind to read how many of the people posting here assert that this single admission of error invalidates evrything the IPCC has written. Here is my challenge to WUWT: put together a list of what you assert is every single false claim in the IPCC 4AR, listed by report reference number (this one would be WG2-10.6.2), with a properly formatted citation that “proves” your assertion. I promise to read it int its entirety.

    Actually Norman, it’s up to the IPCC to show it’s assertions are correct. The scientific method dictates that. Scientists are supposed to be from Missouri (the “Show Me” state) and are not supposed to accept something as correct just because some supposed authority publishes a paper.

  144. dkkraft (22:12:19) said:

    “I just posted this over at Real Climate…. lets see if it gets through.”

    Looks like they censored you main post and only include this:

    “485. Sorry for the spelling. I meant:

    If Dr. Lal is quoted correctly he is admitting the use of Propaganda…..

    Comment by dkkraft — 24 January 2010 @ 1:29 AM”


  145. john pizzey (08:01:46) :

    after reading these coments reminded me of an artical about the amount of co2 increase, on the lines of 50-60% . The cause of all this warming .
    pre industrial revolution levels 380ppm & now 385ppm do the maths yourself but i make the increase @ 0.00005% give or take a nought.

    On top of that, there are BIG seasonal and latitudinal variartions … one size does NOT fit all …

    NONE of these pro-AGW/AGW supporters will point this out, instead, they point unceasingly to Mauna Loa data (which also shows some seasonal variation in CO2, but which is GREATER to my eye over the continental Northern hemisphere).

    Pick a site and see: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/ and this is not to indicate how CO2 can vary on a local level, at ground level say, throughout a day.
    .
    .

  146. In my opinion, this is simply not good enough on the part of the WWF. I give them credit for something I am just not sure how much they deserve. This is simply basic PR spin 101. As for Dr. Lal, Pahauri and the others, nothing short of their resignations and a complete and independent review of all their work will satisfy me. His reasoning, that since the other reviewers did not pick up the errors, it was permissible (license) to violate the principals the reports was being written under, tells me these people all need to take Ethics 101. I am not prepared to give Lal license to try and shift blame to others on his. I am prepared to question the process of internal review and the selection of reviewers.

    The ends, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, still can not be twisted to justify the means, no matter how noble we may believe them to be.

  147. The Nobel Peace Prize committee even noted the Himalayan glaciers melting during the ceremony. From link here:

    http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2007/presentation-2007/

    “Processes that have been going on for a long time are accelerating. The ice is melting more rapidly in the Arctic, the desert is spreading more quickly in Africa, the glaciers are shrinking in the Himalayas.”

    And Pachauri himself cited the Himalayan glaciers during his Nobel lecture here:

    http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2007/ipcc-lecture/

    “Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and the changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world’s population currently lives.”

    So the Himalayan glacier story was a prominent part of the story yet no one checked. Amazing.

  148. I don’t believe anybody has commented on this particularly shocking aspect of the IPCC glacier debacle as reported in the Times:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

    “But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”

    Professor Hasnain, who was not involved in drafting the IPCC report, said that he noticed some of the mistakes when he first read the relevant section in 2008.

    That was also the year he joined The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Dr Pachauri.

    He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.

    He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time.

    “I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?” ”

    So, it appears that a scientist who knew the report was rubbish kept quiet because he worked for Pachauri and because you do not point out mistakes if you know the might of the IPCC. This chimes perfectly with the atmosphere of bullying, intimidation and jobs for the boys revealed in the CRU emails.

    I am amazed that the grown-ups of the scientific community (mathematicians, physicists, chemists, astronomers etc) seem content to stand back and allow the reputation of science and the scientific method to be trashed in the minds of the general public. It is high time they stepped in and provided some adult supervision.

  149. Apologies if someone here has already posted this link, but just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the IPPC’s 2035 date has become a part of peer-reviewed science by being accepted as factual by some scientists. Mason Inman has started a new website, “Not in 2035″ and begins it with an annotated series of excerpted peer-reviewed science articles that use 2035 as factual. He writes that he is an American science journalist

    “currently based in South Asia. I started this site because of the revelation that a passage in a respected report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wasn’t backed up. It made a number of claims—some simple facts, some predictions of what is to come—that turned out to be baseless.

    But I was dismayed to see these mistakes repeated in other peer-reviewed papers, written by glaciologists who should have known better. So I started this site to collect examples of these mistakes, to help set the record straight.”

    See http://notin2035.com/?page_id=2

  150. AAGH! I mangled IPCC in my previous post – no less than it deserves, though. (must learn to proofread….)

  151. Not A Carbon Cow (08:55:43) :

    Exactly right.

    This surely must have been the motive driving the whole obscene AGW agenda.

    Way back in Kyoto and beyond, the TEAM knew full well about natural climate cycles. They knew that we were in for a cooling stage of the cycle. If only, by fair means or foul (especially that) the TEAM could bully the world into locking into emissions cuts in time, the TEAM would take the credit for the inevitable cooling.

    It is difficult enough putting this despicable fraud down as it is. Had the TEAM succeeded in their evil aims, the world would have been enslaved to this scam forever.

    As the saying goes, “eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.” Thank God for the vigilant!

  152. M. Simon (07:51:24) :

    Aye to that.

    Or death by a thousand cuts? Depends how big. And these are glacial!

  153. Are you all mad?
    Spring is coming earlier, Autumn later, species that require warmth are being found further from the equator. Glaciers are melting. Climate is being disrupted, food production in many countries is reduced, etc. etc.
    Yet all you bloggers desparate to shrug off responsibility for looking after the planet, pick on every trivial item to create a great furore.
    So called “climategate” 13 years of private e-mails and half a dozen trivial statements of doubtful meaning.
    OK so glaciers are not melting as fast as was thought and Ok someone failed to pick it up that the source for the idea was not very reliable. Big deal!
    But don’t reject the big picture, don’t stick you head in the sand and pretend that nothing is happening. Take some responsibility.

    REPLY: I drive an electric car, in fact I have TWO now. What do you drive? – Anthony

  154. Skepshasa (06:42:49) :

    Good work in collating relevant cites. In the end, are you agreeing with Mencken’s perspective? Surely not. Alarmism may be an expectation of political leaders, but it does not excuse it. Mencken may think it’s their job. That’s only his view. Rather, it’s the job of the electorate to demand integrity, competency and transparency of their leaders. Nothing less. That’s what is happening now the world over. Thank God it is.

  155. Tony Hamilton (14:25:10):

    Are you all mad? … don’t stick you head in the sand and pretend that nothing is happening.

    I’ll supplement my usual advice to take an aspirin and lie down until the fever passes: add a generous slice of chocolate cake. It’s hard to get riled up with full tummy and a sugar high.

    None of us is pretending that ‘nothing is happening.’ The climate naturally fluctuates. Constantly. Always has, always will.

    Your job is to provide solid empirical [real world] evidence showing that any changes are the result of anthropogenic CO2. Good luck.

    We now return you to your regular programming.

  156. Tony Hamilton (14:25:10) :

    “Spring is coming earlier, Autumn later….” blah blah.

    Are you mad, mate?

    Climate changes. Naturally. In cycles. Big freezes go and they have come.

    Do some reading.

  157. Tony Hamilton,
    You can help the twenty-two people that have joined you in taking glogal warming seriously by sharing the truth with them. You obviously have a good heart and care about your fellow humans. Open your eyes and read everything you can about the false science. Many millions will die needlessly if we abandon the science of our parents and fall for the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming… Hang around awhile and listen to the cooler and wiser heads of the physicists, geologists, meteorologists, statisticians and yes climatologists who frequent this site. You are always welcome here.
    Mike

  158. Roger Knights (01:30:06) :
    “No, that was just a first guess as to where the mistake had come from,
    because someone noticed the 2305 number and speculated that a
    transposition had been made. Now we know the true source, the
    Hasnian cliam via the New Scientist report via WWF, because the
    footnote in AR4 referenced the latter, and the parties involved in
    making and reporting the claim have disclosed what went on.”

    Roger you have ruined everything for me. I had read through most the post when I came to Crosspatche’s explanation of the number. His comment based on an 1996 Russian study meant that the whole of the IPCC position on Global warming was just a typographical error. It meant that the real effects of Global Warming won’t happen until 2350. I was relieved. Then you undermined my comfort. Now it is just a lie and I have to wait until all of the voodoo science is uncovered. Well thank God for WUWT. I hope and pray that in my remaining lifetime, I am 75 years, that the rest of the hoax will be revealed for what it is, a huge money grabbing scheme.

  159. According to an AP story:
    “The scientists are investigating how the forecast got into the report and apologized Thursday for the mistakes, adding that they were not intentional. But the errors have opened the door for attacks from climate change skeptics.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html

    NOT INTENTIONAL? They not only lied in the report, they attempted to lie to cover their rear ends. There needs to be some accountability. Heads need to roll.

  160. RichieP (05:15:32) :

    Also, a Sunday Times report on the issue is included in The Australian.

    My observation has been that The Australian newspaper has been slow to acknowledge the elephant in the room. A bet each way seems to be its present position. For example, our own chief alarmist and shrill denier-damner cited in the article was, just yesterday, chosen by The Australian as its Australian of the Year! It was he, no less, who reportedly contributed $1m to Pachauri’s shady enterprise.

    More than any other, Rudd has led the charge of the abominable AGW cause. Many here will not forget it.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-caught-out-again-on-climate-claims/story-e6frg6n6-1225823075213

  161. John Galt (10:01:21) : Actually Norman, it’s up to the IPCC to show it’s assertions are correct. The scientific method dictates that.

    John, those “assertions” are found in each and every page of the IPCC report as a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific report (the single, non-peer reviewed exception being the WWF reference in WGII ch 10, section 6.2).

    Scientists are supposed to be from Missouri (the “Show Me” state) and are not supposed to accept something as correct just because some supposed authority publishes a paper.

    If you are not satisfied with the the reference note, you can go directly to the cited publication. The IPCC authors have read and debated their assigned areas. They leave behind as the evidence of that fact their comments:

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/AR4/ar4review.html

    If your not satisfied with that, then I suggest you ask one of the IPCC 4AR authors directly how it works.

  162. Oops, there are new dots to connect! added in bold italics:
    Connecting the dots:
    + WWF puts out a Global Warming propaganda paper including alarmist claims of Himalayan glacier melting by 2035.
    + Robert Napier, former Chief Executive of WWF-UK, is made Chairman of the Board of the UK Met Office[What are the chances that Pachauri knew Napier long before the appointment?]
    + The draft chapter got a lot of comments and corrections that were dismissed or ignored. Dr Lal, the primary author of the chapter, claimed to have never received some of them. (yeah, right!)[The ludicrous rapid glacial melt claim goes forward.]
    + Glaciologist Syed Hasnain, the telephone interview source of the original melt speculation is hired by Pachauri to work at TERI.
    + Glaciologist Syed Hasnain, working at TERI, does not offer comments, because “I don’t work for the IPCC, I work for TERI”.
    + The 4th IPCC report is released.
    + Government scientists in India decry the glacier section. Lots of glaciologists register complaints.
    + Pachauri declares the complaints “voodoo”
    + The glacial melt scare claim is used to pitch a new Himalayan glacier study. It nets $230K from the Carneghie foundation to study the social impacts of the rapid glacial melt.
    + The European Union grants $4.5 million (3 million euro) to study the retreat of Himalaya glaciers to HCRU, UKMO, and TERI
    + Glaciologist Syed Hasnain, working for Pachauri at TERI, leads that new Himalayan glacial melt study
    + Intrepid reporters tracked the facts and found the “Himalayan glaciers melted by 2035″ claim is pure speculation.
    + Five errors found in one paragraph, including “Himalayan glaciers would shrink from 500,000 km^2 to just 100,000 km^2,” when in fact, Himalayan glaciers currently cover only 33,000 km^2.
    + Initally, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, lead author of the offending IPCC chapter, defended the IPCC and Pachauri. Lal reports directly to Pachauri.
    + Pachauri is assailed, and when cornered, said “… It was a collective failure by a number of people. I need to consider what action to take… I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs. Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation…” [I’m innocent, the authors and co-chairs are to blame.]
    + Lal reads the handwriting on the wall, that he is about to be the scapegoat!
    + Hoping for leniency, Lal confesses to the Daily Mail’s David Rose that
    :: the glacial melt scare was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders
    :: he was well aware the glacial scare statement did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research
    :: It related to several countries in this region and their water sources… if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action…
    + + The intrepid reporters break the news how Pachauri (TERI) used the known to be false claim of rapid Himalayan glacier melts, to secure huge grants for CRU, UKMO, and TERI.

    I’m just waiting for the 1,000 other shoes to drop.

    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow: Modeling, Simulation & Analysis

  163. Oh, Boy! This is rich!
    Re: Peter Wilson (05:11:43) :
    > [The Beeb] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
    > … dated 5 December… sought comment from Mr Pachauri:
    > When asked how this “error” could have happened,
    > RK Pachauri… said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
    >
    > A more recent report in the TimesOnline, dated 23 January, reports
    > Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes
    > until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago…
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
    >
    > This is clearly untrue, as he commented on he matter in early December.

    = – = – = – = – = – = – =
    How FUNNY! A Railroad Engineer who has no clue how clocks, watches, or calendars work! Even Mussolini would have fired Pachauri!

    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow… yadda yadda yadda

  164. Norman (15:48:52) :

    (the single, non-peer reviewed exception being the WWF reference in WGII ch 10, section 6.2)

    The IPCC also included non-reviewed material in its claim about the rising cost of extreme weather events. The Times just had a story on this, which is discussed in this more recent thread on WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/for-the-ipcc-ar4-weather-events-are-climate-looks-like-another-retraction-is-needed/

    If you churn through the other threads here (I have 12 tabs open to follow them all, but I lose track of what’s where) you’ll find documentation or links of other non-reviewed citations. One site has focused on documenting all the IPCC’s references to WWF articles, of which there are quite a few.

    I note your dismay in your first comment about the over-statement here and the willingness to dismiss the IPCC’s reports root and branch, or to claim or imply that these recent bloopers discredit all else. This wildness is an unfortunate but natural tendency in the majority of intense controversialists. We should give the devil his due. (For instance, if we are going to defend Plimer by saying that the bloopers in his book don’t discredit the rest, we should be willing to consider that there’s lots that’s OK in AR4.)

    I think, or hope anyway, if a poll were held, the center of gravity on this site would not go too far overboard on the implications of these latest scandals.

    Even if they did, try to “take what you can use, and let the rest go by.” There are lots of plums here.

  165. @ RichieP (06:04:08) :
    Having just read Pielke’s blog on this issue…
    “When the IPCC advises world leaders that “climate change is very likely to produce significant impacts on selected marine fish and shellfish (Baker, 2005)” it doesn’t call attention to the fact that the sole authority on which this statement rests is a WWF workshop project report (see the “Baker” document below).”

    = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – =
    There are beginning to be enough “smoking guns” to fill an armory.
    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow: yadda yadda yadda

  166. Norman (15:48:52) :

    If you are not satisfied with the the reference note, you can go directly to the cited publication. The IPCC authors have read and debated their assigned areas. They leave behind as the evidence of that fact their comments:

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/AR4/ar4review.html

    If your not satisfied with that, then I suggest you ask one of the IPCC 4AR authors directly how it works.

    Here are excerpts an article, just up and linked to by Climate Depot, that bear on your implication that all is or was well in the IPCC’s procedures:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/459-new-documents-show-ipcc-ignored-doubts-about-himalayan-glacier-scare.html
    New Documents Show IPCC Ignored Doubts About Himalayan Glacier Scare
    Sunday, 24 January 2010 14:36
    By David Holland
    [Excerpts]

    Readers might recall Dr Pachauri telling an Australian TV audience:

    “Every stage of the drafting of our report is peer reviewed, and whatever comments we get from the peer review process are posted on the website of the IPCC, and the reasons why we accept or reject those comments are clearly specified. Where we accept a comment we say, “Yes. Accepted.” Where we don’t, we have to adduce very clear reasons why the authors don’t agree with the comment. So it’s a very transparent process.”

    I will discuss this “transparent process” and these “IPCC standards” and consider whether this is another case of Dr Pachauri’s claims not matching reality. But first It might be noted that one of the four Coordinating Lead Authors for the Chapter was Indian scientist Dr Murari Lal, who wrote on 22 January:

    “This is more about a systematic failure of the (IPCC) review process. The… conclusions were sent to hundreds of scientists and governments… and no one raised any doubts… then.”

    As will be shown he is right to say that it is a systematic failure of the IPCC review process, but entirely wrong to say no one raised any doubts at the time. Doubts were raised, as I will detail, by Government, Expert Reviewers and the Deputy Head of WGII TSU (Science), Clair Hanson, who all submitted comments to the Lead Authors, but were ignored.

    That such a basic error could be ignored, is because the IPCC review process is not as Dr Pachauri suggested in Australia and nothing like the “strong interactive peer review process”, which the American delegation stressed the need for at the first meeting of the IPCC in 1988. Despite being promoted as the guarantor of the quality of IPCC Reports, the current review process is its Achilles’ heel.

    The Government and Expert Reviewers are asked to read the draft text and, by email, send comments on each line should they wish. In the first, second and third IPCC assessments, that was the last the Reviewers saw of their comments unless they made a trip to an “open archive” at some location designated by the IPCC Secretariat. In May 2008 I asked the IPCC Secretary where these archives are but received no reply. However the curator of the Littauer Library at Harvard has confirmed he does have the Working Group I “open archive” for the Third Assessment Report in paper form in eight unindexed boxes.

    This is how the IPCC planned to archive the drafts, comments and responses of the last assessment until freedom of information requests forced their online disclosure. The archives are now available for the public despite the IPCC and not because of them. They are not at, and have never been at, the “the website of the IPCC” as Dr Pachauri claims.

    Accordingly up till now Lead Authors could be confident that the Expert Reviewers would not find out if their views had been accepted until they read the revised text months later when they could do nothing about it. The Lead Authors could also be fairly certain that no one would look to see if there had been an appropriate response to Reviewers’ comments.
    ……………..

    Now I will show what Reviewers said and Lead Authors responded. While the Reviewers are named we are not told who actually wrote the responses.

    The contentious 2035 date appears in the paragraph from lines 13 to 17 on page 46 of the second order draft of Working Group II. The only changes to the draft text in the finally published text are the removal of a short redundant sentence and the addition the reference to (WWF, 2005).
    David Saltz, of the Desert Research Institute, Ben Gurion University made three comments on this short paragraph including one upon the obvious inconsistency of saying first that the likelihood is very high that Himalayan glaciers will “disappear” by 2035 if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate, and then stating “Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035”. The Lead Author’s response to the comment on inconsistency was:
    “Missed to clarify this one”.

    The Government of Japan commented rather more critically:

    “This seems to be a very important statement, possibly should be in the SPM, but is buried in the middle of this chapter. What is the confidence level/certainty? (i.e.“the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing is very high” is at which level of likelihood? (ref. to Box TS-1, “Description of Likelihood”). Also in this paragraph, the use of “will” is ambiguous and should be replaced with appropriate likelihood/confidence level terminology.”

    The Lead Authors’ response to Government of Japan was:
    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.

    From what I can see the Lead Authors found none appropriate.

    The paragraph, following the 2035 claim and table 10.10, begins:

    “The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.”
    Hayley Fowler from Newcastle University commented with citations:

    “I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding – and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in precipitation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.’s 2005 Nature paper here – this seems very similar to what they said.”

    The Lead Authors responded:

    “Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version”

    The Government of Japan again noted the lack of any reference and commented rather critically:

    “This statement lacks any reference. Also, the reader wonders, are “global warming” and “climate change” interchangeable? Are we still using “global warming”? Clarification of this would be appreciated.”

    “The use of “will” (again) is ambiguous. The confidence level using IPCC terminology should be stated.”

    The Lead Author’s response to Government of Japan was once again:

    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.

    But once again none were made either in response to Hayley Fowler or the Government of Japan.

    For the IPCC TSU, Clare Hanson commented that there was only one reference for the whole section. This was Hasnain, 2002. To Clare Hanson the Lead Authors’ response was:
    “More references added”.

    So far as I can tell only Shen et al., 2002 and WWF, 2005 were added.

  167. mandolinjon (15:05:57) :

    Roger you have ruined everything for me. I had read through most the post when I came to Crosspatch’s explanation of the number. His comment based on an 1996 Russian study meant that the whole of the IPCC position on Global warming was just a typographical error.

    It’s worth noting, for the record, that the notorious Seth Borenstein of the AP is spinning the story this way, in order to characterize the IPCC’s blunder as inadvertent rather than deliberate, as is a reporter for NPR.

    It meant that the real effects of Global Warming won’t happen until 2350. I was relieved. Then you undermined my comfort.

    Just because the date from the Russian paper wasn’t transposed doesn’t mean that the 2350 date is thereby wrong. It’s truth or falsity is independent of someone else’s misconstruction or misuse of it.

  168. DirkH (10:26:47) :

    Oh BTW Norman made me curious and i trawled a little through IPCC AR4. They have a case study for the legendary heatwave of 2003:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-6.html#12-6-1

    So if one heatwave is important enough to make it into the IPCC AR4 we should be more than justified here to examine the recent arctic blasts and cold records… weather IS climate, the IPCC says so!

    On August 6 2003 Stephan Singer from WWF also showed their bias towards ‘extreme heat events’ and wanted a report by an economist on the European heatwave to show all the negative effects of a warming event.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=350&filename=1060196763.txt

    The process is all one way isn’t it? …..a quote…..

    …can you advise us on a competent author who is readily
    available [can be one of you, of course], to bring together the
    conventionally accessible costs of reduced transport loads on rivers, in
    railway networks, forest fires, disruption of water supply and
    irrigation, closure of hydro power and even nuclear in some locations,
    health costs, agricultural failures [if accessible] etc
    etcetc…resulting from the heat wave?

  169. Norman (15:48:52) :

    (the single, non-peer reviewed exception being the WWF reference in WGII ch 10, section 6.2)

    Here’s another one:

    The IPCC scandal: the African data was sexed up, too

    Andrew Bolt — Monday, January 25, 2010 at 09:16am

    Yet more evidence that the IPCC cooked the books. Here’s its 2007 claim that global warming could devastate African agriculture:

    In other [African] countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period…

    In fact, that claim comes from a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper which looked at just three African countries, and was produced by a sustainable development lobby group. How did this end up as IPCC gospel?

    Call in the auditors. Now.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_ipcc_scandal_the_african_data_was_sexed_up_too/

  170. @ Norman (09:09:48) :
    > It boggles my mind to read how many of the people
    > posting here assert that this single admission of error
    > invalidates evrything (sic) the IPCC has written.
    > Here is my challenge to WUWT: put together a list of
    > what you assert is every single false claim in the
    > IPCC 4AR, listed by report reference number
    > (this one would be WG2-10.6.2), with a properly
    > formatted citation that “proves” your assertion.
    > I promise to read it int (sic)its entirety.

    Norman
    W.r.t. your challenge to WUWT:
    * A priori, it is incumbent upon those who proclaim the alarm, the IPCC, to prove their claim. It is not a requirement on us to disprove the unproven claims of those who claim the preposterous, namely the IPCC.

    * We skeptics are in the camp of those who believe previous science is still accurate. The IPCC, HCRU, UKMO, and Penn State are in the camp that predicts cataclysmic destruction of the earth if massive economic and 1st-world lifestyle changes are not IMMEDIATELY implemented, namely turning the control of the earth and our “carbon economy” over to a UN appointed panel to govern the world, who will push edicts on all nations, who MUST comply.

    Honestly, that control would be tempting, if that UN panel could order Muslim countries to jail all terrorists and allow religious freedom to Jews and Christians, and all others, in their Muslim countries and the world-over. I say that as a Lakota (an American Indian that you will know as “Sioux” like Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and Red Cloud), so don’t jump to religious and ethnic conclusions with me.

    Now to your post:
    (1) Prove to you… Forget it! You are some anonymous “Norman.”
    I have nothing to prove to you. I’m a Technical Fellow, using my real name, with a lot of international respect of my peers. I couldn’t care less what some anonymous personage such as yourself thinks about anything. My colleagues here on the blog have nothing to prove to you. You are a twit!

    (2) We have been listing the infractions. You want a complete itemized and referenced list given to you as if you were a Lord Judge Inquisitor who could make a decision and cause an effect? If you are a person in authority, I and my mates might put that together for you. Barring that, you aren’t worth the trouble. Until use prove you are someone we might want to impress, why don’t you read the last 6 months of blogs and do your own homework?

    (3) This blog is democratic… we are all equals, so you get to research like the rest of us. I learned what I know about AGW, GW and Climate Change–Climate Scientology is more like it–on my own, just like everyone else, so you need to research the following to learn the truth on your own:
    (A) rapid glacial melt, Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035, is a complete fraud.
    (B) 30% of existing species will become extinct in the near future from AGW is a complete fraud. The IPCC asserts it without prviding the peer-reviewed papers that list the species and thereby determine the 30% number.
    (C) Crop failures from drought. Yeah, right! Precipitation is no longer happening, just like the IPCC says. Bullshirt. Why don’t you ask the IPCC to prove their claims instead of asking us to prove our assertion that the earth will continue much like it has for 100s of thousands, even 100s of millions of years?
    (D) The bogus claims, even admitted to be bogus by Pachauri, of rapid Himalayan glacier melts were used to seek $$,$$$,$$$ grants to study something that isn’t even happening.
    (E) CO2 rise lags the rise in global temperatures. Look up “glacial ice cores” for Greenland and Antarctica, and the gas chromatographic analysis before you look as stupid as the AGW folks. The AGWs claim the CO2 rise forces a rise in temperature. Hence, the 20th century humans were evil, and burned gasoline and coal, and made CO2, and heated the planet, and if we don’t stop, we will scorch the earth to death. Meanwhile, the historic, millions of years of ice core data say that the CO2 rise happens after the temperature rises. So, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, James Hansen, et al, all the way to Pachauri want the whole world accept that their claimed effect happens before the cause. How stupid do you, and your AGW cronies think we are?

    I forgot… you’re a twit.

    And you want us to list the total number of infractions so that you can decide for your little-old-self if the skeptics have a point?

    Go back to your little corner and pleasure yourself with your self-delusions of mediocrity. We real folks have important work to do.

    If you choose to drop the anonymity, and indeed you are someone of import, I will be glad to assist you in your journey of knowledge and truth.

    Until then, shut up and read the blogs, published material, and referenced journal articles. Then, when you know more than a slug, try posting again.

    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow: Modeling, Simulation & Analysis

  171. @ Pamela Gray (09:54:59) :
    > Let’s get something straightened out here.
    > Glaciers that are in mountain ranges like the Himalayas
    > are not affected by climate change (their altitude guarantees
    > cold weather that will freeze the brass balls off a monkey)…
    > They are affected by weather pattern variation…
    > ultra high altitude glacial receding and advancing behavior
    > is fully explained by humidity, precipitation and temperature
    > directly tied to weather patterns, and these are directly tied
    > to oceanic/large water body vicinity affects, jet stream
    > position, and regional pressure gradients.

    So, glacial phenomenology are more akin to Boyle’s Gass Laws than Mann-made Global Warming Hockey-Sticks?

    I’m not surprised!
    * Boyle was a classical physicist who worked in a laboratory and derived Natural Law from experiments.
    * Michael Mann, Phill Jones, et al, are charlatans who derived attempts at coerced Economic Law out of Invented Models that don’t even track well to their falsified data, and they DESTROYED the original data, which is–in my mind–a crime against humanity.

    Pamela, you should be the Chief Scientist of the reconstituted IPCC, under the leadership of Lord Monckton!

    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow: Modeling Simulation & Analysis
    Published mystery author (sold 3 novels to 2 publishers)
    Published classical music composer (sold a cantata for double choir and cathedral organ, and working on 2 operas)
    Artist (painter, sculptor, and photographer, with a few awards here and there)
    Former assistant chef in a 4-star French-Swiss restaurant
    “The most famous person nobody has heard of.”

  172. Richard Henry Lee said:

    The Nobel Peace Prize committee even noted the Himalayan glaciers melting during the ceremony. From link here:

    http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2007/presentation-2007/

    “Processes that have been going on for a long time are accelerating. The ice is melting more rapidly in the Arctic, the desert is spreading more quickly in Africa, the glaciers are shrinking in the Himalayas.”

    And that’s still correct, right? Can you specify any error there?

    And Pachauri himself cited the Himalayan glaciers during his Nobel lecture here:

    http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2007/ipcc-lecture/

    “Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and the changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world’s population currently lives.”

    Also correct. Are there any contrary data?

    So the Himalayan glacier story was a prominent part of the story yet no one checked. Amazing.

    It’s also amazing that you think someone checking the facts would have discovered something different. Clifford Irving was a fraud, you know. His book was loosely based on actual events, but it was a fraud. Irving was convicted of a crime and did some jail time.

    That doesn’t change the fact that Howard Hughes lived, loved, made oodles of money, and was very bizarre in his later years.

    Were it true that everyone involved in the e-mails had hoaxed up all their data — and that’s not even close to a possibility; there’s no allegation that they hoaxed any data — that would not change the facts. Deserts are spreading, ice is melting glaciers are disappearing.

    This is reality. We need to deal in reality.

  173. @ Tony Hamilton (14:25:10) :
    > Are you all mad?
    > Spring is coming earlier, Autumn later, species that
    > require warmth are being found further from the
    > equator. Glaciers are melting. Climate is being
    > disrupted, food production in many countries is
    > reduced, etc. etc.

    Tony, Tony, Tony,
    Your awareness is a decade out of date.
    Global temperatures were flat and then declining for the last decade. Google “hide the decline” and learn. The last two years of this decade are among the coldest in a very long while. Even NASA and NOAA admit it.

    You and your liberal arts friends didn’t bother with math and science beyond the minimum required for your major. Or perhaps you are one of the Hollywood folks that don’t need to understand science to the level of a hair-dresser (that has to know chemistry to pass the State-Boards). Let me help you out:

    Just because the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age doesn’t mean it will always get warmer. We have millions of years of ice core data that show that the earth has gone through many ice ages and inter-glacial periods. Maybe you’ve heard of them?

    Well, most of the inter-glacial periods were about 1 to 2 thousand years long. The one were are in now–all of human civilization since “coming out of the trees”–is just over 12 thousand years long. This current inter-glacial period is an anomaly. It shouldn’t be this long. Statistically speaking, we should already be in another ice age.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like warm weather! I love to surf bare-back and sail barefoot in shirt-sleeves. But seriously, the Midaevil Warm Period (MWP)–which your AGW heroes had to delete from their data to get their “Hockey Stick”–really did happen and was much warmer than now. How did those folks in the middle-ages make it so warm without automobiles, trains, aeroplanes and many huge factories burning fossil fuels and coal, and millions of homes using electricity from coal-powered plants. Henry the 8th and his contemporaries must have had some secret CO2 production facility to get it so warm that they could grow oranges and red grapes in England and have grain agriculture in Greenland. But wait, that is improbable.

    Then the MWP ended. Henry the 8th and the Pope must have ordered everyone to stop burning fossil fuels, because the Little Ice Age set in. Songs like “Good King Wenceslaus” were written about the freezing cold conditions that were not heard of in living memory. But wait, such an IPCC-like control of greenhouse gasses at the end of the MWP is also very improbable.

    Then, after a few hundred years, it started to get warmer, even before the Industrial Revolution got going. Even using Phil Jones’ and Michael Mann’s cooked books data, we see that warming didn’t happen through the industrialization that led up to WWI. Indeed, the 1960s were more about Free Hippy Love-ins than warming earth. Newsweek published reports in 1976 that stated NOAA scientists emphatically promised that we all were about to enter a new ice age, if mankind didn’t stop burning gasoline and coal.

    Then, when the sun woke up from a long slumber, the earth started to heat up. I liked it, because in the 1980s, I was a long-haired surf bum, chasing big surf wherever I could find it.

    In the 1990s, this warming was seized on by the environmental movement to prove that man was heating the planet. Sadly, real science disproves this, but it doesn’t matter to folks like you.

    You remind me of a friend who fell in love with a stripper. We tried to warn him that she was lying, and only after money. He wouldn’t hear it. He was too in love with “how hot she was” to listen to reason. A few years later, she was gone, and he was bankrupt with several venereal diseases, yet he still moaned about how hot she was.

    Like the stripper, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et all up to Pachauri are only really interested in the money (and power). They don’t really care about you and our environmental causes. Otherwise, Pachaury wouldn’t be building coal-powered electric plants in India et cetera and despite the increased CO2, making money of the Carbon-Offset Credit trades. If they were real environmentalists and believed CO2 was bad, they would not build the plants at all.

    You, like my friend who loved his stripper, are similarly saturated with the dream, in this case, the nobility of environmentalism. As a Lakota (American Indians called “Sioux”) I too am deeply reverent of EarthMother. Protecting her is among our highest callings.

    That does not allow us to embrace lies to accomplish the protection of EarthMother. Using bad science from lying “scientists” attracts negative energy to our environmentalist causes. Please do not dishonor our cause by embracing the lies of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et cetera, all the way up to Pachauri and the IPCC.

    Let’s separate the protection of the environment (and the discussion of the earth’s population, and the impact of the human species) from the subject of global warming, which frankly is DOMINATED by the sun’s energy.

    When the sun is cooking, the earth is hot. When the sun slumbers, the earth is cool. No matter how much you want to believe in Santa Claus or man-made global warming via CO2, it isn’t true. No matter how effective the propaganda was at selling AGW, it just isn’t true. As long as you and other environmentalists cling to the false science, you will hurt our cause of protecting the earth.

    Don’t you see how, by clinging to this now disproven AGW line, you are opening the door for people to ridicule us as backward idiots who will lie to accomplish our goals. That may cost us in the public arena. We have worked so hard since the 1960s to attract popular support. Don’t ruin that!

    Drop the stupid scientists that lied to us. Huddle up and regroup. Rethink the strategy, and try again. Believe me, I am with you on protecting EarthMother, but as a Lakota–an honor culture–I cannot sacrifice my integrity to accomplish a short-term gain. As both a Lakota and a scientist, I must enhance my honor by choosing to embrace the truth, even if the lie is more convenient to use. Choosing the convenient lie was Al Gore’s mistake, and his rapidly waning credibility will soon have him so disgraced that he will not be able to help a public cause again.

    So, please do not accuse us WUWT scientists of sticking our heads in the sand, when it is you who are doing so. Four years ago, I began predicting that real science led to a conclusion that we are about to enter a deep cooling cycle. I was proven right, along with Piers Corbyn, a lot of Russian and Norwegian scientists. The next few years will be colder than this year.

    You are the one that needs to wake up.

    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow: Modeling Simulation & Analysis
    Published mystery author (sold 3 novels to 2 publishers)
    Published classical music composer (sold a cantata for double choir and cathedral organ, and working on 2 operas)
    Artist (painter, sculptor, and photographer, with a few awards here and there)
    Former assistant chef in a 4-star French-Swiss restaurant
    “The most famous person nobody has heard of.”

  174. Ed Darrell (21:22:20) :
    …………….
    “Processes that have been going on for a long time are accelerating. The ice is melting more rapidly in the Arctic, the desert is spreading more quickly in Africa, the glaciers are shrinking in the Himalayas.”

    And that’s still correct, right? Can you specify any error there?

    Off the top of my head (I don’t keep a magazine full of ammo, so I hope others will fill in the details) the ice is melting less quickly in the Arctic in the last three years, so that’s not still correct. I’ve read that the Sahara, at least, has seen significant greening for several years, so it’s hard to believe that more browning than greening is occurring in that continent.

  175. Yesterday I sent an email to De Telegraaf (Holland biggest newspaper) about this post and guess what? It’s on their website today! The headline reads: IPCC-man: We wilden politici beïnvloeden (transl.: IPPC man: we wanted to influence politicians).

    The comments below the article speak for themselves. For those who don’t speak Dutch, I can assure you they are far from positive ;-)

  176. ‘Courage, mes amis..!’
    We have an enormous mountain to climb – the politicians and ‘warmists’ are STILL waffling on as if nothing has changed – I am still absolutely astonished that world governments (with the possible exception of China) have proved themselves to be SO naive as to swallow the Emperor’s New Clothes climate story so completely – but then again two words come to mind:
    CONTROL
    TAX.
    We in the UK seem to be one of the worst nations on the planet to be so taken in by this monumental scam – its fashionable, you see, to be riding your bike or taking your hessian shopping bag to the supermarket to ‘save the planet’ – and little Tamsin and Damian have got SUCH an interesting project at school to blackmail Mummy and Daddy into reducing their ‘carbon footprint’ (characterised as a horrible, black sticky splodge across the carpet)… Lets all forget that carbon dioxide is the life-blood of plants…
    So – lets keep up the pressure – keep pestering the mainstream press – maybe even the BBC might eventually see the light.
    The liars, schemers, and ‘thanks-I’ll-take-the-money-for-showing-the-results-you-want’ brigade have got to be hassled relentlessly – every minute, every hour, every day..!
    We can truly say: ‘We owe it to our chidren and grandchildren’…

  177. David (02:19): “taking your hessian shopping bag to the supermarket to ’save the planet’”…

    … and usually in a 4×4 in my observation! I am never sure whether to attribute it to hypocrisy or extreme stupidity.

  178. Norman (15:48:52) :

    John Galt (10:01:21) : Actually Norman, it’s up to the IPCC to show it’s assertions are correct. The scientific method dictates that.

    John, those “assertions” are found in each and every page of the IPCC report as a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific report (the single, non-peer reviewed exception being the WWF reference in WGII ch 10, section 6.2).

    Scientists are supposed to be from Missouri (the “Show Me” state) and are not supposed to accept something as correct just because some supposed authority publishes a paper.

    If you are not satisfied with the the reference note, you can go directly to the cited publication. The IPCC authors have read and debated their assigned areas. They leave behind as the evidence of that fact their comments:

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/AR4/ar4review.html

    If your not satisfied with that, then I suggest you ask one of the IPCC 4AR authors directly how it works.

    Norman,

    Which part of it’s up to the IPCC to show it’s assertions are correct. The scientific method dictates that. is it that you don’t understand?

    The mission of the IPCC and how it operates are both well known. The IPCC is not a scientific body and the majority of it’s members are not scientists. The mission of the IPCC has always been political.

    Peer review is just one step on the process and peer review is easily manipulated by controlling who does the peer review.

  179. John Galt (06:09:59) : “Peer review is just one step on the process and peer review is easily manipulated by controlling who does the peer review.”

    That manipulation taking place right now. IPCC is accepting nominations for lead authors and reviewers of AR5 from Jan 15th to March 12, 2010. But you can only submit nominations if you are one of the organizations already selected by the IPCC.

  180. Ed Darrell (21:22:20) : quotes

    “Processes that have been going on for a long time are accelerating. The ice is melting more rapidly in the Arctic, the desert is spreading more quickly in Africa, the glaciers are shrinking in the Himalayas.”

    then Ed sasks “And that’s still correct, right? Can you specify any error there?”

    There is much confusion caused by the conflation of 1) global warming 2) climate change 3) anthropogenic global warming 4) anthropogenic climate change 5) Anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming, and 6) anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change.

    The statements above about glaciers melting are most likely true. We are still recovering from the last ice age, are we not?

    What is erroneous is to show natural or cause-unknown global warming, and then jump to saying that this proves anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming.

    Ed — which of the above observed changes (arctic ice, Sahara desertification, glacial melting or the changes in rate of any of these) do you claim are caused by anything other than natural variations in climate?

  181. The statements above about glaciers melting are most likely true. We are still recovering from the last ice age, are we not?

    No. There is no natural cycle we know of to explain the rapid retreat of glaciers on every continent that we experience now.

    What is erroneous is to show natural or cause-unknown global warming, and then jump to saying that this proves anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming.

    If you have a natural cause, posit it. Do the research to show the data that the natural cause is, in fact the cause.

    I’ve not found any paper to do that, on any of these effects.

    Ed — which of the above observed changes (arctic ice, Sahara desertification, glacial melting or the changes in rate of any of these) do you claim are caused by anything other than natural variations in climate?

    Desertification in most areas has human assistance that is well documented, if not wholly human caused (the Aral Desert; cedars of Lebanon; Carthage; Babylon; west Utah). Were natural cycles consistent, we should be in a massive cooling trend now, since at least the middle of the 20th century — but we’re not seeing any significant cooling at all. Air pollution journals during the past 50 years have pondered whether we were not creating unnatural warming. That’s what the evidence tends to show, I think.

    Especially with desertification. Think Dust Bowl. Humans have been contributing to desertification in a big way for 5,000 years. We haven’t stoppped suddenly.

  182. Newt Love,

    Thanks for saying so eloquently what many of us feel (and with scientific qualifications to boot!). I know it’s a “granfalloon” but part of my Heinz 57 is Choctaw (fairly recent) and – tada haha – Pequot (Temperance Shaler, my 9th great-grandmother!).

    Keep it up, in addition to your knowledge, you know what they say about diversity! Anyway, I’ve bookmarked your site to get to know you in your other incarnations (also curious about the Swiss connection – I live in Switzerland).

    Thanks again, look forward to seeing your future comments.

  183. Ed Darrell (12:05:36) :

    ” If you have a natural cause, posit it. ”

    Alarmists own the CO2-AGW hypothesis, weak though it ever was. The onus is theirs to prove it. Applying scientific rigour, not politically inspired bias, their own efforts have soundly disproved the hypothesis once and for all.

  184. EXCLUSIVE: UN scientist refutes Daily Mail claim he said Himalayan glacier error was politically motivated « Climate Progress

    Lal’s phone number is easy to find online, and I called him myself, even though it was after midnight in India (I hoped he was on travel), but he answered it immediately.

    He said these were “the most vilest allegations” and denied that he ever made such assertions. He said “I didn’t put it [the 2035 claim] in to impress policymakers…. We reported the facts about science as we knew them and as was available in the literature.”

    He told me:

    Our role was to bring out the factual science. The fact is the IPCC has been very conservative.

  185. KLR (00:02:08) :

    EXCLUSIVE: UN scientist refutes Daily Mail claim he said Himalayan glacier error was politically motivated « Climate Progress

    Lal’s phone number is easy to find online, and I called him myself, even though it was after midnight in India (I hoped he was on travel), but he answered it immediately.

    He said these were “the most vilest allegations” and denied that he ever made such assertions. He said “I didn’t put it [the 2035 claim] in to impress policymakers…. We reported the facts about science as we knew them and as was available in the literature.”

    He told me:

    Our role was to bring out the factual science. The fact is the IPCC has been very conservative.

    He’ll be in hot water if the Daily Mail’s David Rose taped his interview with him. If Rose can prove Lal wrong, then it’ll be hard to believe Lal’s claim that he didn’t receive Kaser’s warning about the absurdity of the IPCC’s melted-by-2035 statement.

    My guess, if Rose has got him on tape, is that Lal will then spin it by saying that impressing policymakers was only a secondary consideration — hardly worth mentioning, really.

  186. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8481856.stm

    I particlarly enjoyed this bit although it needs to be taken in context:

    “A recent study for the World Bank has shown that the volume of water resulting from glacial melt in Nepal makes up less than 5% of the flows of rivers leaving the country and contributing to the Ganges downstream.

    “That is, about 95% or more of the river flow is the result of rain and melting seasonal snow,” said report co-author Richard Armstrong, a glaciologist from the University of Colorado at Boulder in the US.

    If that is true, rivers downstream of the eastern Himalayas will hardly be affected, even if the glaciers recede or disappear.”

  187. David

    There’s nothing wrong with hessian shopping bags! It surely must be a good idea to keep plastics out of landfill / the oceans / dolphins’ stomachs. Just because the evidence for global warming is dodgy, lets not throw out the enviromentally-friendly baby with the carbon-dioxide-infested bathwater.

  188. @ Veronica 03:46:54 – Serious scientific papers about the hydrology of the Himalayan basin don’t agree with the IPCC AR4 conclusions about the effect the loss of glaciers would have.

    “Role of glaciers in watershed hydrology:
    “Himalayan catchment” perspective” at http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/3/443/2009/tcd-3-443-2009-print.pdf is a typical example.

    Throughout the article are comments about how the AR4 fails to distinguish between typical alpine glaciers and Himalayan glaciers. One key difference is that in the Himalayas, the peak in precipitation comes during the summer monsoon, so peak glacier melting and peak precipitation more or less coincide.

    The low river flow season is winter, when glacier melt is not as high. This is very different than many alpine glacier systems where there is little precipitation in summer, and the summer glacier melt significantly increase the yearly summer low flow.

    The above linked article is a good review of the different sections of the himalaya and how the yearly precipitation river flows vary annually. There are really 3 different regimes, with the classic alpine being the smallest.

  189. Let us stick to facts.The rigors of scientific discipline demand ,inter alia,that a theory or hypothesis imply the kind of evidence that would prove it wrong.Predictions based on the theory are checked against the facts.If something happens that shouldn’t have,and vice versa,the theory is discarded.The principal AGW alarmists themselves lament that they cannot explain the lack of warming.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.I didn’t have to wait too long for someone to tout the widespread subzero conditions as evidence of global warming Little wonder that the ETS was comprehensively rejected in the Australian parliament.The position of purveyors of nonsense will always be untenable.

  190. I didn’t have to wait too long for someone to tout the widespread subzero conditions as evidence of global warming.

    But generally only in response to the “gee, today is cold, so the last hundred years of climate measurement doesn’t count” claims.

    Darrell’s Law of Climate Change Debate notes that any change in the weather will be touted by climate change critics as refutation of all evidence of climate change; when scientists point out that severe weather can be evidence of climate change, critics will dismiss it as “I told you they’d say that.”

    REPLY: Guess what Ed, I don’t care what you think. You warmists are becoming global laughingstocks.

    Watts law of climate change: you are being led by idiots with no scruples:

    IPCC now in Bizarroland: Pachauri releases “smutty” romance novel

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/30/ipcc-now-in-bizzaroland-pachauri-releases-smutty-romance-novel/

    Go ahead Ed, spin that to the moon !

    – Anthony Watts

  191. is there any law in UN / or EU /US to fix the deliberate liars, manipulators, and
    fixers of their own agenda as of UN…. Panel is shattering …. cracks widening
    warm world is turning ice cold..see unusual snow in NH, and glaciers are disappering by 2035..
    Great….

    must have a body to regulate filth in science

  192. Hi these liberal fanatics just are trying to create a New industrial era for Global economic power. They see this as a solution for total control of all people in all countries. The rich will get richer and everyone will be their slave, to the new rules and regulations. Wake up America ask questions and look for the truth, Hey where’s Al Gore hiding under a rock somewhere warm. He should be giving back the Nobel Peace prize. People fall for scams all the time they are blind sighted by the media and forced indoctrination in the schools where they have control in pushing their false agendas. This is just my opinion. I would be glad to be wrong but I have a gut feeling that I am correct. thanks for the opportunity to air my opinion.

  193. It seems that AGW science and journalism have both been reduced to the same modern standards and methods.
    Which are, repeat what you hear and don’t bother to check the facts or data.
    Scientitists used to test data to determine if theories were correct, now they adjust the facts to fit the theories for profiteering. ( Psuedo science ).
    Journalists used to dig for the truth of a story, now they just report hearsay, gossip and make up lies just to get into print and bolster their own beliefs. ( Psuedo journalism).
    How can we trust either anymore?
    PS. Every one who comments should end the comment with ( I want my tax dollars back from this scam) and send the same to their politicians.

  194. This reminds me of a quote, “If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it.” Adolf Hitler

    Excellent work on keeping this info out there!

  195. Al Gore should surrender his Nobel PP to the CRU hacker who saved the world trillions and from lies, deceit, fraud and burdensome taxes. Find him and crown him. We want to honor the Honorable Hacker. His services to the world and its people should not go unrewarded.

Comments are closed.