WUWT first reported on this issue on 11/11/2009 and again on 12/22/2009,with
Pachauri claims Indian scientific position “arrogant”
The head of the IPCC Dr. Rajenda Pachauri had said: India was ‘arrogant’ to deny global warming link to melting glaciers.From the Guardian article:
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.
Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.
However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”
We also reported on the finding of Texas state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon
Texas State Climatologist: “IPCC AR4 was flat out wrong” – relied on flawed WWF report
Now who looks arrogant?
It’s now taken almost a month for the Times to catch up to this issue, and now it has made MSM news. Highlights in excerpts below are mine.
The Times, January 17, 2010
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”
The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis. Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”
The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. The report read: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.
…
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”. Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.
…
Pearce said the IPCC’s reliance on the WWF was “immensely lazy” and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.
The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus over climate change. It follows the climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.
Read the full article here: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer complete collection of 642-902 dumps including 642-813 study guide to help you pass N10-004 exam on first try.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting watching the collapse in confidence in these institutions. CRU, The Met Office, and the IPCC.
So far American institutions have survived relatively unscathed, but how long will that last?
The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus over climate change.
I’ll take what I can get, but I fail to see why this glacier fabrication is more important than the ipcc allowing ~5/7ths of the World to not follow its Kyoto Protocols, etc..
When I first looked at glaciers several years ago, I found that the NASA web site itself said that there were about 162,000 glaciers on Earth and that only a few could be studied per year, so that not very much was known about them.
“Most astronomers believe that the sun has completed our latest cycle and has begun Cycle Number 24. It’s not clear exactly when the new cycle began. Solar forecasters in early 2006 predicted that Cycle 23 would end in late 2006 or early 2007, with a quick return to a very active or perhaps record solar maximum in 2010 or early 2011. But the sun didn’t get the memo. The solar minimum for Cycle 23 dragged on. The slumbering sun was not roused through 2008. In fact, the quiet sun in 2008 set some impressive records. For example, there was a 50-year low in solar wind pressure and a 12-year low in solar irradiance, resulting in a 6 percent drop in ultraviolet light.
As 2009 began, the sleepy sun was not showing any signs of waking. New predictions in early 2009 shifted the maximum of Cycle 24 to 2012. By May 2009, it was clear the sun still wasn’t acting according to plan. Cycle 24 maximum is now predicted to occur in May 2013.”
Star Gazer: Sun’s long slumber a wake-up call to Solar Scientists
http://www.nrtoday.com/article/20100117/GUESTCOLUMNS/100119797/1063/NEWS&ParentProfile=1055
Back in mid-September ’09 the idiotic Ban Ki-moon, a Korean place-holder turned Climate Cultist hoicked up to replace pathologically vicious Kofi Annan (he of the Rwandan democide), issued a Green Gang call-to-arms proclaiming that unless developed nations immediately transferred ten trillion dollars –yes, $10,000,000,000,000– to his feckless UN rodents, Planet Earth would become a baking desert by January 2010 (about fifteen weeks).
Fawning media reported this, agog, but quickly thought better of revealing stupidity in such pure form, apparently fearing this deliquescent fathead might impact prospects for a New World Order in Copenhagen come December. Nonetheless, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon remains a fan of Ozymandias. His good buddy Rajendra Pauchauri probably raked in a few 50-grand speaking fees on that one… as for TERI et al., nary a peep that railroad engineers and “climate change” are not a winning combination.
“Voodoo science,” says Pachauri? Hey, just who is the witchdoctor here? Who is the Dr. Caligari in this piece?
Reminds me a little of the story of the small town newspaper editor who found a reporter’s note saying a farmer had had 2,035 pigs stolen overnight. It seemed like an awful lot of pigs, so the editor called up the farmer and asked, “Did you have 2,035 pigs taken last night?”
The farmer replied, “Yeth, I did.”
Looks like the IPCC is melting at an unprecedented rate..
Quote: sisyphus (17:59:34) :
“…and this is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Yes, indeed!
If the spotlight of public attention melts the iceberg, at least five decades of filth will be exposed, including the very foundations of astrophysics, space and solar science.
To get all disciplines involved in restoring integrity to science, I recommend a simple, direct message to our politicians.
“STOP USING SCIENCE FOR PROPAGANDA OR STOP USING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SCIENCE !”
That’s my recommendation,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
It’s time Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman to resign, and a more open and honest person appointed to clean up the mess. If he won’t go voluntarily then the must be sacked. It should also be investigated to see if he can be charged with some criminal act given the money involved.
It may be a long bow, but right now it’s hard not to be reminded of Classical Athens:
– the misdirection of democracy by factions leading to a decline in the vigour of the polity
– the Sophists’ elevation of rhetoric and appearance over argument to truth
– the witchhunt against Socrates for speaking against conventional wisdom and for following argument wherever it leads.
Using the WWF as a source? Sadly it seems half (?) our academy has embraced Sophism, and we are reliving the conflicts of the end of the 4th Century BCE.
We can only hope the battle doesn’t have the same outcome. China as Sparta, anyone?
Any Classicists out there want to set me straight?
“Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”
It does not matter if Hasnain ever asserted this or not. The IPCC claims to be based on peer reviewed literature, he could have stood on top of the Empire State Building and shouted it with a megaphone, if it wasn’t peer reviewed it should not have been in the IPCC report, an official statement should not be needed.
This is regurgitated, debunked several months ago.
So, some Indian “scientist” performs an analysis on /some/ of the glaciers and makes wild claims.
There is visual; have a look at “Everest’s Melting Glaciers”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJ9F8WKXVU
The crook Pachauri appears to be getting a little hot under the collar!
http://www.ptinews.com/news/472747_Pachauri-accuses-UK-daily-of–sustained-vendetta-
…Seems like a great place to link to Patrick Michael’s piece on glaciers…
“..Two major lessons come from this study. One, any argument that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were confined to Europe is clearly not supported by the evidence from the Himalayan region. Two, glaciers have advanced and retreated many times in the past with absolutely no connection to humans and/or the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. To suddenly pronounce that glaciers are responding to human activities seems to disregard their behavior during periods when human activities certainly had no impact whatsoever.”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/01/04/lessons-of-the-ice/
“The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. ”
Much apart from formal scientific review, they don’t even appear to have bothered with basic fact checks. Are we to take it then that the WWF is prepared to include any unchecked claims which suit its purpose into “campaigning” reports, that is material intended to persuade people of their cause?
“Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.”
Also the IPCC appears prepared to grab any report which sounds scary enough and use it without looking too closely at its credentials, as long as it suits their purpose.
It all raises serious doubts about the integrity of these organisations.
Another chink in the IPCC armour.
Even my 80 year old mother remarked to me earlier today that she was heard on a MSM radio station that there has been a slight cooling since 2001.
What’s the sound of backing out quietly? – The door hitting their Ar$e as they make their way out.
“If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”
This is absolutely unbelievable. Prof. Lal seems to think that it is acceptable to continue to assert this unless he gets an official statement saying that it wasn’t asserted. I find it disgusting that someone who has received a professorship thinks it is acceptable to base important conclusions on opinions expressed in a magazine article. Looks like the IPCC has decided that opinions of scientists are now facts and that they are now entitled to their own facts.
New Scientist Wants an Explanation
Sifting climate facts from speculation
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527432.800-sifting-climate-facts-from-speculation.html
IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist, we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report – and it turns out that our article is the primary published source.
The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative comment for peer review – and most of his peers strongly dispute it. So how could such speculation have become an IPCC “finding” which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel’s chairman? We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked “climategate” emails.
Watching the way the UN works one can only wonder how long it will be before they go into attack mode and accuse poor Ramesh of “carelesness in publishing scientific research that was poorly documented and needlessly called into question the excellent work of reputable scientists who have so carefully documented a matter in which the science is clearly settled”
…as an aside, if it is settled, why do they need more research money?
Anyone who believes anything said by the UN, World Wildlife Fund, or Sierra Club is nuts.
The MSM is getting the hang of things.
The smell of rats caught in the very webs they have spun is like honey to a bear. The backpeddling and CYA attempts are truly remarkable.
The smart ones grabbed a life-preserver and bailed 6 mos. ago.
Pleasant dreams.
The key point about this latest “crack,” as about the preceding embarrassments for AGW, is the cloud it casts over the trustworthiness of the consensus-makers, not the degree to which it undermines the case for CAGW. Its effect on the latter is minor, as warmists will be sure to point out.
But that’s not the heart of the matter. The core of the issue is that, before we commit to divert trillions, we must have complete faith in the scientists and institutes who are advising this course. That faith has been lost, so an independent scientific “court” must re-examine the entire controversy, and give a hearing to contrarians, if popular consent is to be obtained.
Looks like there needs to be a panel to oversee the panel…
Please don’t smear the wrestlers. They make a much more honest living.
My guess, they’re busy search google scholar for a replacement report. 🙂
My understanding is that receding glaciers are less a sign of climate warming than a sign of lower precipitation. Any glacier expert care to explain whether or not I am wrong.