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.
PS: By trying to win the battle against the skeptics by “piling on” with phony tangibles, the alarmists have lost the war, which depends on an intangible, trust. The revelations of their sloppiness, bias, and bullying, however “unimportant” in a tangible sense, are deadly in their effect on perceptions of their trustworthiness.
Another entry in a list of complete and utter farces
Say bye bye to the sunspot.
http://solarcycle24.com/
I recall reading on this site that there was a study which predicted the demise of the Himalayan glaciers by 2350, and that there was a typo in one of these review articles which transposed the 0, making the predicted year 2035.
I tried a site search and didn’t find it.
Am I nuts, does anybody else remember this?
The media are going to back out of AGW with a simple excuse — the IPCC misled us. I think we’re going to see the start of the IPCC being thrown under the bus regularly over the next weeks and months. Then the media will do what they do best — muckrake and the IPCC will be history. Of course the media will forget to remind joe public that they (the media) themselves weren’t doing their job in the first place by doing no fact checking but parroting the IPCC.
rbateman (19:25:24) : wrote
“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.”
Yes, but the sheeple have not gotten the memo yet. It will take one of their prophets being crucified on TV for them to switch to a new religion.
looked thru this whole thread and saw co2 mentioned once.
seemed like a good sign.
also found 2,035 pigs.
now i’m confused 🙂
Not to be outdone, NASA says that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2030 !
About halfway down the page on http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
It is by a photo from space of Mt Kilimanjaro. The text reads “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”, with the reference being IPCC AR4 exec summary p 5.
Although NASA doesn’t make any claims for the Mt Kilimanjaro snow cover decrease, they do imply that it is due to climate change since it is on a page titled “Evidence” with a subtitle of Climate Change: How Do We Know.
Apparently NASA knows by reading IPCC, who knows by reading World Wildlife Foundation reports, who know by reading a magazine article where one scientist’s speculation is quoted as fact.
Please note the very important correction at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm
IanM
Roger Knights (19:26:02) :
The problem with arriving at the concensus is that the current station mix is heavily biased and tampered with.
The datasets have been mangled beyond recognition, which is why the public has become painfully aware of how badly thier own weather has been manipulated. They know they are being lied to.
The rural station network has to be re-established.
It will probably take a decade or more to get a handle on where the real global temp lies.
The people who misused the public trust have to go, and there are many storied institutions that need serious housecleaning.
And last, but not least, public trust will have to be earned, and that will take time. No more hottest month ever when folks in the better part of an entire hemisphere are shaking in the cold.
Here is the email that I sent to Times editors on the day that they reported the IPCC’s false and unfounded predictions on Himalayan Glaciers in all alarming details. That day the BBC posted a report exposing the falsity of the very same claims the Times was reporting as scientific fact.
It is inexcusable that it took so long for the Times and other mainstream media to recognise and correct the error. Incidentally, many people noted the conflicting reports from the Times and the BBC on the boards of WUWT, Real Climate and other blogs. Why does it make a big splash now?
Ian, thanks, that is the article which was referenced here last month.
I wonder why the current article doesn’t mention this possible error source?
Pete (19:01:31) :
“The crook Pachauri appears to be getting a little hot under the collar!”
Yes, he seems to be a bit of a little tyrant. Not the kind of person to entrust the welfare of the world to.
Anthony, I believe this might be the root of the problem.
We have people in universities studying in science fields who do not have a grasp of 7th grade maths.
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.
NOT an expert but dim recollection from geology class was neither factor on its own, but how they combine. More snow in winter than what melts in summer = growth. Less snow in winter than melts in summer = shrink. So in theory, you could have a warmer year, but if it snows SO much that the amount that melts is LESS, you still get growth. Conversely, you could have a cooler than normal year, but get so little snow that it still shrinks.
The WWF have a lot to answer for. They have been active in this scheme all over the world. There needs to be an investigation and some light shone on their activities.
This from the folks (IPCC that is) that felt a copied Wikipedia graph attributed to the mythical “Hanno” was sufficient to meet the standards of their documents.
I am only amazed that people continue to be amazed by these revelations. Clearly the review processes at the IPCC are terribly lax.
Is it possible that I could get my hands on a little of Pachauri’s enumeration?
A little of his remuneration would also be pretty useful too!
°I would compare the IPCC to a great ship setting out on it’s maiden voyage, full of arrogant belief in its unsinkable theory, and dismissing any suggestion of prudence or caution.
The name of this ship? – The Titanic.
History will show that Landsea has made entirely the right decision to abandon the ship.
Posted by: CW at January 22, 2005 01:58 AM” (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html)
Good things take time.
It’s easier to agree than deny.
That probably comes from an exaggeration of the time when Simon denied Yeshua three times.
For some reason , it’s getting easier to become a denier and skeptic. That’s probably because deniers have a lot more company now. The people that agreed with AGW, were there because of a vested interest or by just the type of people who gravitate toward activism of that type. The rest really didn’t care either way. But the blogs and alternative media like Alex Jones and a ton of other sites, reached and have gotten to many of those who couldn’t care less and now do care, and proclaimed they are deniers. The number of active deniers now outweighs the number of active AGW agreers.
“So what has gone wrong at the Met Office? This is an organisation with some 1,500 employees and an annual budget of £170million, yet, year after year, their predictions have been less reliable than those of an alcoholic astrologer.
Some critics of the organisation have pointed to the fact that a former chairman was largely responsible for instigating the body responsible for kicking off the whole manmade climate-change theory back in the 1990s. His successor was formerly head of the World Wildlife Fund, so it’s a pretty safe bet that he is an ardent believer in the gospel according to Al Gore.”
We climate-change sceptics have our supporters, Too
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1562086/?UserKey=
Given there is now sufficient evidence that the IPCC has deliberately pushed a lie, isn’t it time to have criminal charges placed on key people there?
“crosspatch (20:22:41) :
Anthony, I believe this might be the root of the problem.
We have people in universities studying in science fields who do not have a grasp of 7th grade maths.”
That’s really quite interetsting, and strangely scary at the same time. Reminds me when I worked for a rather large, well known, computer company. Every summer we’d have Univercity level electronics students pass through on summer work experience. I recall one guy who didn’t know what an AVO was nor knew how to use a multimeter. Fairly fundamental stuff.
I wonder how many of the numerous effects of global warming are so shoddily researched. The economic models are junk, the citation for glacial extinction is one “Dr. Mrs. Cleo”, and what about the extinctions? It seems to me that I could do as well with a twenty sided dice and a piece of graph paper.
BINGO’s — big international non-governmental organizations. Joined at the hip with BIB’s — big investment banks. Funded by taxpayers (yes they are!). The Keepers of the Revolving Door. Capable of bankrupting entire nations.
We will win, but it probably won’t be this week. Because most Americans (the main villain) won’t know about the Himalaya fraud. The main media will not report it, and if they do, only in passing. A recent poll said most Americans didn’t believe in AGW, but most also knew nothing about Climategate. The reason, the main media did not report it. This past week was a huge UN/AGW/Soros/Carbon trading/Hedge fund jamboree in NYC, and the guys sent out a list of demands, including that we hurry up with some criminal scams they can make money off. The Climategate emails of April 2002 state Pachauri was a plant of the fossil fuel industry via George Bush (a little joke on the left). 2 UK newspapers have mentioned organized crime’s involvement in carbon trading. We will win eventually, but it may not be this week.