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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.”
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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
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
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.
Superb. Short and sweet, right to the point! Love it. And these comments reflect the feeling of the people. Love it!
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.
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!
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.
Good info. Where can I get more information about this. keep it coming. ta