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.
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…..
Is the WWF embarrassed enough to give back the donations they raked in using the false claim?
Let me know when that happens, okay?
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,
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!
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.
Popcorn. Beer. Popcorn. Beer.
Now this is definitely human (stupidity) induced weight gain….
Circus and bred.
LOL
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.
Sorry for the spelling. I meant:
If Dr. Lal is quoted correctly he is admitting the use of Propaganda…..
‘The science is scuttled.’
Excellent joke from the comments on Christopher Booker’s article (see above).
Keep the pressure on these guys. Someone is bound to reveal even more.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
@ur momisugly Charlie A (22:54:25). Good work! Please keep us updated.
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
Blowing in the wind! Off-topic perhaps but, as always, follow the money – a tax to blight the countryside courtesy of the UK Govt with no assurance of supply:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7061552/Wind-farm-subsidies-top-1-billion-a-year.html
And what do you do when the wind isn’t blowing? Any bets on the lights going out then at Number 10 Downing Street?
This website claims that:
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
The IPCC is a hopeless mess… time to shut ‘er down… no more money for the UN…
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.
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.
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!