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.
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.
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.
If the climate will continue to cool at the current rate, the IPCC will be gone by 2035…
>>>Now the question is…..will any mainstream media
>>>outlet report this??
The Mail is fairly mainstream – 4 million or so direct readers.
.
What’s new here is that the head of the IPCC’s Asia group is admitting that the inclusion of a non-peer-reviewed report was deliberate, not just due to carelessness.
>>>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.
.
This unfolds like a beautiful epic poem. What a great week it has been!
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
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.
‘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.
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 😀
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
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.
Here is the link to the SBS web site, the news has just been posted.
http://player.sbs.com.au/naca/#/naca/wna/Latest/playlist/UN-climate-chief-staying-put/
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.
@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. 🙂
@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.
hotrod ( Larry L ) (23:13:34) : I like your words. Please keep us posted if you decide to be the instigator of such a program yourself.
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.
……………
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 :
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.
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.
GISS – CRU – IPCC
Axis of Fraudsters
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.
An instance of what Mencken called “the messianic delusion.”
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!
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.