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.
Am I right in saying that at that time the WWF was led by John Hirst, the man who now heads the UK Met Office and is about to be rewarded with a £200,000 bonus?
The words “Usual Suspects” seem to be hovering around here somewhere.
I just put this on Nujij.nl, a well read website in the Netherlands. Over the last few months I have noticed quite a shift in public opinion about AGW. More and more people are beginning to question whether CO2 is all that bad as it is made out to be.
There is hope yet.
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’.
Let me offer a toast here to the IPCC (in a celebrity roast):
comprehensive (How much $$$ do we get?)
objective (get the dough…and quick)
open & transparent (Tell Jim to hide the tracks)
scientific (make it up, and use a scientists interview)
technical (don’t tell me how you did it, just make it obfuscated)
socio-economic (did we mention we’re in it for the $$??)
I notice many comments saying “IPCC is corrupt” and similar…
But the IPCC is anything but corrupt. They are not, and never were, intended to find any “truth”. The IPCC exists solely to make a case that human activity is causing serious harm to the planet. They cherry-pick data at will, they ignore valid comments and objections from reviewers, and yes, they make sweeping unsupportable claims about future climate. Magically, their results show exactly what they were supposed to.
In fact, admitting what most of us posting here know WOULD be corrupt for the IPCC. They can never admit that human input to CO2 is trifling, that CO2’s influence on the climate is trifling, or that the historical temperature record is faulty (probably fraudulent, but I’ll stick with faulty). They can’t admit that the peer review system as applied to “climate science” is almost completely corrupted. They can’t admit that they have no reason to even exist, other than political. They certainly can’t ever let anyone know that THEY know that the CO2-is-driving-climate hypothesis has been disproved.
It’s not possible to pull their funding, because they are being funded by people who WANT them to come to the “conclusions” that they do.
Now, NASA… NASA we can do something about. And possibly CRU-UEA. They’re publicly funded and in theory should be answerable to a properly motivated government. Unfortunately, one of those will be extremely difficult to find at the moment, since governments are essentially being given a blank taxation cheque. And don’t count on the media, who are SUPPOSED to be the public watchdogs on these matters (things just haven’t been the same since the 60s).
Virtually everything the IPCC has released is now suspect, and virtually all Science done on the basis of IPCC reports, GISS, and CRU data has essentially been rendered useless, since the data and conclusions are suspect.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a world where that kind of justice will happen. The only way is to pull them down by their errors, omissions, deeds, and financial interests. One at a time, since they’ll each go kicking and screaming. And maybe one day the remaining structure WILL come crashing down… but not soon enough to prevent the damage they are still able to do.
The Sunday Times has followed the big money paid to the IPCC from Carnegie Trust and the EU – in detailed article here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
The chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.
It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.
The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 – an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.
Background
* Carnegie grant announcement from The Energy and Resources Institute
* EU grant announcement of research into rapid glacier melt
* How bloggers helped break the story
Related Links
* Global warming and disasters link ‘wrong’
* Sloppy science is seeping into the climate watchdog
* World misled over glacier meltdown
Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.
One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.
“UK Climate panel blunders again” Jonathan Lake in The Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
“The UN climate science panes faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.”
“IPCC knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert world leaders”.
You must read the full text in The Sunday Times.
This revelation is definitely worth another thread on WUWT.
the article best describes the future effect of temperature on earth. if this temperature continues then the end of world begins
Sunday, Bloody Sunday. It’s good to see the UK dead tree press slowly waking up to this and more sceptical articles appearing. Perhaps we have finally reached an AGW tipping point, and the public is finally waking up to how man-made warming has been man-made to enrich the few and impoverish the many.
Must admit I was looking forward to AR5, which promised even more dramatic global meltdown scenarios. But I suppose that’s getting difficult to assemble given the number of lead authors under investigation.
“Andrew30 (22:53:21) :
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.”
Andrew – do you know that one of Richard North’s charges against Pachauri is that he has a financial interest in the Indian and Chicago Carbon Trtading Exchanges.
so you might put
Carbon Trading -> money in the pocket of Pachauri’s institutions
I think
Glaciergate -> IPCCgate? or Climategate2?
Newt Love (21:44:09) :
Yep, Good assessment Newt.
CodeTech (03:15:27) :
Kicking and screaming did you say?
Then keep up the tranquilizer shots, which is unearthing thier doings.
The more the world knows what they have been up to, the more the leaders of the world will see thier careers flash before their eyes. Now, you KNOW that they value thier careers and esteem over anything else, even money, for power is thier drug.
The main message I took from Mosher and Fuller’s “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” was that the case for climate alarmism was contrived.
The invention of this glacier melting rate story may prompt some minds to open enough to read that book.
I am looking forward to the arrival of “The Hockeystick Illusion.”
Interesting. It shows that (naive) scientist have no idea how their output is being used by politics. It is a classical case of one sector preying upon another.
More IPCC riff raff:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece?token=null&print=yes&randnum=1264289604732
Newt Love (21:44:09) :
Great summary.
My understanding is that the dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir is really a fight over water.
http://www.strategicforesight.com/sfgnews_106.htm
India currently has most of the water and Pakistan wants more. Why would Dr. Murari Lal, an Indian, feel the need to call attention to this issue? Did he think that the world would buy Pakistan off? I suspect that more is going on here than has been revealed.
Re
vic (20:20:32) :
This is not that new
the BBC broke this story a while ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
Thanks for the link Vic
This story contains most of the elements of the recent “Glaciergate” scandal, but is dated 5 December! Perhaps most interesting is that the reported sought comment from Mr Pachauri:
When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
A more recent report in the TimesOnline, dated 23 January, reports thus;
Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
This is clearly untrue, as he commented on he matter in early December.
Both Al Gore and Steve Schneider have made statements to the effect that it is ok to bend the truth because of the seriousness of the issue of global warming. This appears to be just and extension of this philosophy.
This is just the tip of the iceberg for the Nobel winning IPCC report. Also of questionable substantiation are dangers of increased tropical storms, species extinction, and regional 30-50% reduction in food production.
But the biggest flaw in the IPCC report is their acceptance of the fallacious argument from ignorance as scientific evidence. The IPCC accepts the argument that the fact that if climate models using natural causes cannot replicate observed warming then the warming must be caused by man.
I discuss this further on my website http://www.socratesparadox.com.
@ur momisugly Midwest Mark (19:48:36) :
Now the question is…..will any mainstream media outlet report this??
Um, the Daily Mail *is part of the mainstream UK media, an isolated right-wing outpost perhaps, but nevertheless MSM. The Times has also been reporting the glacier story:
UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
Sloppy science is seeping into the climate watchdog:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6999815.ece
Copenhagen’s devolution into Hypenhagen was one of the most fortunate failures in recent history.
AGW is a pile of junk not really any different from eugenics, and as goofy as UFOology.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
‘regrets any confusion caused’? Let’s get a full judicial inquiry into the operations of this WWF organization, including a full forensic audit of their finances over the past 20 years, and we’ll see how much “regret” they feel.
“Bruce (05:15:27) :
Both Al Gore and Steve Schneider have made statements to the effect that it is ok to bend the truth because of the seriousness of the issue of global warming.”
Can we then infer that he who bends the truth the most should be the boss? That would explain Hansen’s and Pachauri’s positions….
hunter (05:17:28) :
Copenhagen’s devolution into Hypenhagen was one of the most fortunate failures in recent history.
AGW is a pile of junk not really any different from eugenics, and as goofy as UFOology.
Hypenhagen just turned into the Elephant’s graveyard of Lost Grant money.It is all
going down.The SS Copenagen just got hit by the iceberg before it left the dock.
and we will see all the rats go down the hauser.When some of the big rats get their
tails cut off by the now betrayed media,that will be the sign that things have changed…
The US MSM is still on the deck playing “Autumn leaves” but that will change…
Write this down.,.
Pachauri will only leave when forced to walk the plank.
The monkey’s hand is stuck in the jar somehow. Laws of physics explain a clenched fistfull of dollars increase his hand diameter and the neck of the jar is not elastic.
George soros wanted $100 billion from Copenhagen. His sock Puppett Joe Romm is also feeding on dirty dollars.