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.
Maybe, like Churchill said, this is not the beginning of the end – but it may be the end of the beginning. There’s still a long way to go but the venal mendacity and the “voodoo science” (thank you Pachauri!) behind AGW scares are finally being exposed, even to people who have never given any of it much thought before. You can see from their responses that people like Pachauri are still full of nervous braggadocio but clearly looking for where it’s safest to run, even if that means cutting their own pals down in the rout.
My coffee tastes remarkably pleasing this morning!
This is incredible news. Thank you for making my month!
Having just read Pielke’s blog on this issue, I followed his link to
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/
where a list of WWF “evidence” used in AR4 is examined.
e.g.
“When the IPCC advises world leaders that “climate change is very likely to produce significant impacts on selected marine fish and shellfish (Baker, 2005)” it doesn’t call attention to the fact that the sole authority on which this statement rests is a WWF workshop project report (see the “Baker” document below).”
Plenty more there.
Is it inaccurate to say that the water of the region is threatened? The point of the report is that the glaciers are melting — is there anyone who denies they are melting, and that adds to the water woes?
It seems more inaccurate to me to say that the glaciers are not melting if they are, and that there is no water problem, if there is. In short, the IPCC report, with errors, is more accurate than the view one gets from the first paragraphs of this column.
“If it’s ok to manipulate stupid politicians with voodoo-science, why not earn some money along the way …” … and, as whipcream on top, get even a peace nobel price for it. What a smart ass.
Al Gore did say, during an interview with Grist magazine that, “Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem” and “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is…”
http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/
Even Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff for then President-elect Obama stated in 2008, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122721278056345271.html
And leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider said:
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
( in interview for “Discover” magagzine, Oct 1989)
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
The journalist Henry L. Mencken once said that the primary goal of political leaders is to “…keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
(Henry L. Mencken, “In Defense of Women”, Alfred A. Knopf publishing, New York, 1922, p.53.)
Given this perspective it does not seem cynical to expect politicians and scientists involved financially to treat good times as if they were bad in order to influence people such that they are all “clamoring to be led.”
PaulH (05:29:46) :
I agree 100%
WWF has worked with massive funding from private, coporate and tax payer resources.
They have been misleading their supporters.
Keep pushing this wreck of AGW until it falls over the cliff.
So far it isn’t even debated. It has never happened in the past (and this isn’t the first controversial Peace Prize), and I don’t think it is possible.
To me it is a major embarrassment that Gore and Pachauri got that prize.
Unfortunately, former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland, now heading the Nobel Peace Prize comittee is even dumber than “Dumb and Dumber”. Jagland is famous for resigning as Prime Minister after winning an election! He had the curious idea that if his party didn’t get the same number of votes as in the previous election (36.9%), he would resign. He won the election by a large margin, got a little less then 36.9%, and resigned. The opposition took over. We know the former PM as Thorbjørn “36.9%” Jagland these days.
Class action by farmers:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/01/not-error-fraud.html
“Carsten Arnholm, Norway (07:18:48) :
[…]
He won the election by a large margin, got a little less then 36.9%, and resigned. The opposition took over. We know the former PM as Thorbjørn “36.9%” Jagland these days.”
well, at least that’s a very dumb person NOT governing you now, that sounds like a good outcome… Hilarious!
@Graham Dick (22:53:49)
That’s right, I am not a scientist and do not pretend that I know anything about climate. Anybody can read an article and pretend they have knowledge in this area. The release of the CRU-e-mails/computer codes and the admitted errors in IPCC AR4 have put the science regarding climate change is disrepute.
We need legitimate environmental legislation and we also need R & D into Green energy. We do not need Cap and Trade based on exagerated or manipulated data.
The fact that our politicians and main stream media ignore this is very frustrating. When are they going to wake up. The information that is being released regarding the IPCC and Dr. Pachauri should be all over the front page. The e-mails/codes themselves should also be generating articles in the press.
We need a legitimate and honest investigation into this mess. It is our tax dollars that is being spent here and we need to know they are being spent wisely and honestly. I really feel bad for the scientists who are doing honest research and working by the rules within the scientific community ie, peer review.
COP 16 is in Mexico this year. How can any government enact Cap and Trade legislation based on what we now know about IPCC AR4?
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.”
If we can’t take Petersburg at once we can attack the Weldon Railroad.
http://www.craterroad.com/weldonrr.html
The Hickeystick. A wet kiss from Man to the IPCC.
after reading these coments reminded me of an artical about the amount of co2 increase, on the lines of 50-60% . The cause of all this warming .
pre industrial revolution levels 380ppm & now 385ppm do the maths yourself but i make the increase @ur momisugly 0.00005% give or take a nought.
all the scientist of the world will have to bite the bullet & admit to the biggest scientific climdown since they discovered the world was not flat after all
Wouldn’t it save a lot of time to just ask the UN IPCC what in the report is true.
Once again, I have to jump to the end to comment before I’ve read all the others. So sorry if this has been pointed out already:
Not only can a Nobel Prize not be rescinded, the documents relating to how it was awarded are to be kept secret for at least 50 years.
http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/statutes.html#par10
§ 10.
“No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize.
Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. Should divergent opinions have been expressed in connection with the decision of a prize-awarding body concerning the award of a prize, this may not be included in the record or otherwise divulged.
A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.”
Pachauri is a liar. He was touting this nonsense even before AR4 came out. He is reported in the Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 22 July 2006 as follows:
“R.K. Pachauri, who heads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says: “In the next 25 years half of Himalayan glaciers will be lost to warming, affecting adversely crops and people of the region.” ”
Look at this from the London Times of January 23, 2010:
“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. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme.”
Then look at this from December 5, 2009 before the Copenhagen summit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stm
“The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says…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.” ”
So, he is a liar. And look at this unscientific arrogance, reported in The Hindu (New Delhi) on January 22:
“Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Friday said the chances of the U.N. panel having made more errors in its benchmark 2007 report were “minimal if not non-existent”, while again admitting the “regrettable error” that has raised questions about its credibility.”
One can’t believe anything this clown says.
tom (00:20:07) :
If the climate will continue to cool at the current rate, the IPCC will be gone by 2035…
They know this, they know they’re advertising a belief. They know it’s marketing, and it’s been working.
They had hoped to have cap and trade passed and implemented quickly.
That way, in 10 years when their alarming predictions clearly were not coming to pass, they would say, “see, we were right about CO2, we saved the world, cap and trade must continue.”
This is a strategic investment for them, they aren’t day trading.
Even I am surprised, and I’ve always VERY skeptical. But to realise just how blatant and false have been the IPCC, and its climatologists, is still a shocker.
Just the enormity and ambition of the hoax, to con the WHOLE world and it’s governments. Just staggering.
It boggles my mind to read how many of the people posting here assert that this single admission of error invalidates evrything the IPCC has written. Here is my challenge to WUWT: put together a list of what you assert is every single false claim in the IPCC 4AR, listed by report reference number (this one would be WG2-10.6.2), with a properly formatted citation that “proves” your assertion. I promise to read it int its entirety.
“Norman (09:09:48) :
It boggles my mind to read how many of the people posting here assert that this single admission of error invalidates evrything the IPCC has written.”
Of course it doesn’t. Maybe one of their findings is actually factual. Who knows. But which one? If they bamboozle such simple facts, can they be trusted with more complicated facts? The glacier retreat and the length of a glacier can be easily verified. Complicated GCM’s and Radiative fluxes are harder to verify. They messed with the simple facts, do you trust them with the complicated ones?
Well this is just great. I was READY to promote the new definition of faking data by calling it the “Mann fake”, but the list of folks who, seemingly at the same time, put forth fake data has grown so long I don’t know WHICH name to use!
Norman, it’s a lot easier than that.
Just go back and read this site from the beginning.
Norman, for the “verifying” part, read my post over on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/highnoon-for-pachauri/#comment-298234
this one:
DirkH (08:39:35) :
and this one
DirkH (08:45:49) :
They had a silly number like 23m/year retreat in their report (and it’s still online) for a glacier of 30km length and didn’t seem to notice that the year 2035 looks completely outlandish ON THE SAME PAGE OF THE REPORT. So much for quality. You wouldn’t let a high schooler get away with that.
>>Norman (09:09:48) :
>>Here is my challenge to WUWT: put together a list of what
>>you assert is every single false claim in the IPCC 4AR, listed
>>by report reference number (this one would be WG2-10.6.2),
>>with a properly formatted citation that “proves” your
>>assertion. I promise to read it int its entirety.
Ha, ha, ha. Norman is a Sunday Times reporter, who wants someone else to do his work for him. Nice try Norm.
Tell you what – you contribute $5,000 to WUWT and we shall see what we can do.
.