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.
Let’s get something straightened out here. Glaciers that are in mountain ranges like the Himalayas are not affected by climate change (their altitude guarantees cold weather that will freeze the brass balls off a monkey). And certainly not in the 1000 year plus time frame. They are affected by weather pattern variation. To prove me wrong, you must come up with how these glaciers acted contrary to the natural weather pattern variations that occurred over these glaciers during their receding years as well as their advancing years.
As it stands, ultra high altitude glacial receding and advancing behavior is fully explained by humidity, precipitation and temperature directly tied to weather patterns, and these are directly tied to oceanic/large water body vicinity affects, jet stream position, and regional pressure gradients.
This admission continues the once “acceptable exaggeration policy” of Al Gore who in an interview asserts that it’s ok to “exaggerate” aka LIE to get people to act.
Given that political leaders such as Al Gore spearheading a policy that permits deception towards political goals it’s no wonder that others follow in that culture of deception and continue with and expand upon the lies and exaggerations towards political goals such as the Alleged AGW Climate Change Hypothesis (AAGWCCH).
What is really shocking is that scientists would participate in the propagation of lies. At least shocking to those of us with some sense of integrity, honesty and professional ethical standards of conduct.
I invite you to send Al Gore’s Al Gore’s quote to your elected officials along with your comments about acceptable standards for scientists and politicians that exaggeration and distortion of important issues is an unacceptable form of FRAUD that must be stopped, and those attempting to use public monies or monies raised from such FRAUDS be prosecuted.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/11/08/when-scientists-fail-to-present-all-the-known-facts-including-the-ones-that-contract-their-hypothesis-they-become-propagandists-and-bad-scientists
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/17/there-is-a-100-chance-that-al-gore-will-get-it-wrong-again-and-again-and-again-since-he-intentionally-exaggerates-lies-and-distorts-the-science-to-promote-his-vested-business-interests-in-blood
But was it peer reviewed?
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. 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.
Actually Norman, it’s up to the IPCC to show it’s assertions are correct. The scientific method dictates that. Scientists are supposed to be from Missouri (the “Show Me” state) and are not supposed to accept something as correct just because some supposed authority publishes a paper.
dkkraft (22:12:19) said:
“I just posted this over at Real Climate…. lets see if it gets through.”
Looks like they censored you main post and only include this:
“485. Sorry for the spelling. I meant:
If Dr. Lal is quoted correctly he is admitting the use of Propaganda…..
Comment by dkkraft — 24 January 2010 @ur momisugly 1:29 AM”
On top of that, there are BIG seasonal and latitudinal variartions … one size does NOT fit all …
NONE of these pro-AGW/AGW supporters will point this out, instead, they point unceasingly to Mauna Loa data (which also shows some seasonal variation in CO2, but which is GREATER to my eye over the continental Northern hemisphere).
Pick a site and see: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/ and this is not to indicate how CO2 can vary on a local level, at ground level say, throughout a day.
.
.
Oh BTW Norman made me curious and i trawled a little through IPCC AR4. They have a case study for the legendary heatwave of 2003:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-6.html#12-6-1
So if one heatwave is important enough to make it into the IPCC AR4 we should be more than justified here to examine the recent arctic blasts and cold records… weather IS climate, the IPCC says so!
yet the scam is still pushed, our pockets are still picked, ObaMao continues to push the agenda. When, and how, do we hold them accountable?
In my opinion, this is simply not good enough on the part of the WWF. I give them credit for something I am just not sure how much they deserve. This is simply basic PR spin 101. As for Dr. Lal, Pahauri and the others, nothing short of their resignations and a complete and independent review of all their work will satisfy me. His reasoning, that since the other reviewers did not pick up the errors, it was permissible (license) to violate the principals the reports was being written under, tells me these people all need to take Ethics 101. I am not prepared to give Lal license to try and shift blame to others on his. I am prepared to question the process of internal review and the selection of reviewers.
The ends, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, still can not be twisted to justify the means, no matter how noble we may believe them to be.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee even noted the Himalayan glaciers melting during the ceremony. From link here:
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2007/presentation-2007/
“Processes that have been going on for a long time are accelerating. The ice is melting more rapidly in the Arctic, the desert is spreading more quickly in Africa, the glaciers are shrinking in the Himalayas.”
And Pachauri himself cited the Himalayan glaciers during his Nobel lecture here:
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2007/ipcc-lecture/
“Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and the changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world’s population currently lives.”
So the Himalayan glacier story was a prominent part of the story yet no one checked. Amazing.
I don’t believe anybody has commented on this particularly shocking aspect of the IPCC glacier debacle as reported in the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
“But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”
Professor Hasnain, who was not involved in drafting the IPCC report, said that he noticed some of the mistakes when he first read the relevant section in 2008.
That was also the year he joined The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Dr Pachauri.
He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.
He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time.
“I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?” ”
So, it appears that a scientist who knew the report was rubbish kept quiet because he worked for Pachauri and because you do not point out mistakes if you know the might of the IPCC. This chimes perfectly with the atmosphere of bullying, intimidation and jobs for the boys revealed in the CRU emails.
I am amazed that the grown-ups of the scientific community (mathematicians, physicists, chemists, astronomers etc) seem content to stand back and allow the reputation of science and the scientific method to be trashed in the minds of the general public. It is high time they stepped in and provided some adult supervision.
Apologies if someone here has already posted this link, but just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the IPPC’s 2035 date has become a part of peer-reviewed science by being accepted as factual by some scientists. Mason Inman has started a new website, “Not in 2035” and begins it with an annotated series of excerpted peer-reviewed science articles that use 2035 as factual. He writes that he is an American science journalist
“currently based in South Asia. I started this site because of the revelation that a passage in a respected report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wasn’t backed up. It made a number of claims—some simple facts, some predictions of what is to come—that turned out to be baseless.
But I was dismayed to see these mistakes repeated in other peer-reviewed papers, written by glaciologists who should have known better. So I started this site to collect examples of these mistakes, to help set the record straight.”
See http://notin2035.com/?page_id=2
AAGH! I mangled IPCC in my previous post – no less than it deserves, though. (must learn to proofread….)
Not A Carbon Cow (08:55:43) :
Exactly right.
This surely must have been the motive driving the whole obscene AGW agenda.
Way back in Kyoto and beyond, the TEAM knew full well about natural climate cycles. They knew that we were in for a cooling stage of the cycle. If only, by fair means or foul (especially that) the TEAM could bully the world into locking into emissions cuts in time, the TEAM would take the credit for the inevitable cooling.
It is difficult enough putting this despicable fraud down as it is. Had the TEAM succeeded in their evil aims, the world would have been enslaved to this scam forever.
As the saying goes, “eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.” Thank God for the vigilant!
Norman 09:09
Check out the blog by Roger Pielkes Jr’s.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/
Completely different issue, same modus operandi.
M. Simon (07:51:24) :
Aye to that.
Or death by a thousand cuts? Depends how big. And these are glacial!
Are you all mad?
Spring is coming earlier, Autumn later, species that require warmth are being found further from the equator. Glaciers are melting. Climate is being disrupted, food production in many countries is reduced, etc. etc.
Yet all you bloggers desparate to shrug off responsibility for looking after the planet, pick on every trivial item to create a great furore.
So called “climategate” 13 years of private e-mails and half a dozen trivial statements of doubtful meaning.
OK so glaciers are not melting as fast as was thought and Ok someone failed to pick it up that the source for the idea was not very reliable. Big deal!
But don’t reject the big picture, don’t stick you head in the sand and pretend that nothing is happening. Take some responsibility.
REPLY: I drive an electric car, in fact I have TWO now. What do you drive? – Anthony
Skepshasa (06:42:49) :
Good work in collating relevant cites. In the end, are you agreeing with Mencken’s perspective? Surely not. Alarmism may be an expectation of political leaders, but it does not excuse it. Mencken may think it’s their job. That’s only his view. Rather, it’s the job of the electorate to demand integrity, competency and transparency of their leaders. Nothing less. That’s what is happening now the world over. Thank God it is.
Tony Hamilton (14:25:10):
I’ll supplement my usual advice to take an aspirin and lie down until the fever passes: add a generous slice of chocolate cake. It’s hard to get riled up with full tummy and a sugar high.
None of us is pretending that ‘nothing is happening.’ The climate naturally fluctuates. Constantly. Always has, always will.
Your job is to provide solid empirical [real world] evidence showing that any changes are the result of anthropogenic CO2. Good luck.
We now return you to your regular programming.
Tony Hamilton (14:25:10) :
“Spring is coming earlier, Autumn later….” blah blah.
Are you mad, mate?
Climate changes. Naturally. In cycles. Big freezes go and they have come.
Do some reading.
Tony Hamilton,
You can help the twenty-two people that have joined you in taking glogal warming seriously by sharing the truth with them. You obviously have a good heart and care about your fellow humans. Open your eyes and read everything you can about the false science. Many millions will die needlessly if we abandon the science of our parents and fall for the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming… Hang around awhile and listen to the cooler and wiser heads of the physicists, geologists, meteorologists, statisticians and yes climatologists who frequent this site. You are always welcome here.
Mike
Roger Knights (01:30:06) :
“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.”
Roger you have ruined everything for me. I had read through most the post when I came to Crosspatche’s explanation of the number. His comment based on an 1996 Russian study meant that the whole of the IPCC position on Global warming was just a typographical error. It meant that the real effects of Global Warming won’t happen until 2350. I was relieved. Then you undermined my comfort. Now it is just a lie and I have to wait until all of the voodoo science is uncovered. Well thank God for WUWT. I hope and pray that in my remaining lifetime, I am 75 years, that the rest of the hoax will be revealed for what it is, a huge money grabbing scheme.
According to an AP story:
“The scientists are investigating how the forecast got into the report and apologized Thursday for the mistakes, adding that they were not intentional. But the errors have opened the door for attacks from climate change skeptics.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html
NOT INTENTIONAL? They not only lied in the report, they attempted to lie to cover their rear ends. There needs to be some accountability. Heads need to roll.
RichieP (05:15:32) :
Also, a Sunday Times report on the issue is included in The Australian.
My observation has been that The Australian newspaper has been slow to acknowledge the elephant in the room. A bet each way seems to be its present position. For example, our own chief alarmist and shrill denier-damner cited in the article was, just yesterday, chosen by The Australian as its Australian of the Year! It was he, no less, who reportedly contributed $1m to Pachauri’s shady enterprise.
More than any other, Rudd has led the charge of the abominable AGW cause. Many here will not forget it.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-caught-out-again-on-climate-claims/story-e6frg6n6-1225823075213
John Galt (10:01:21) : Actually Norman, it’s up to the IPCC to show it’s assertions are correct. The scientific method dictates that.
John, those “assertions” are found in each and every page of the IPCC report as a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific report (the single, non-peer reviewed exception being the WWF reference in WGII ch 10, section 6.2).
Scientists are supposed to be from Missouri (the “Show Me” state) and are not supposed to accept something as correct just because some supposed authority publishes a paper.
If you are not satisfied with the the reference note, you can go directly to the cited publication. The IPCC authors have read and debated their assigned areas. They leave behind as the evidence of that fact their comments:
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/AR4/ar4review.html
If your not satisfied with that, then I suggest you ask one of the IPCC 4AR authors directly how it works.