UPDATE: links to new information posted at the bottom of this article, including a new story from the Times
UPDATE2: Jonathan Leake’s story at the Time is Online, linking Pauchari’s TERI organization to government funding grants that were solicited using the bogus “Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035” claim.
Christopher Booker of the Telegraph has a story that shows Pachauri’s own employee at TERI was the source of the bogus glacier claim. Now the corruption comes full circle.
UPDATE3: Pachauri now bizarrely claims in a press interview that the IPCC’s credibility has been strengthened.
IMHO, Dr. Pachauri is toast. He has nowhere to go except out.
See links at end of this story
We’ve covered some of the travails of IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajenda Pachauri here at WUWT in the past couple of weeks. Besides the facts mentioned above, the National Hurricane Center chief scientist Christopher Landsea resigned in 2007 from the IPCC over what he cited as lack of confidence in the science.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
Most notable recently was the bogus claim In the IPCC AR4 that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 that appeared to be based on nothing more than a journalist’s opinion piece, contrary to IPCC rules that reports be based on peer reviewed science. The Times of India has just run their first political cartoon on the subject.
That in itself was a bombshell, since the IPCC had to withdraw the claim. Other errors in the report have been found also and it is looking like the IPCC didn’t do any checking of this section of their report, bringing the entire report into question.
There’s also been quite a bit of first class investigative work done by Christopher Booker of the Telegraph and Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum about Dr. Pachauri’s connections to TERI (The Energy Research Institute) and his IPCC position. As I pointed out about his email usage, it seems he has a difficult time delineating the two to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.
Now it appears that conflict of interest charges are about to go to a higher level.
The “IPCC 2035 glacier error” has been used to solicit funds for new projects, and guess where the money goes?
This PDF File is from the EU’s HighNoon website, and shows how the EU set up a project to research the ‘rapid retreat’ of glaciers in the Himalayas based on the bogus IPCC report. Some of the EU taxpayers’ money put into this project has gone to TERI, which is run by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.
See slide number 5 for the IPCC citation.
It appears that is using this single “…disappearing by the year 2035” statement as justification for an entire research project, funded by the EU, which is funded by taxpayers.
As we see in slide 7, they got a nice tidy 10 million Euros ($14.13 millon USD) to study a false statement based on nothing more than a passing opinion.
I have word through a backchannel that Jonathan Leake of the London Times is about to make known financial linkages to this and several more TERI/IPCC projects funded by taxpayer dollars.
Here’s his Times report from last week.
I’ll make his newest report available here as soon as it appears.
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor
BREAKING NEWS:
Leake: UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers
Taxpayers funding research under Pachauri’s TERI organization
Booker: Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal :
Dr Pachauri has rapidly distanced himself from the IPCC’s baseless claim about vanishing glaciers. But the scientist who made the claim now works for Pachauri, writes Christopher Booker
Bizarre claim: ‘IPCC’s credibility has increased’: Pachauri
“Facing a barrage of questions from the media about his `loss of credibility’, Pachauri maintained that all “rational people” would continue to repose their faith in IPCC and its findings.” – yeah right.
Sponsored IT training links:
Take advantage of latest 70-662 questions and answers written by our 646-364 certified team to help you pass 70-291 exam in first try.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Transparency is a good thing. From what I hear, the IPCC has nothing in their charter to guard against conflicts of interest. “Follow the money” still works to reveal motivation.
He should be asked to resign immediately and to give back the money he used to feather his nest with carbon transfers.
O/T Daily Telegraph quotes Phil. Willis, Chairman of Commons science and technology committee investigating CRU emails. He uses the term “climate change deniers”. Not encouraging, and I suspect Pachauri will be protected as well. It’s all too embarrassing for politicos of every party.
I can’t believe the mainstream media is still vouching for Pachauri and the IPCC after everything that’s happened. It’s scandalous. The Nobel committee should also be investigated for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to an agenda-driven organization that is riddled with conflict of interest problems. The IPCC is looking more and more like a criminal organization and the prestige of the Nobel is bound to suffer as a result.
Hmmm — who is Will Kane and who is Frank Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Noon
This is just begging for a video spoof.
Larry
Why is the European Union funding research in to the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, irrespective of the providence of the evidence?
It appears that the is using this single “…disappearing by the year 2035″ statement as justification for an entire research [roject, funded by the EU, which is funded by taxpayers.
Couple of typos in this sentence [ = p and “that the is”
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]
The last sentence of the paragraph under the cartoon should read “bringing the entire report into question.”
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]
Pachauri has become a liability to IPCC. The longer he stays the more damage he will cause. So, let’s hope he will stay for a long time. Or as long as the IPCC.
On the other front, Pachauri is now telling Hindustan Times there are four more mistakes in the AR4 glacier section alone.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Pachauri-won-t-quit-but-admits-to-four-new-errors/H1-Article1-501012.aspx
Yikes – another typo – you hit a [ instead of a ”p” in the word “project” right under the glacier slide.
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]
I am sure that the money given by the EU has already been returned – oops – it hasnt’ been?
@ur momisugly Frugal Dougal – They initially sent the copy out to the printer as “High Loon”, but the printer made a mistake and by that time it was too late.
Christoperher Booker has a very detailed article on this in today’s Sunday Telegraph –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal
Dr Pachauri has rapidly distanced himself from the IPCC’s baseless claim about vanishing glaciers. But the scientist who made the claim now works for Pachauri, writes Christopher Booker.
I can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed “Glaciergate” – the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a “poor application” of IPCC procedures.
What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America’s leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.
Sorry that this is OT and belongs to an earlier post about the proposed Parliamentary enquiry into Climategate. If I post this comment there, it will be consigned to history and I believe that this is too important. There was a general feeling of relief and optimism expressed on this blog concerning the original post. That was maybe premature. The Daily Telegraph (Saturday 23 January) reported on the news. After mentioning the current UEA enquiry, they went on as follows:
Phil Willis, Chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee said:
“There are a significant number of climate deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so that the public can see what they are saying.”
The comment by Mr Willis makes me incandescent with rage, but maybe I am reading it wrongly. I shall say no more about the interpretation at this juncture and would welcome your views.
If you read it as I do, we must act very quickly. Please give credible and realistic suggestions. I shall not let the matter rest, but first, I need some feedback to get a more balanced view.
Not on this topic, but interesting followup in the Telegraph on the Catlin expedition. Notice the comments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7053637/Pen-Hadow-admits-battery-was-the-problem-on-Arctic-climate-change-expedition.html
Slide #5:”After careful consideration …” made me spit my beer all over the floor.
So they carefully considered the 2035 bullxxxx, umh … bogus, and found it correct, asking for urgent action. Hahaha.
It’s so bad, you can’t make it up.
Maybe this is a good point in time to remind people who have asked for excluding politics off scientific boards to think again.
Now that I’ve complained about “glaciergate” not seeing the light of day in the US , it shows up on my AOL homepage . Go figure .
How very fortunate it is that, with modern electronic banking, it is impossible to eradicate all traces of the money trail. A good forensic accountant could have a field-day with Dr. Pachauri’s financial wheelings and dealings.
Although such a task would appear to rival the cleansing of the Augean stables in magnitude, I’m sure that the latter day equivalents of the Alpheus and Peneus could be found. The rewards would certainly exceed anything promised to Heracles!
As the Holocene Interglacial Epoch fades first to a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum, then to a sixty- to 1,500-year overdue reversion to Pleistocene Ice Time, the IPCC and others’ deceitful propaganda will be refuted root-and-branch. But meantime, an immensely destructive effect of these overweening, peculating Green Gangs has already been the decades-long sabotage of global energy economies. Naked partisan obstruction of ongoing projects combined with feckless promotion of over-hyped “alternative sources” on spurious pretexts for no valid climatological reasons whatsoever, ensure that major long-term glacial cooling –averaging 102,000 years from the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary 1.8-million years ago– will have catastrophic demographic impacts when it inevitably comes.
Here is the new article from Jonathan Leake that has just been published.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
nofreewind. Thanks for the Landsea link. He seems like one of the good guys.
Mark T (12:14:26) :
Doo-doo and and a fan comes to mind.
You Mean :The Shan hit the Fit ?
Shortly after climategate first broke, we have the following quote from Dr. Pachauri, allaying our fears of any chicanery at the renknowed I.P.C.C. (Courtesy of a Guardian. U.K. article by J. Randerson of Nov.29,2009) It is interesting and I think, informative, to revisit a few ofthose quotes now with (no longer) disappearing Himalayan glaciers in mind.
1. “There is ‘virtually no possibilty’ of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the U.N.’s top global warming body, its chair said today.”
2. “People who are aware of how the IPCC functions and are appreciative of the credibility that the IPCC has attained will probably not be swayed by an incident of this kind.”
With respect to item 1., apparently just such a possibility does indeed exist.
Witht respect to item 2., what about another incident, what about yet more incidents to come? Things over at the IPCC aren’t looking too prestigious anymore.
I spent a number of years in management consulting in an engineering/technical/operations environment. We only had two rules. First, always submit the invoice on time; secondly, never belive your own B.S. The good Dr. has certainly got the first rule downpat, but appears to have overlooked the second, to his own imminent peril.
John Moss (13:39:14) :
Why is the European Union funding research in to the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, irrespective of the providence of the evidence?
It’s obvious that the entire global warming industry are in bed together and have somehow infiltrated every government agency on both sides of the Atlantic. The ones with the purse strings are the same ones on the receiving end. Follow the money, as they say.
Schrodinger’s Cat
Maybe somebody should write to whoever it is who runs Select Committees and complain that Willis is biased before the enquiry begins. What we really need to know is, of the writers of Word documents (no later version than 2003) submitted as evidence, who chooses which writers to call in to give evidence to the enquiry?