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.
“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?”
Maybe the money can be deducted from the development aid commitments.
Green Energy – a new brand of perpetual motion greased with subsidies.
A bit OT: Have you seen this yet?
More unraveling:
From Times Online January 24, 2010
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
Policyguy (12:35:22) :
“I heard a radio report last week that Pachauri had threatened legal action”
That day shall ne’er be seen,Policyguy. Not if Pachauri doesn’t want to be put to the test about his ‘not taking a penny’ for himself. Any legal action by him will result in a flood of Discovery requests which will lay bare his income from all these sources. I can’t see him opening himself up to that – he has had plenty of chances so far and hasn’t taken them up.
Investigate Pachauri’s Cash Cabal, better known as IPCC.
Leake is going to say something skeptical???
I can’t wait.
Regardless of the weather he always manages to slide a warmist comment into his articles somewhere.
Schrodingers Cat (13.56.54)
I don’t hold out much hope for a parliamentary inquiry chaired by Willis. It might help if all the Brits on here emailed him and pointed out that:
a) what he thinks about the subject is irrelevant; he’s supposed to be chairing an objective inquiry not a whitewash;
b) climate science is poor science as the leaked files are proving;
c) it is extremely healthy for those who are skeptical of the science to say so;
d) he does himself no favours by using emotive words like “denier” to describe those who quite legitimately take a different view.
Seems our krudd idiot here in Australia handed over 1 million to pachauri to help with this research, I just hope someone can sort out the facts and follow his money trail.
Let’s hope some charges can be laid.
Schrodinger’s Cat (13:56:54) – Unfortunately , I see no good faith in Willis’s statement .
dbs – Thanks for not pointing out my own typo above .
Pachauri made the mistake of denigrating the Indian Govt in relation to the Copenhagen fiasco. They’re after him and I doubt he will survive. It’s just a question of how well he will extracate himself out of this. Maybe along the lines ….”I have far too many commitments to be able to continue as chairman of IPCC yada yada yada, the 5th assessment report is on the horizon and deserves a chairman who can devote more time yada yada yada”
In the Sunday Times
Sloppy science is seeping into the climate watchdog
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6999815.ece
@Gary Young Else (13:09:24) :
Climate Change – The Musical –
my suggestions would be:
Took all of the ‘warmingistas’ pieces – compress it to about 11 Minutes,
take as background music from ‘The Doors’, title ‘This is the End’…
… take some first arguments against AGW,
background music from Joan Baez , ‘Silent Running’,
— Okay, okay, she has a green agenda. Still, the music is OK to me.
On the two faces:
AGW and natural longterm weather cycles, how about the song of
Grace Slick, Jefferson Airplane, LP ‘After Bathing at Baxters’, 1967,
the song ‘Two Heads’ as background music.
When the hard stuff cometh over the ‘warmingistas’, something classic,
Mussorgsky, Rimmsky-Korsakov or Stravinsky. To me something from
Stravinsky would fit nicely. (Firebird)
Because music rarely lies, so they never tried it with the appopriate sound
attached. Additionally, music does activate some parts of the brain,
which are less prone to ‘bad suggestions’.
more
Soros out of the kindness of his heart invested in Copenhagen. He even asked them to spot him 100 Billion dollar$$ to manage a disbursement fund for carbon indulgences.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B91N520091210
Soros is sleazy and where there is corruption, he is nearby.
He is a large backer of climateprogress.
Thanks, Anthony, for the dogged persistence about this science fraud and all its malevolent, greedy actors. I would like to see a list of those most in the lead, with their financial dealings and interconnections displayed. This list could include the amount of taxpayer dollars they have squandered as well as the amount of “charity” they have received for non-profit purposes under false pretenses. This is called ACCOUNTABILITY to the taxpayers and the generous givers. It would be great if we could begin to check these individuals off, one by one, including the amounts they have returned, the amounts they owe (for the rest of their lives), the investigations in place, the law suits filed against them and the outcome of both.
Next on the list, what “prestigious” positions must they resign. I can imagine that quite a number of new professorships could open up at most — it does seem to be most — of our prestigious universities and “think tanks”. Furthermore, they should receive no retirement or pension for all those years of false and bad-faith service. This is a terribly impotant matter because of what it has already cost the developed world and because of the plans afoot to defraud us of billions more. There should be no mercy. Whichever pseudo-scientists took part in any of this (almost everyone involved in the IPCC reports), off with their metaphorical heads.
The institutions involved can save a bunch of dough, too, either by no new hiring or by hiring junior scientists with recommendatiosn from “real” scientists in the appropriate field (no “activitists” — whatever this means — may apply) along with assurances that they will obey the fundamental rule of TRANSPARENCY.
Finally, as part of the information on each individual involved in this scam — how much jail time must they serve? How much in fines for purposeful evil-doing must they pay? In addition to Accountability and Transparency, PUNISHMENT for transgressions is essential to help keep people honest. If we are going to have science, as well as representative democracy, we must create the conditions for honesty and trust.
These people are deeply entrenched and this project will take time, effort, and dogged pursuit. It will be well worth it, especially for our children and grandchildren and all those new scientists to be trained in the future.
From the article at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
“Meanwhile the Government gives the go-ahead for three new 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Each of them will generate more than the combined average output (700 megawatts) of all the 2,400 wind turbines so far built. The days of the “great wind fantasy” will soon be over. ”
As i repeatedly pointed out, this is NECESSARY when you install large scale wind power: Establish a running reserve to buffer the spikes in wind power output – and not for the average performance but for the peak performance which is 5 times higher than the average.
Probably the german companies who won the tenders for Gordon’s windmills have pointed all this out long ago, and the new 3 GW gas plants are laid out to have fast reaction times.
FYI, the rest of the Select Committee are a bit of a mixed bag in their history of votes on warming issues. And if we wanted to complain about Willis’s bias, my bet is that the person to direct your letters to would be Lord Drayson, Minister for Science and Innovation, c/o the House of Lords. I’m sure we can reach him by e-mail.
No free wind
“This glacier melt thing is nonsense regarding drinking water. We have no glaciers in the eastern US and only a small amount even in the West.”
Living in Western Washington State…if our Glaciers were to disappear a big chunk of our drinking water would as well. I accept in many areas of the world people depend on rain water runoff and man made reservoirs for drinking water, or deep wells.
Out here we depend on Snow melt.
The Columbia River is mostly snow melt as well, we depend on that for electricity.
No Glaciers = ”No Snow to melt in the summer”.
rbateman (14:34:51) :
Green Energy – a new brand of perpetual motion greased with subsidies.
—-
[/sarcon]
More to that, Green vs. Energy,
thats like Hell vs. Heaven,
and in the biblical sense,
everybody has to take his bid.
[/sarcoff]
By the way I was green – and not only behind my ears – but that was 35 years ago.
High Noon? If Gary Cooper were here he would know how to deal with this mess. 🙂
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html?test=latestnews
“The head of a panel of United Nations climate scientists said Saturday he would not resign despite a recent admission that a panel report warning Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off.
The claim, made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s voluminous, Nobel-winning report, came in a paragraph with several errors. Data indicates the ice could melt by 2350. The assertion went virtually unnoticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report.
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.”
Intentional… or maybe just intentionally convenient. Who made the news report that got into the IPCC report? Who in the IPCC picked it up? Who switcherooed the numbers from 2350 to 2035?
The errors…oh my the errors….
Must sterilize imperfection …. Goremad.
Egads, why does “Slide 5” have a photo of a grisly dissection? You can clearly see the bones, with unwrapping bundles of muscles and fibers most noticeable at top center. I have a fresh pork roast to attend to!
(Before replying to this comment, consider the implications of “subliminal messages,” choices of colors, and ways to elicit an immediate “something is horrifyingly wrong” response when proposing drastic action to remedy an “unthinkable” crisis.)
This blog about the 2035 error seems to give some more detail than I have seen elsewhere :
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16689.html
Most interesting is the following paragraph :
‘Georg Kaser, an expert in glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the IPCC. Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published. “This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said ‘we will do better next time’. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured.”‘
So it gets worse : the IPCC were warned of the error BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED.
IT APPEARS THEY DID NOT BOTHER TO CHECK AND CORRECT IT AS IT WAS THE SCARIEST MONSTER IN THEIR CLOSET!
This suggests that it was included as pure propaganda with no scientific basis, AND THEY KNEW IT!
I wonder long before we see Pachauri in a court of law fighting charges of corruption and stealing of public funded monies?
Talk of politicians going quiet. Narry a peep out of Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on global warming and carbon taxes. He was a fanatic advocate of global warming and climate taxes.
Mapou (13:32:56) :
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.
——————————————————–
Mapou, that’s a common misconception. The Nobel committee awards scientific prizes (the real ones). The so-called Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of politicians chosen by the Norwegian parliament.
This is slightly OT, but sort of related. Here is an interesting article about how the UN/ IPCC faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
Will the last person to leave the room please make sure the lights are turned off..