The London Times is reporting:
“The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.”
See the Times article here
And from Richard North at The EU Referendum, this video news report link and his commentary:
Less than a week after he claimed the IPCC’s credibility had increased as a result of its handling of the “Glaciergate” scandal, Pachauri’s own personal credibility lies in tatters as The Times accuses him of a direct lie.
This is about when he first became aware of the false claim over the melting glaciers, Pachauri’s version on 22 January being that he had only known about it “for a few days” – i.e., after it had appeared in The Sunday Times.
However, Ben Webster writes that a prominent science journalist, Pallava Bagla – who works for the Science journal (and NDTV as its science correspondent) – claims that last November he had informed Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
Bagla interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, he asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”
Dr Pachauri replied: “Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month — as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates — early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.”
According to Pachauri, “… within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”
Without even Bagla’s input, we know this to be lies. Apart from anything else, there was the crisis meeting under the aegis of UNEP – which we reported on Thursday – which concluded that the 2035 claim “does not appear to be based upon any scientific studies and therefore has no foundation”.
Read his complete essay here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think that this dead man will be walking for a lot of extra time.
The surprise that he knew it for two months is ludicrous. This chap has surely known that he’s been lying about all important things at least since 2002 and probably much longer than that.
jaymam (23:16:34) : “He should believe in ‘global warming’ since that is happening, slightly”
Apart from the fact that “believe in” is an inappropriate terminology in this context… doesn’t the truth of “global warming is happening” depend on the time scale you are referring to, and the integrity and accuracy and adequacy (all of which are questionable at this stage of our knowledge) of the data you base your opinion on?
Andrew30 above discusses the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), which “represents assets of around €4trillion” and includes a whopping number of prominenten in the U.K., both social and governmental.
I’ve got to figure that there are similar critters, institutions, and aggregates who are stuck deeply into this same humongous fiscal Tar Baby in these United States, and there are foxes and bears a-plenty slavering to rend their flesh.
One of the principles of economics is that malinvestments must be liquidated. The financial slight-of-hand types who inflated the residential housing bubble in America and made it “the way to promotion and pay” had long known that it was soon coming to a pop, and obviously they’d been manipulating the “global warming” fraud as a vehicle through which they could fasten their fangs at another point upon the body politic’s jugular vein.
Those who took their counsel and followed these “master of back-stabbing, cork-screwing, and dirty dealing” types into positions in this castle-in-the-clouds environment are now hearing the gurgle-gurgle of flowing currency circling the drain.
Look forward to another “stimulus package” from Barry Soetoro and his little ACORN elves as the politically connected swashbucklers on Wall Street squeal (again) for rescue.
Where are Joel Shore and Scott Mania when we need them? They made a high quality counter point to the rest of us-including me-singing from the same song sheet.
Are they embarassed at the recent deluge of information which seems to point out their position was based on incorrect information? Or did they merely become exasperated at being the lone voices. Debate is good. Come back Joel and Scott-all is forgiven.
Tonyb
davidmhoffer (19:45:25) :
erm, yes. I think that’s what happened to the excellent German scientists after WWII. Reformed into NASA or the like. And your spelling was not a mistake. “Roy” means “royalty” after all 🙂
Each one of them will stay completely incapable to admit an error until they’re thrown under the bus. Ignorance was their recipe to success, ignorance will bring them down.
Loot at Gore. He learned that when you don’t know the answer to a question, just invent one that suits your needs and try to get away with it. Asked about the temperature of the earth’s core, he hesitates, then laughs nervously and says millions of degrees. Pachauri is exactly like that.
They make their answers up as they go. Pachauri, Gore and the entirety of The Team make up their answers as they go. It’s an entire culture of con artists.
Climate sceptics bask in warmth of bad news.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d775be2-0c4b-11df-8b81-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=728a07a0-53bc-11db-8a2a-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1
No. MOD!!
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]
Jus’ followin’ the tracks.
Dr. Lal is next up. He’s more important, because he’s been involved longer (20 years) and more deeply with the IPCC’s internals than Pachauri. (The heads of organizations and foundations are often chosen to interface with the outside world rather than manage the entity itself.)
I hope the Daily Mail has got Lal on tape, and that Kaser can and will produce a copy of the letter he sent Lal, and that it includes Lal’s address. If so, then he’ll be “pinned and added to our collection,” as Sherlock Holmes once said.
“DirkH (00:46:20) :
[…]
They make their answers up as they go. Pachauri, Gore and the entirety of The Team make up their answers as they go. It’s an entire culture of con artists.”
…look at this explanation by Vicky Pope about how the long term projections by the Met Office are made and how reliable they are. Start watching at 0:55. She says they made 400 models, “representing all that we know about the uncertainty of the science in our models”.
Wait. They can cover all parameter permutations of the things they don’t know and thus have to parameterize to run a model at all with 400 runs? No.
Again, this is making up an answer and trying to get away with it, a bald faced lie. They made 400 models because that was the maximum number they could run in the timeframe given. The entire philosophy of climate “science” is: when we can deceive 85% of the population, that’s more than enough in a democracy. It’s not even an attempt at believable propaganda. It’s incompetence and confidence tricks wherever you look.
Chili palmer (18:52:49)
I notice NOW the BBC report of Dec. 5. 2009 that you have highlighted was inconspicuously hidden away in the South Asia section of the BBC site, not exactly somewhere I would normally read, very convenient if the BBC didn’t want to rock the boat 2 days before Copenhagen.
Well worth the read thanks.
Something that should not be overlooked here, with regard to the bigger picture, is that this is yet another ‘sceptical’ article in the London Times. The two left-leaning UK papers, The Guardian and the Independent will never express scepticism over AGW because to them Man-made Global Warming is short for Western Capitalist Man-made Global Warming and to question that would be to question their whole raison d’être.
However, the centre/right-wing press is becoming much more outspoken (and, if you ever read the comments on an AGW article in them, with justification if they want to keep their readership).
What with the Climategate enquiry, the Parliamentary investigation, the Lawson think-tank being set up, and the upcoming election, amongst other things, it does look like the UK is going to be the major battleground over AGW in the coming months. The ongoing very cold winter is also helping the sceptics’ cause. At the moment, the momentum is all with the sceptical side thankfully.
I agree with I once said on WUWT that Pachauri should resign. I have since then changed my mind because I think he has become our best ally. :o)
I agree. It’s Machiavellian, but the longer Pachauri and his followers try to defend the IPCC the more opportunities there will be to get the media on our side and expose the IPCC’s political agenda and corrupted science (and the problems with CRU, GISS and USHCN etc.). The reality is that while we are winning the scientific arguments, the media are only just beginning to take an interest , and there are still many people and politicians who are convinced the planet is heading for catastrophic warming as a result of our CO2 emissions, who will not willingly divest their personal and financial commitments to AGW. Much depends on the course taken by the mainstream media; will they let their love of scare stories (like the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 – which perfectly demonstrates their scientific illiteracy and gullibilty) get in the way of proper investigation of what is arguably the largest scientific scandal in history? Having seen how the MSM failed to question or take any interest in the many holes in the offical 9/11story, and then lapped up the illegal war in Iraq, I am not too optimistic that we can rely on them too much. The BBC had the bones of the glaciergate story on December 5th – but buried it on the south-asia section of their website. Likewise the CRU emails and code, which they sat on for weeks, and then, even after it went viral on the web, they chose to ignore and play down, apart from an odd 5 minute report on Newsnight. It seems that Andrew Neil and Stephen Sackur are the journalists in the BBC with any credibilty. This is going to be a long battle, and I fear it may well take a few more long cold winters in the NH to get the idiots in Washington, NYC, London and Berlin to see the light. Looking at the geo-politics of AGW, there is no way that the Russians and Chinese will go along with significant CO2 emission reductions, as their economies are too dependent on fossil fuels and economic development. The question is whether they will be happy to watch the west waste money and resources on pointless AGW mitigation policies. In the cold war, this would have been the obvious course of action for them. But now with a global economy, and so much Chinese investment in the USA (and UK), they will hopefully want to see some return (or at least get the interest payments back), which is much more likely if we have functioning economies, where we burn coal and oil for heat and energy, rather than fanny about trying to capture the CO2 in it. So the Chinese and Russians are going to be key players (and allies) in the political battle to overthrow the AGW alarmists. (And I have no problem with that, the planet’s too small for us all not work together).
Sorry, that was meant to be a short comment, but its Saturday morning and freezing outisde.
>>The BBC published these denials by Pachauri on Dec. 5,
>>2009. Article by above mentioned Bagla.
The BBC does this all the time. It hides things on its website, and does not mention them on the TV. That way, the BBC hides the truth but cannot so easily be accused of bias.
The BBC needs putting out to grass – or perhaps putting down. It is past its sell-by date.
.
The Times link is incomplete, here is the full one: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
Pachauri already has his next career move sorted. He is going to be a writer of fiction and his first book is already out. Easy transition. It amazes me how one man can be on so many dfferent boards and panels, he must have written this whilst flying around the world to save the planet.
http://www.flipkart.com/return-almora-r-k-pachauri/8129115743-ru23fe1npf
In his own words:
http://blog.rkpachauri.org/blog/12/1231737875.htm
“The major financial scandal that one of the largest IT companies in India, Satyam Computer Services Limited, has been involved in has shaken the confidence of the public, of the government and the corporate sector in general across India. Given the size and scale of this major fraud, there would also be several organizations across the world that would also be affected profoundly by this development particularly those that have had dealings with Satyam.
Cases of corporate misdemeanor and fraudulent and unethical acts by top management appear to have become widespread in recent years, and this at a time when the social, environmental and governance challenges facing human society require a high sense of corporate social responsibility and ethics in corporate organizations!
(his exclamation mark)
I am seriously considering the launch of a global movement called Forum for Revival of Ethics & Ecosystems for and by Youth (FREE Youth). Would those who read this blog care to provide any reactions? “
vibenna (18:55:38) :
“If leading physical scientists don’t start condemning this use of spin, bullying, and half-truth, large sections of the public may lose faith in science altogether. Not just climate science, but all public science.”
It appears that the era of men and woman with integrity has passed. Science, money and politics are so interconnected; it is actually – Politics – money – science. “Here are the answers, here’s the money – find us the questions.” Loose faith! – It would take a reformation complete with “the inquisition” (not quite – but close) to restore mine.
What’s that you say?
The outstandingly respectable Dr P deliberately making a false statement (or two)?
Getting EU research money after he knew his data was wrong?
Shurely Shome Mistake?
“Ralph (01:31:17) :
>>The BBC published these denials by Pachauri on Dec. 5,
>>2009. Article by above mentioned Bagla.
The BBC does this all the time. It hides things on its website, and does not mention them on the TV. That way, the BBC hides the truth but cannot so easily be accused of bias.
”
Not entirely fair! i read the mentioned article on Dec 06th – it was linked to on the South Asia section of the news that day. As i’m interested in what happens in India, Pakistan etc i check that page regularly, and there it was. Granted, it should also have been linked in Science/Environment which it wasn’t.
This was written before Copenhagen:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26095251/Dr-Pachauri-Reaching-Out
“Ralph (01:31:17) :
[…]
The BBC does this all the time. It hides things on its website,”
Oh, sorry, i misunderstood you. By “hiding” you mean it’s only on the website, not on TV. First i understood you thougt the web article was “hidden” so that nobody would really find it. Sorry.
Sometimes it’s difficult for me to understand the way TV viewers process information. It’s been such a long time now i last used TV news.
I am am just repeating another blogger – but can’t resist
Calling Joel Shore – Calling Joel Shore – Calling Joel Shore –
Where are you we need you for balance!!!!
Sorry – just could not help myself.!!!
Richard North is doing a superb job in exposing Pachuari and the IPCC for what they are.
He should be Knighted for ‘services to realism”.
Thank you Richard. Please keep up the great work.
I clicked on the Speakers Bureau ad just for fun. Pachauri is top of the environment list here, some other noteworthy names there as well, including Crispin Tickell, Maurice Strong and intrepid explorer Penn Hadow:
http://londonspeakerbureau.co.uk/Science_Environment_Speakers.aspx
“Many international figures such as former US president Bill Clinton, his vice-
president Al Gore, former UK prime minister Tony Blair and the last head of
former USSR Mikhail Gorbachev earn anywhere between $200,000 and
$400,000 by speaking at international events and seminars.”
You can hire Al Gore here: http://www.harrywalker.com/speaker/Al-Gore.cfm?Spea_ID=649
” James F. Evans (22:49:43) :
What if Pachuri is only a front man — for bigger fish pulling the strings…”
In German the saying goes: ‘The fish starts to stink at the head’.
So you would have to wonder what body part Pachauri is. And who is the head.
DirkH (01:55:53) :
“Ralph (01:31:17) :
[…]
The BBC does this all the time. It hides things on its website,”
Oh, sorry, i misunderstood you. By “hiding” you mean it’s only on the website, not on TV. First i understood you thougt the web article was “hidden” so that nobody would really find it. Sorry.
The BBC’s website is so extensive that unless a story is linked from the front page or a regional front page, or for example the Science/Environment section, it is effectively hidden. I came across the BBC’s Himalaya Glacier pages –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8355837.stm Himalayan glaciers’ ‘mixed picture’ (December 1st)
and then: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8387737.stm
(Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’ Dec 5th)
back in December, totally by accident, while looking for something else. And I suspect that both the pages were put on by the South-Asia editor, without approval from the BBC’s Politbureau / ‘Policy Unit’ in London. They certainly weren’t picked up by any UK BBC staff anyway.
Right, must go out, the sun has now finally risen over the distillery roof, so it might just be above freezing.
Money laundering the Russian way?
If you want to broaden the scope a little, try these emails. They are only part quoted and there is a chance that I have missed some continuity; but it sure looks fishy to me. (Some email parts have been deleted for brevity, without changing the meaning)
………………….
From: “Tatiana M. Dedkova”
To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: schijatov
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
Dear Keith, March 6, 1996
I and Valery Mazepa were in Krasnoyarsk during one month and
together with E.Vaganov wrote the manuscript of book “Dendroclimatic
Studies in the Ural-Siberian Subarctic”. The problem now is to find
money for its publication. If we find enough money soon (20 million roubles), the book will be published this autumn. We analysed 61 mean ring-width and 6 cell chronologies which we intend to publish in form of tables in the Appendix. We can send to you all raw measurements which were used for developing these chronologies.
Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money.
……………………………………………….
From: “Isaak M. Khalatnikov”
To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Keith Briffa
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 97 07:18:26 +0400 (MSD)
Dear Keith,
Thank you for the message of 5 June, 1997.
I am anderstanding your difficulties with transfering money and I
think the best way for us if you will bring money to Krasnoyarsk
and I give you a receipt.
Rashit will go to Yamal at the end of June and I go to the Polar
Urals at the beginnind of July. We can find money temporary at our Institute and other sources for three months to fulfill our fieldworks.
Sincerely yours Stepan Shiyatov
………………………………………….
From: Keith Briffa
To: evag@ifor.krasnoyarsk.su
Subject: transfer
Date: Wed Nov 18 11:04:42 1998
Cc: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
Eugene
I am told that the money transfer ( 5000 u.s. dollars) should have gone to the bank account you stated. Please let me know if this is received by you. I am also sending Stepan’s 5000 dollars to Switzerland now to be carried back by his colleague.
best wishes
Keith
……………………………..