Argentinian geoscientist faces criminal charges over glacier survey
Government researcher Ricardo Villalba stands accused of shaping a study to benefit mining interests.
Jeff Tollefson &
Emiliano Rodríguez Mega
A prominent geoscientist in Argentina is facing criminal charges over accusations that he manipulated a government survey of glaciers at the behest of mining interests.
On 27 November, a federal judge in Buenos Aires charged Ricardo Villalba, the former director of the Argentinian Institute of Snow, Ice and Environmental Research (IANIGLA) in Mendoza, with abusing his authority and violating his duty as a civil servant. Villalba appealed against his indictment on 4 December — but if he loses, the case will go to trial. In the meantime, the court has ordered Villalba to stay in the country, and has authorized the seizure of his assets up to 5 million pesos (US$289,000).
The case hinges on the definition of a glacier as viewed from space. When Villalba began the government survey in 2011, he determined that it would include glaciers of 1 hectare or larger — following international norms for satellite analyses. But environmental activists in Argentina’s San Juan province argue that he excluded some smaller glaciers to prevent tougher regulation of adjacent mines operated by the Barrick Gold Corporation of Toronto, Canada. Villalba’s scientific colleagues in Argentina and abroad say the charges against him are baseless and political.
International support
“It’s surreal and kind of ridiculous,” says Bruce Raup, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, who co-authored a letter of support for Villalba.
WHAT IS A GLACIER? A glacier is a body of snow and ice of sufficient size and mass to move under its own weight. Glacier movement may be detected by the presence of crevasses, cracks that form in the ice as the glacier moves. In Glacier National Park (GNP), USGS scientists define glaciers according to the commonly accepted guideline in which a body of ice has an area of at least 0 .1 km2 (100,000 m2), or about 25 acres. Below this size, the ice is generally stagnant and does not move, unless it is on a steep slope. Glaciers are dynamic , changing in response to temperature and precipitation. A glacier forms when winter snowfall exceeds summer melting. Glaciers retreat when melting outpaces accumulation of new snow.
I am reading this right. Ricardo Villalba, as defending mining interests by glaciers as bodies of ice as covering 1 hectare or greater. The climate activists claim it should be smaller, whilst in the US it is defined as 10 hectares or greater. The charge should be one of promoting Government Regulation at the expense of jobs and the wider economy.
Randy Bork
January 5, 2018 4:53 pm
— “USGS scientists define glaciers according to the commonly accepted guideline in which a body of ice has an area of at least 0 .1 km2 (100,000 m2),” and Villalba was counting everything a hectare [10,000 square meters] or larger. So it seems he was using a definition one tenth the size of the USGS standard. And the greens accused him of “shaping a study to benefit mining interests” ?!
Writing Observer
January 5, 2018 10:18 pm
His mistake was in bending way too far over for the Green Mafia in the first place. His definition is one-tenth the size of the accepted measure. Should have been either the accepted measure – or “Do we see an ice cube there?”
TonyN
January 6, 2018 6:05 am
Please Mr Climate-Scientist, if it snows a bit less yet the temperature does not change, then how can the consequent reduction in ice thickness be called ‘proof’ of global warming?
Roger Knights
January 6, 2018 7:13 am
“Glaciers retreat when melting outpaces accumulation of new snow.”
And transpiration (evaporation from a solid state).
One expects nothing less from Agentina. They invaded the Falklands, haven’t paid the full price of doing so and still express a desire to have it. Their government and much of society is infested with corruption and has been for longer than my lifetime. Mind you their alpacas were only $200 when some were selling in the USA at Auction for $200K+ so at least they aren’t stupid.
Peter J Kenny
January 7, 2018 7:01 am
(1/10) kilometer squared is 10,000 sq. meters, not 100000! Do the math.
Al Hopfer
January 8, 2018 11:35 am
Most scientists and others agree that the planet is nearing the end of an interglacial period with the next ice age (the known 9th) in a few thousand years. The question is, is the few thousand years correct or much sooner?
I am reading this right. Ricardo Villalba, as defending mining interests by glaciers as bodies of ice as covering 1 hectare or greater. The climate activists claim it should be smaller, whilst in the US it is defined as 10 hectares or greater. The charge should be one of promoting Government Regulation at the expense of jobs and the wider economy.
— “USGS scientists define glaciers according to the commonly accepted guideline in which a body of ice has an area of at least 0 .1 km2 (100,000 m2),” and Villalba was counting everything a hectare [10,000 square meters] or larger. So it seems he was using a definition one tenth the size of the USGS standard. And the greens accused him of “shaping a study to benefit mining interests” ?!
His mistake was in bending way too far over for the Green Mafia in the first place. His definition is one-tenth the size of the accepted measure. Should have been either the accepted measure – or “Do we see an ice cube there?”
Please Mr Climate-Scientist, if it snows a bit less yet the temperature does not change, then how can the consequent reduction in ice thickness be called ‘proof’ of global warming?
“Glaciers retreat when melting outpaces accumulation of new snow.”
And transpiration (evaporation from a solid state).
Thanks. I was worried that I had the wrong word.
Letter of Support for Dr. Ricardo Villalba in his capacity as former Director of the Argentinean Institute of Snow, Ice and Environmental Research (IANIGLA) and of the National Glacier Inventory of Argentina
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeHCU7ckSoie1BscOnsfKQO_byFkgx3lTA8A-7LbtLFmxX7cg/viewform?c=0&w=1
One expects nothing less from Agentina. They invaded the Falklands, haven’t paid the full price of doing so and still express a desire to have it. Their government and much of society is infested with corruption and has been for longer than my lifetime. Mind you their alpacas were only $200 when some were selling in the USA at Auction for $200K+ so at least they aren’t stupid.
(1/10) kilometer squared is 10,000 sq. meters, not 100000! Do the math.
Most scientists and others agree that the planet is nearing the end of an interglacial period with the next ice age (the known 9th) in a few thousand years. The question is, is the few thousand years correct or much sooner?