This is a Big Deal Folks! Scientist from IPCC Admits Faulty Glacier Data was Used “Purely to put Pressure on Political Leaders.”
As CPN reported in this article way back in early December, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 Fourth Assessment report (the report), which won the Nobel Prize along with Al Gore, contained a glaring mistake about the “catastrophic melting” of Himalayan glaciers. The report declared that there was a high probability that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, and would drastically decrease the water supply for hundreds of millions of people.
Last week, the IPCC was finally forced to withdraw this assessment as it has been admitted it was based solely 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.
Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author for the report’s Asia section, said that they depended on these recycled interviews and did not conduct any peer-review of the science before it was put into final report.
In an interview with the UK Daily Mail today, Dr. Lal has also admitted that the information was put into the report for purely political reasons. The faulty and alarmist prediction about the melting glaciers was put in, he said, because “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.”
The reason is clear. Far from being just a simple scientific mistake in a large report, the Himalayan glaciers have long been a central icon in global warming campaigners’ propoganda. Everything that polar bears have been to western environmental campaigners, the Himalayas has been to eastern and Asian advocates of limits of greenhouse gases. The loss of water resources for millions of people in Central Asia has been a central alarmist narrative. Thus, it is obvious that it became very important for the true believers to concoct an extremist narrative about the Himalayan glaciers and put it inside the IPCC Fourth Assessment, despite evidence to the contrary.
Because of these revelations, which are a violation of the IPCC’s supposedly stringent scientific procedural rules, there have been increasing calls for the head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, to resign. Pachauri has acknowledged that the section on glaciers is faulty and has admitted that there are probably more errors in that section of the IPCC’s 2007 report.
This is a drastic and embarrassing reversal for Dr. Pachauri, who was drawn into a personal row with the Indian government when their leading climate scientists released a report questioning the IPCC’s Himalayan glacier results last November. At the time, Pachouri dismissed India’s report and referred to it as “voodoo science” and “school-boy science.” Pachauri and the IPCC subsequently slammed the report by geologist V.K. Raina that concluded glaciers were not retreating abnormally. Raina has asked for an apology and has said that the IPCC should dump their report.
(An interesting side note: CPN reported on this story over one month ago, as there was an article in the BBC about it. Dr. Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, has claimed he first heard about the errors 10 days ago. See what enlightening reading CPN can be!)
Besides that, the scientist who was the original source of the glacier data, Syed Hasnain, was also mute about the error, even though he recognized the error in 2008 after he read the entire Nobel Prize-winning report. Hasnain was employed at the The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi at the time, a company also headed by Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC. Some have speculated that Hasnain’s silence was attributable to his employment with TERI:
Hasnain has denied this and claims he was working on his own projects at TERI. He said:
I was keeping quiet as I was working here. 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?
Yea, how about those scientists? Maybe the acknowledged “might” of the IPCC had something to do with their silence-they wouldn’t want to be smeared as “deniers” now, would they? They could have lost their grants and could have had their professional integrity brought into question, eh?
Pursuing this further, Christopher Booker of the London Telegraph has been documenting the rapidly expanding global business ties that Dr. Pachauri, “the world’s leading climate official,” has been establishing since becoming the head of the IPCC in 2002. Booker has revealed not only the windfall in grants and carbon credits that is heading to TERI, but he has also documented the score of positions that Pachauri holds with institutions that are positioned to benefit from the vast worldwide industry based on measures to halt climate change. Booker says that given Pachauri’s initially virulent renunciations of India’s report and his later apology:
Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI – and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain.
As critics of global warming have been saying for years now, the advocates of climate change and strict restrictions on carbon production are politicians more than they are scientists. With these new revelations and those of the released e-mails from the CRU last year, this is, at last, pretty clear. But, have no doubt, the climate politicians will go on arguing for their cause, and outside of the blogosphere you can rest assured that the LAME will keep it under raps as long as they can.