World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

gizmo555

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

.....

The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: "Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

"Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif."

The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

Mr Benevolent

A severe blow to the climate change theory.

ConsiderThis

gizmo555 wrote: »

... so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%...

If the report is accurate, it says a lot about the IPCC, and seems to highlight what many now think that the IPCC is a political body which is less than rigorous about the science behind its pronouncements and more interested in pursuing a political agenda.

Confab wrote: »

A severe blow to the climate change theory.

Actually only time will tell that. While many might agree that this sort of thing should be an embarrassment to the IPCC and those who are pushing that agenda, and to any independent observer it does appear to pose all sorts of questions, I'll bet that it's more likely to be ignored and the IPCC will continue regardless, and those who have decided to believe the agenda the IPCC are pursuing are unlikely to be swayed by evidence which appears to call into question their honesty.

djpbarry

Could we have possibly have some reaction from the OP please?

Confab wrote: »

A severe blow to the climate change theory.

How so?

gizmo555

The melting of Himalayan glaciers was cited by, for example, Stern in his report as a threat to water supplies for large parts of the world. Melting glaciers was one major potential impact taken into account by Stern in his analysis of the economic costs of global warming.

Melting glaciers will initially increase flood risk and then strongly reduce water supplies, eventually threatening one-sixth of the world’s population,
predominantly in the Indian sub-continent, parts of China, and the Andes in South America.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executive_Summary.pdf

If the Times report is accurate, it appears the risk of near to medium term melting of these glaciers is greatly exagerrated.

If the report is accurate, it would also in my opinion cast severe doubt on the overall quality of the IPCC's work and resulting reports.

Heroditas

Confab wrote: »

A severe blow to the climate change theory.

I'd be more inclined to say it's a severe blow to the IPCC's credibility rather than a blow to any climate change theory.

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

Originally Posted by Confab View Post
A severe blow to the climate change theory.

How so?

Well, if we take your own pronouncements on the subject and give them some credence - not that I am suggesting we should - then we have to totally disregard the opinion/s of any scientist - no matter how distinguished - if they make the slightest faux-pas in relation to glaciers.

To quote you:

djpbarry wrote: »

So Bellamy is a “true scientist” because his opinion happens to agree with yours? Personally, I’d question Bellamy’s “scientific integrity” based on the content of his now infamous letter to Nature in 2005 (in which he claimed, without supporting evidence, that “555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980”) and, the following statement, taken from an opinion piece written for The New Zealand Centre for Political Research:

The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century.

Anyone who comes out with a statement that is so obviously false is not deserving of the title “scientist”.

So by your own criteria, the section of the IPCC report that relates to glaciers should be disregarded as it was obviously cobbled together by someone "not deserving of the title "scientist"."

Since the IPCC report on climate change is the de-facto magna carta of climate change theory, any obvious defect in it is a blow to the theory.

In terms of the integrity and soundness of the IPCC report, and the theory it peddles, I found something else in that article of interest. It was the revelation that the entire section of the report relating to glaciers was compiled by someone who knows next to nothing about glaciers.

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said.

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science".

Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

I hereby propose a new official theme song for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming:


Ten green bottles hanging on the wall
Ten green bottles hanging on the wall
And if one green bottle should accidentally fall
There'll be nine green bottles hanging on the wall

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

So by your own criteria, the section of the IPCC report that relates to glaciers should be disregarded as it was obviously cobbled together by someone "not deserving of the title "scientist"."

It’s a pretty serious blunder, and it will cost the IPCC credibility. But more specifically, it will cost Professor Lal credibility.

cnocbui wrote: »

Since the IPCC report on climate change is the de-facto magna carta of climate change theory, any obvious defect in it is a blow to the theory.

We’ll have to disagree on that – one false pronouncement does not undo all climate science. The glaciers are still melting, are they not?

ConsiderThis

cnocbui wrote: »

Well, if we take your own pronouncements on the subject and give them some credence - not that I am suggesting we should - then we have to totally disregard the opinion/s of any scientist - no matter how distinguished - if they make the slightest faux-pas in relation to glaciers.

If only it were just one scientist who is putting his weight behind this. Remember, it was the IPCC, as a body, who was making these exaggerated claims, based on incredibly flimsy evidence.

cnocbui wrote: »

In terms of the integrity and soundness of the IPCC report, and the theory it peddles, I found something else in that article of interest. It was the revelation that the entire section of the report relating to glaciers was compiled by someone who knows next to nothing about glaciers.

As it is becoming more and more apparant that the IPCC appears to be pursuing a political agenda, and the quality of the science behind it seems to be irrelevant, it would be more surprising if they, or those who have decided to believe anything they say and avoid critical analysis of anything they say, were to express any degree of shock that the IPCC should base its opinion, and put its weight behind, something with such "evidence".

gizmo555

ConsiderThis wrote: »

As it is becoming more and more apparant that the IPCC appears to be pursuing a political agenda, and the quality of the science behind it seems to be irrelevant, it would be more surprising if they, or those who have decided to believe anything they say and avoid critical analysis of anything they say, were to express any degree of shock that the IPCC should base its opinion, and put its weight behind, something with such "evidence".

The IPCC in my view and in the view of many others who know much more about the issues than me, has extreme credibility issues. Here, for example, is Richard Tol, research professor at the ESRI and professor of the economics of climate change in a Dutch university in today's (18/01/10) Irish Times:

The IPCC summarises the science of climate change, its impacts, and possible countermeasures. It enables politicians to make informed decisions. The IPCC is not allowed to recommend any course of action. Dr Pachauri has increasingly used the platform he was given as the chairman of the IPCC to act as an advocate for climate policy.

This is deplorable. It degrades the IPCC from an honest broker of the scientific facts to yet another advocacy. Climate policy creates very substantial business opportunities for new energy companies. If the allegations of a conflict of interest are true, Dr Pachauri’s relationship with such companies is too cosy to be appropriate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0118/1224262564923.html

For me personally, the Sunday Times report is the last straw, and I wouldn't take any of the IPCC's pronouncements seriously after this. Yet its reports are the foundation of global governmental policy on climate change.

patgill

As important elections draw near in many places throughout the developed world, opposition parties are making political capital from the embarassment caused to governments, by the over zealousness of the extreme AGW fraternity, so called AGW deniers are in a confident mood, hopeful now that the CO2 debate may be over or at least moderated, for human civilisation that may not be such good news, because our problems are still there waiting to be solved, lets pretend for a moment that the CO2 debate had never even begun, the other problems are still there slapping us in the face every morning, population growth and the effect that this will have on our energy supplies, this is the elephant in the room, sometimes whispered about in the CO2 debate, ( the one we are pretending didn't start ), we already know that the quality of life we enjoy in the first world has been built on the cheap energy we derive from burning oil and natural gas.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4277708824_24b459c564_o.jpg

This may be the most important graph in the world, and the measures we take now will greatly influence whether the standard of living trend continues to climb, levels off or plummets.

Cookie_Monster

Are the glaciers melting?

If so then why?

More than likely it's due to climate warming which is more than likely related to human activity.

Just because we can't give a exact date as to when they will disappear doesn't mean its not going on

gizmo555

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Just because we can't give a exact date as to when they will disappear doesn't mean its not going on

This is true, but the point is that the IPCC on the most tenuous basis claimed there was a 90% chance that the Himalayan glaciers would have melted entirely within 25 years. It would appear that there is in fact no chance of this happening.

Whether one believes AGW is happening or not (personally I am agnostic, although in a finite world with finite resources, I accept many of the steps proposed to deal with AGW make sense for other reasons anyway) the IPCC is as far as I can see one of the skeptics' best friends.

ConsiderThis

gizmo555 wrote: »

... the IPCC is as far as I can see one of the skeptics' best friends.

A sceptic, we have to remember, is someone who does not believe something without evidence.

A believer is someone who believes it without the necessity for evidence

A cynic is someone who will not believe even when faced with evidence.

All scientists should be sceptics, and any scientists who are not sceptics should be treated with suspicion.

patgill

One thing about the global warming debate that I find amazing is the implication that it is happening somewhere out there, and yet Ireland has been experiencing more energetic weather for the last ten years and we are still taken by surprise year after year, I would suggest we could leave the Himalayan glaciers to the people in that region and start doing something about our small part of the world and the people who live in it.

ConsiderThis

patgill wrote: »

...Ireland has been experiencing more energetic weather for the last ten years ...

Even if it's true ( for which you have not provided any evidence), what could we do?

gizmo555

patgill wrote: »

One thing about the global warming debate that I find amazing is the implication that it is happening somewhere out there, and yet Ireland has been experiencing more energetic weather for the last ten years and we are still taken by surprise year after year, I would suggest we could leave the Himalayan glaciers to the people in that region and start doing something about our small part of the world and the people who live in it.

It's called global warming for a reason . . .

ConsiderThis

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's called global warming for a reason . . .

Actually, it's now been rebranded to be called climate change, and some unkind person said that was when it became apparent the global warming wasn't happening.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Actually, it's now been rebranded to be called climate change, and some unkind person said that was when it became apparent the global warming wasn't happening.

Ah, so that's why the IPCC was formerly known as the IPGW?

Let's restrict this discussion to the role of the IPCC, rather than another discussion of the underlying science (so far as it possible).

patgill

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Even if it's true ( for which you have not provided any evidence), what could we do?

I could I suppose spend a few hundred euro on Met Eireann records to PROVE my thesis, however for now I will simply point out that we have had 3 once in a lifetime weather events in the last Four years, and we could do a lot. Improve our flood defences, even better design those flood defences to be multi functional.

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's called global warming for a reason . . .

Are you seriously asserting that global warming will have no local effects and that local measures are not needed to to both counter and remediate those effects.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Actually, it's now been rebranded to be called climate change, and some unkind person said that was when it became apparent the global warming wasn't happening.

Neither term in fact deals with the problem they both merely refer to different aspects of one of the symptoms, excess energy in the atmosphere, of the problem. And that problem is our increasing need as a civilisation, for usable energy.

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, so that's why the IPCC was formerly known as the IPGW?

Let's restrict this discussion to the role of the IPCC, rather than another discussion of the underlying science (so far as it possible).

The IPCC was set up to promote a pre-agreed diagnosis and have spent their time since then seeking evidence to fit that diagnosis.

By the way this is what New Scientist, the science journal referred to by the IPCC, has to say on this matter.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527432.800-sifting-climate-facts-from-speculation.html

SLUSK

First Climategate and now this, how are we supposed to believe anything from the IPCC now?

ConsiderThis

SLUSK wrote: »

First Climategate and now this, how are we supposed to believe anything from the IPCC now?

Being fair, the analysis done on Mann's hockey stick graph by McIntyre & McKittrick, conclusively showing that the hockey stick graph was inaccurate and non replicable, was an early warning sign that the IPCC was less interested in truth and accuracy and seemed more interested in pursuing its own agenda.

The "climategate" emails, and now this, merely confirms again, with more evidence, that the IPCC is less interested in truth, and more interested in pursuing its own agenda in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

mike65

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Are the glaciers melting?

If so then why?

More than likely it's due to climate warming which is more than likely related to human activity.

Just because we can't give a exact date as to when they will disappear doesn't mean its not going on

If this is the same story that I linked to a few months back then the glacier melt data was not mis-interpreted or anything like that it was a simple case of someone reading a number and changing it be it by accident or design from 2350 (the estimate in the original report) to 2035 so yes there is melt but not at anything like the rate claimed by the IPCC.

robtri

i think the questions being raised here, are not whether there is Global warming manmade or other, but whether the body responsible for directing and informing many government policies around the world can be trusted to be accurate and impartial....

personally in my opinion they can't and the IPCC needs to be disbanded...

gizmo555

mike65 wrote: »

If this is the same story that I linked to a few months back

The story is similar, but not the same.

The IPCC does no original research - as it says on its website:

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. (my emphasis)

We are entitled, therefore, to expect it to use as the basis of its reports only scientific research which has been validated in the usual ways, such as peer review, replication through experiment, etc. If this issue was merely a result of a typo in a bona fide scientfic paper, one could regard it as a genuine mistake and treat it as such.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

However, what has apparently actually happened is that it has taken a speculative press report, which it obtained at second hand from another speculative and campaigning report by the WWF, and dressed it up as a purported scientific fact.

patgill

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Are the glaciers melting?

Yes I believe they are, slowly.

If so then why?

Because there is more heat energy in the atmosphere.

More than likely it's due to climate warming which is more than likely related to human activity.

And this is where science is joined in an arranged marriage with politics, with a lot of scientist's now wishing for a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable difference's. A lot, not all, of the increased heat energy in the atmosphere is derived from our efforts to release the usable energy from hydrocarbons, an equal amount is released from the inefficient use of that energy in the attainment of our standard of living. Now consider the different approaches to that problem which would come from an engineer, change the energy source and then make all its possible end uses more efficient, to that of a politician, search for the most efficient administrative response i.e taxes and then there is the fundamentalist brigade, mankind is bad, lets go back to a medieval standard of living.

Just because we can't give a exact date as to when they will disappear doesn't mean its not going on

Correct, therefore we must choose between the three approaches outlined above. Or a properly debated fusion of those response's.

Note there is no need to mention _ _ _

ConsiderThis

gizmo555 wrote: »

The story is similar, but not the same.

The IPCC does no original research - as it says on its website:

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. (my emphasis)

We are entitled, therefore, to expect it to use as the basis of its reports only scientific research which has been validated in the usual ways, such as peer review, replication through experiment, etc. If this issue was merely a result of a typo in a bona fide scientfic paper, one could regard it as a genuine mistake and treat it as such.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

However, what has apparently actually happened is that it has taken a speculative press report, which it obtained at second hand from another speculative and campaigning report by the WWF, and dressed it up as a purported scientific fact.

In fairness, the IPCC claims, on its own behalf, to be a scientific body. But looking at the way it (a) ignores any scientific evidence which it does not like, such a s McIntyre & McKittricks work on Mann's hockey stick graph, or (b) the way it uses non scientific evidence which it does like, such as that outlined in the OP's post, how can it be judged to be scientific by any independent observer?

It's interesting to note that, when challenged by these revelations, the attitude of the IPCC is revealing. Most scientists would welcome new evidence, as most scientists are searching for the truth. The IPCC appears to ignore any evidence to the contrary and continues to promote the claims it likes, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Which is revealing in itself.

We have to remember that Michael Mann said, in the climategate emails, "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." , which seems also to be the position of the IPCC.

patgill

We can therefore conclude that the IPCC is a political organisation and our response's to it should be political.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

In fairness, the IPCC claims, on its own behalf, to be a scientific body. But looking at the way it (a) ignores any scientific evidence which it does not like, such a s McIntyre & McKittricks work on Mann's hockey stick graph...

It was “ignored” because it was published in a social science journal (I believe it was rejected by Nature).

ConsiderThis wrote: »

We have to remember that Michael Mann said, in the climategate emails, "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." , which seems also to be the position of the IPCC.

Let’s keep the email quotes in the relevant thread please.

gizmo555

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”
......

But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”

He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.

It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.

The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.

An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.

It is in my view highly disingenuous of the IPCC to characterise this fiasco as a result of "error". It was rather a result of authors writing on subjects far outside their area of expertise and competence and taking information for their report from sources which had no scientfic basis, because it suited the argument they wanted to make. And of course, the IPCC is not supposed to argue for any position, but to sift and present the expert scientific consensus in the field of climate change, insofar as such consensus exists. The IPCC should be disbanded before it does any more damage.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Cunsiderthis

gizmo555 wrote: »

It is in my view highly disingenuous of the IPCC to characterise this fiasco as a result of "error". It was rather a result of authors writing on subjects far outside their area of expertise and competence and taking information for their report from sources which had no scientfic basis, because it suited the argument they wanted to make. And of course, the IPCC is not supposed to argue for any position, but to sift and present the expert scientific consensus in the field of climate change, insofar as such consensus exists. The IPCC should be disbanded before it does any more damage.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Its not just your view, but the view of anyone impartial who assesses the evidence. And we all know what Michael Mann said, who is a member of the IPCC, that he doesn't think that truth is important. the fact is the IPCC doesn't think the truth is important, as this thread demonstrates, and most who assess teh evidence now accept and realist that to be the case.

Doubtless there are still those who have now argued so often for the IPCC that they feel it's impossible to look at the evidence impartially, and who feel the only course open to them is to continue to argue that the IPCC is impartial and of the highest integrity and so on, for feat of losing face. It's a shame they can't do as george monbiot did and admit that, in the past, they have bene mistaken as new evidence shows that the IPCC is not honest.

I earnestly hopw they can look at the evidence ( evidence as opposed to opinion) and see it for what it is.

Angry Troll

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

[...] Michael Mann said, who is a member of the IPCC, that he doesn't think that truth is important. the fact is the IPCC doesn't think the truth is important, [...]

the sad reality of the entire climate discussion…

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

And we all know what Michael Mann said, who is a member of the IPCC...

You mean he has been a contributor to IPCC reports? How does one become a member of the IPCC?

Cunsiderthis

Even today's Sunday Times, not normally thought of as a sceptical newspaper says;

"
The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.
It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC's 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.
The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report"



Not only did they know that what they were claiming was bogus, but the reason, it seems, was that they were then able to use the bogus claim to secure funds for his own orginasation.

The Times continues; ""Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.
One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.
An abstract of the grant application published on Carnegie's website said: "The Himalaya glaciers, vital to more than a dozen major rivers that sustain hundreds of millions of people in South Asia, are melting and receding at a dangerous rate."




So now it's official, the figures are twisted and lies told in order to secure money for this institute. So much for their professional integrity which is now in shreds. How can anyone believe a word this dicredited body says not that we know they are prepared to tell lies which hele secure money for their own private businessess.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

Thn EU has given €3 000 000 of our oney ( yes you'rs and mine) to "research" on the back of these lies also. http://www.eu-highnoon.org/nl/25222819-%5Blinkpage%5D.html?opage_id=25222852&location=10544250781250781,10304057,true,true

Angry Troll

another article on the issue…not sure if posted before…just for the sake of completeness…


http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15328534&source=features_box_main

SLUSK

They should start an investigation to find out if this is a question about fraud.

Angry Troll

as some reader commented on that article in the economist

"when you pour a thimblefull of piss into a bottle of wine, you get a bottle of piss; and so it is with politics and science."

and i’d sign that anytime…

probe

Anyone who lives at high altitude will be aware that temperature falls as one goes higher.

About 7C per 1,000 metres.

So if you take the Himalayas which peak at 8,850 m - it is going to be around -56 C compared with sea level temperatures at the same latitude.

Guaranteed to be frozen, year round.

A few degrees of "global warming" will get "nul points" in terms of melting ice at this altitude in my books. These idiots better stick to the arctic/antarctic - a few degrees less incredible a story to sell.

Looking at Irish weather statistics, there have been no extremes of weather for decades.

The flooding in Cork, Kildare, along the Shannon and in the Dublin area in November were caused by incompetence – ESB, planning authorities, culverts getting blocked by idiot builders, planning dysfunctionality, etc.

The highest annual rainfall in Ireland was in 1960 – just under 4 metres of rain in a year at the Ballaghbeena Gap.
The greatest fall of rain in one hour (97 mm) was in Orra Beg in Antrim in 1980.
The greatest daily total of rain (254 mm) was in Cloone Lake, KY in 1993.
The hottest day was recorded in Kilkenny in 1887 + 33.3 C.
The coldest day was recorded at Markee Castle in Sligo in 1881 – 18.8C
1887 was the sunniest summer in 100 years in Ireland.
In 1974, the wind blew at a record 200 km/h in Kilkeel.

Perhaps global climate change started in 1887 with 33.3 C temp – when there were few if any vehicles on the road and no aircraft, and not a lot of industry by today’s standards?

And it was freezing cold (-18.8C) in 1881, six years earlier.

They had no satellites so they hadn’t a clue of Arctic / Antarctic / Himalayan ice melting, if any back then.

They would perhaps be better off looking to El Niño.

Mahatma coat

Economist Comment section wrote:

One more example of IPCC's failure to answer a simple question about climate change. "The general public (that is, your paymasters IPCC) has heard that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating. How long before they vanish?" The IPCC answers by trumpeting dubious bogeyman stories that later turn out to be completely wrong. This causes confusion, destroys IPCC credibility and never answers the original question.

But it did successfully spend the public's money. As a spinoff benefit the green apocalypse industry was able to use the false stories to shakedown the concerned public for some unknown treasure trove of dollars.

Now it seems that games are being played with the selection of thermometers from which the raw global temperature data are obtained. Over time, the selections from the thermometers available to supply data seem to be changing to be more heavily weighted in favour of warmer locations and southern latitudes.

Case in point; As reported by the National Post, NOAA used temperatures from about 600 Canadian weather stations in the 1970's. Today NOAA uses data from 35 stations only. The Canadian government operates 1400 surface weather stations, of which more than 100 are above the Arctic circle. Yet NOAA uses the temperature from only one of these stations - at Eureka on Ellesmere Island which just happens to receive some temperature amelioration from the sea.

That means that the entire Canadian Artic is represented by one thermometer next to the Ocean in the current NOAA database when apparently 100 thermometers are available.

This is just plain hillbilly.

can anyone confirm or deny this acusation??


and I mean Actually Deny with factual evidence not some long winded bollox that skirts round the quwestion and throws it back at me

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

So now it's official, the figures are twisted and lies told in order to secure money for this institute.

Hardly official, but rather the opinion of Jonathan Leake, who is jumping the gun I would say.

djpbarry

probe wrote: »

So if you take the Himalayas which peak at 8,850 m - it is going to be around -56 C compared with sea level temperatures at the same latitude.

Guaranteed to be frozen, year round.

A few degrees of "global warming" will get "nul points" in terms of melting ice at this altitude in my books.

But glaciers are melting, are they not?

probe wrote: »

Looking at Irish weather statistics, there have been no extremes of weather for decades.

Any identifiable upward/downward trends?

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

can anyone confirm or deny this acusation??

Well first of all, the NOAA is an agency within the US Department of Commerce – I don’t know why this poster is suggesting that they are responsible for Canadian climate data? But anyway, Canadian climate data is available online here – quite a few stations above the Arctic Circle.

mike65

Pat Kenny (well know climate sceptic if you believe one or two warmists) will be doing a feature on his radio prog this morning.

Cunsiderthis

djpbarry wrote: »

Hardly official, but rather the opinion of Jonathan Leake, who is jumping the gun I would say.

Fact 1; The IPCC is led by its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri,

Fact 2: Dr Pachauri is director-general of a company called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in Delhi.

Fact 3; Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI

FACT 4: Dr Pachauri, The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the director general of TERI, has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds

Fact 5 TERI has been granted £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York

Fact 6 TERI has been awarded the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

Fact 7 Dr Pachauri described as "voodoo science" an official report by India’s leading glaciologist, Dr Vijay Raina, which dismissed Dr Hasnain's claims as baseless. Dr Pachauri has no expertise in glaciology.

Fact 8 The IPCC has now, at last, disowned the claims made by Dr Pachuari which have helped net his company, TERI, +- €3 000 000

DJbarry may be right in that there is nothing wrong with the fact that Dr. Pachauri has a conflict of interested here, or that the company of which he is director general has benefitted to +-€3 000 000 helped by claims which are lies, all the while that he was hurling abuse at a real glaciologist in an attempt to smear him, who was pointing out that the claims were unfounded.

If that’s the case, all the newspapers which carried the details over the weekend, (even papers in India and the Arab times, plus eeropesn newspapers including the Economist, The Sunday Times, The Observer and the Daily telegraph, amongst others, will presumably today be consulting their lawyers in preparation of law suits for defamation and damages from Dr. Pachuari.

I think most people will be appalled by these recent revelations, and coupled with other recent revelations, it’s now hard to know why anyone can take much of what the IPCC says seriously. It’s appalling that the Chairman of the IPCC should be rubbishing the leading Indian glaciologists findings, while at the same time realising that his findings might lead to a company of which he is director general securing +-€3m in funds.

What has been most revealing of all is his attitude that, when this is revealed, he thinks he has done nothing wrong!

It certainly seems to confirm the opinion of Michael Mann, that "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." , which seems also to be the position of the IPCC.

syklops

Fact 9: Dr Pachauri, "the worlds leading climate scientist" does not have a science degree. His PhD is in economics.

Angry Troll

syklops wrote: »

Fact 9: Dr Pachauri, "the worlds leading climate scientist" does not have a science degree. His PhD is in economics.

this just keeps getting better by the minute...what a sick joke...

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Fact 5 TERI has been granted £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York

No they have not – that grant was received by Global Centre in Iceland. The Times claims that the money was “channelled” to TERI and that “the cash was acknowledged by TERI in a press release”, but I’m not seeing that acknowledgement.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Fact 6 TERI has been awarded the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

Define “lion’s share”. According to the ‘High Noon’ website, the ‘grant’ was spread across several institutions:

The EU has earmarked 3 million Euros (approximately INR 19.5 crores) for this 3 years project, bringing together leading research institutions in Europe: Netherlands, UK and Switzerland, and India: TERI, IIT-Delhi & Kharagpur.

http://www.eu-highnoon.org/nl/25222819-%5Blinkpage%5D.html?opage_id=25222852&location=10544250781250781,10304057,true,true

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

DJbarry may be right in that there is nothing wrong with the fact that Dr. Pachauri has a conflict of interested here...

djpbarry has said nothing of the sort.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

It certainly seems to confirm the opinion of Michael Mann, that "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." , which seems also to be the position of the IPCC.

Seeing as you insist on repeating this ad nauseam, why not save yourself some time and make it your sig?

probe

I remember reading something similar in a leaked document from the emails and other files that found their way into the public arena from East Anglia University last year.

Something along the lines of "let's put the names of four or five individuals with doctorates on the front cover of the report, and tell the media that a thousand experts in the subject have backed the opinions expressed. The media won't bother to look at who the thousand experts are or what their qualifications might be."

You can fool all of the people some of the time.....

Cunsiderthis

djpbarry wrote: »

No they have not – that grant was received by Global Centre in Iceland. The Times claims that the money was “channelled” to TERI and that “the cash was acknowledged by TERI in a press release”, but I’m not seeing that acknowledgement.
Define “lion’s share”. According to the ‘High Noon’ website, the ‘grant’ was spread across several institutions:

http://www.eu-highnoon.org/nl/25222819-%5Blinkpage%5D.html?opage_id=25222852&location=10544250781250781,10304057,true,true
djpbarry has said nothing of the sort.
Seeing as you insist on repeating this ad nauseam, why not save yourself some time and make it your sig?

As usual you appear to hurry to find minor points about which you can come rushing back to pose questions, and thus completely avoid the substantive issue. But, really, it doesn't wash.

And you may be right, ( which is not admitted) and it may be they haven't even got the "lions share" of anything, (which is not admitted)! You may even decide that, because I have said that, that you can claim a "victory". But really, it makes no difference and doesn't take from the issue one jot.

Everyone else can see the disgraceful conduct of this man representing this disgrace institution, and if you decide you want to avoid the substantive issue and become sidetracked in such in minor details, then feel free to do so. I imagine most of the rest of the members here who can see the substantive issue for what it is will make up their own minds. And whethre he got €50 000 or €300 000 for his company in money is not relevant except that they are different amounts. The issue is his conduct. And the conduct if the IPCC.

PS I note no one is yet reporting that Dr Pachauri has yet to issue proceedings claiming that any of the articles who claim that the company for which he is director-general, fot the lions share of these two grants.

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

As usual you appear to hurry to find minor points about which you can come rushing back to pose questions, and thus completely avoid the substantive issue.

You have alleged that TERI has benefitted financially, to the tune of approximately €3 million, from the publication of this incorrect assessment of Himalayan glaciers by the IPCC, or “lies”, as you call them. You are essentially accusing Dr. Pachauri of fraud. But this argument is severely lacking weight. Firstly, there is no evidence that TERI has received anything near the full €3 million in funding – we have no idea how much they received, but based on the number of institutions involved, it would appear to be significantly less than €3 million. Secondly, there is no mention made of the ‘2035 claim’ on the High Noon web page you linked to. Furthermore, the claim did not feature in either the IPCC summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report – you’d imagine it would have if Dr. Pachauri was attempting to mislead policy makers, wouldn’t you? And finally, if Dr. Pachauri was attempting to swindle large amounts of funding from funding bodies, then he has failed abysmally. €3 million (or a share of it), in terms of research funding, is peanuts and I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone would go to such extra-ordinary lengths in order to secure such a paltry sum.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Everyone else can see the disgraceful conduct of this man representing this disgrace institution, and if you decide you want to avoid the substantive issue and become sidetracked in such in minor details, then feel free to do so.

These are hardly “minor details” – they are the basis of your argument. You’ll have to forgive me for not believing everything I read in a newspaper.

djpbarry

probe wrote: »

I remember reading something similar in a leaked document from the emails and other files that found their way into the public arena from East Anglia University last year.

Something along the lines of "let's put the names of four or five individuals with doctorates on the front cover of the report, and tell the media that a thousand experts in the subject have backed the opinions expressed. The media won't bother to look at who the thousand experts are or what their qualifications might be."

I have no idea what the relevance of this comment is? If you want to discuss the "Climategate" emails, I suggest you do so in the relevant thread.