CONGRATULATIONS! TO THE PEOPLE OF EGYPT.

Way to go!

: )

Now we look to you to do the right thing by your neighbours under siege in Palestine.

“Melting glaciers” fiasco exposes IPCC arrogance, dishonesty and incompetence

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri today admitted in a public statement that the IPCC claim that there was a very high chance the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 was wrong and unfounded.

He did not offer to resign (if it was up to me, he’d be in prison), but merely promised that this claim would be dropped from future statements regarding climate change (formerly known as global warming).

So what’s the big deal?

The big deal is that the allegedly melting Himalayan glaciers was one of the key “facts” that was used to persuade governments – particularly in India and Asia – to commit billions of dollars in funding to GW research and prevention. This is money that could have been used to deal with real environmental and humanitarian emergencies.

But not only that. The melting glaciers claim – and the way in was defended by Pachauri (who has no qualifications whatsoever in any field related to climate science) – provides an insight into the combination of incompetence, dishonesty and arrogance by which the IPCC operates.

Incompetence, because the claim was a physical impossibility that could have been spotted by a ten year-old schoolboy with a rudimentary grasp of maths (the figures quoted simply didn’t add up). And dishonesty because the absurdity of the claim had been brought to Pachauri’s attention by several scientists and by the Japanese government prior to its publication. Clearly, the IPCC chose not to remove the claim because it was regarded as a juicy and photogenic AGW “convincer”. (There’s nothing newspapers like more than images – even photoshopped images – of melting glaciers.)

Arrogant because when Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, publicly refuted the melting glacier claim, the IPCC – and Pachauri in particular – was scathing in its denunciation of him, attempting to discredit him and accusing him of reaching his conclusions on the basis of “voodoo science”.
Here’s a newspaper account of the IPCC’s attack on Ramesh from last November:

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister (Ramesh) is supporting this unsubstantiated research.

The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers, looks at 150 years’ worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region.

Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not “peer reviewed” and had few “scientific citations”.

In a remarkable finding, the report claims the Gangotri glacier, the main source of the River Ganges, actually receded fastest in 1977 – and is today “practically at a stand still”…

“As long as we have monsoons we will have glaciers. There are many factors to consider when we want to find out how quickly… rainfall, debris cover, relief and terrain,” said Raina (the geologist who authored the report).

In response Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of “climate change deniers and school boy science”.

Many environmentalists said they were also unconvinced by the minister’s arguments. Sunita Narain, a member of the Indian prime minister’s climate change council and director of the Centre for Science and Environment, said “the report would create a lot of confusion.

“The PM’s council has just received a comprehensive report which presents many studies which show clear fragmentation of the glaciers would lead to faster recession. I am not sure what Jairam (Ramesh) is doing.”

Full report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

Yesterday the IPCC chairman was forced to admit publicly that Ramesh was right, and that the IPCC, Pachauri, and some of the IPCC’s “leading environmentalists” were 100% wrong.

This is an example not only of how wrong the IPCC can be with its “facts” on global warming, but also how arrogant and downright malevolent it can be towards those who challenge its claims.