Rajendra Pachauri

Diverse — Drokles on January 19, 2010 at 8:37 pm

Roger Pielke Sr. citerer Benny Peiser

“The IPCC review process has been shown on numerous occasions to lack transparency and due diligence. Its work is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following their advice – as the Copenhagen summit showed.’

Den fremragende blog Watts Up With That? har længe interesseret sig for den pinlige historie om Himalaya smeltene gletcher. Ifølge IPCC ville gletcherne på Himalaya være smeltet i 2035 og den forudsigelse har været et af deres bedste pr-kort når farerne ved klimaændringer (før kendt som global opvarmning) skulle sælges.  Billeder af de majestætiske bjerge, som man gerne vil bevare dem i al deres pragt har været  noget der ligner IPCCs pandabjørn. WUWT henviser til Times Online

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.

Der har før været kritik af den besynderlige forudsigelse men “Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science“. Sådan siger nobelsprismodtageren Rajendra Lomorg-er-som-Hitler Pachauri. WUWT huskede som sagt sagen og henviste til en ældre artikel i Guardian, hvor den daværende indiske miljøminister Jairam Ramesh får på puklen for at affærdige IPCCs konklusioner

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.

Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.

However, 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 is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

(…)

Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some “Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear.”

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

“With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.”

(…)

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

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

“I cannot see what the minister’s motives are. We do need more extensive measurement of the Himalayan range but it is clear from satellite pictures what is happening.”

Endnu engang, manden er Nobelsprismodtager. Pachauri kan måske ikke gennemskue den indiske miljøministers motiver for at drage løgnen i tvivl, men så må han trøste sig med at Roger Pielke Jr. måske kan gennemskue Pachauris egne motiver til at sprede og forsvare løgne om Himalayas gletchere

Of course, neither Dr. Pachauri nor Dr. Hasnain ever said anything about the error when it was receiving worldwide attention (as being true) in 2007 and 2008, nor did they raise any issues with the IPCC citing non-peer reviewed work (which is a systemic problem). They did however use the IPCC and its false claims as justification in support of fund raising for their own home institution. At no point was any of this disclosed.

If the above facts and time line is correct (and I welcome any corrects to details that I may have in error), then what we have here is a classic and unambiguous case of financial conflict of interest. IPCC Chairman Pachauri was making public comments on a dispute involving factual claims by the IPCC at the same time that he was negotiating for funding to his home institution justified by those very same claims. If instead of climate science we were instead discussing scientific advisors on drug safety and funding from a pharmaceutical company to the advisory committee chair the conflict would be obvious.

Men udover det pinlige, ja skandaløse i disse løgne og forsøget på at kyse al kritik, som værende amoralsk, selv et fremtrædende regeringsmedlem, så er der mere end Himalaya der kan beskrive IPCCs arbejdsmetoder, som WUWT fortæller

I want to spotlight another error in the IPCC report.  This is an error, based not on blunders or poor scholarship but on selective reporting of results, where one side of the story is highlighted but the other side is buried in silence. In other words, it’s a sin of omission, that is, it results, literally, from being economical with the truth. It succeeds in conveying an erroneous impression of the issue — similar to what “hide the decline” did successfully (until Climategate opened and let the sunshine in).

I have written about this previously at WUWT in a post, How the IPCC Portrayed a Net Positive Impact of Climate Change as a Negative, and in a peer reviewed article on global warming and public health. Both pieces show how the IPCC Working Group II’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), which deals with the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, hid the projected decline in the future global population at risk of water shortage due to climate change.  Not surprisingly, news outlets (e.g., here and here) routinely report that climate change could increase the population at risk of water shortage, despite the fact that studies show exactly the opposite regarding the net global population at risk of water shortage.

Og konkluderer

As a long time science policy analyst, let me note that such conduct is reprehensible.  Expert comments on the Second Order Draft of the SPM (see Items C and D on page 32 of linked document) had explicitly warned that: “It is disingenuous to report the population ‘new water stressed’ without also noting that as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).” Despite that, the SPM chose to report the increase but ignored the decline.

This was clearly undertaken consciously, as opposed to being the result of a blunder. It is, therefore, more insidious than the Himalayan error.

Som WUWT og Roger Pielke også er inde på ikke bare tale om sjusk, men om et modus operandi.

NB: Roger Pielke Jr. har stort set lavet den samme postering kan jeg se. Her er nogle flere citater fra Pachauri, der sviner kritikere til. Tja den der arbejder langsomt kommer for sent.

1 Kommentar »

  1. Tak for sangen! ..når nu de officielle Danske medier ikke gider/tør skrive om Climategate er det da rart at se der er en Dansk undergrund der kærer sig om vores frihed

    Fra den Indiske debat om sagen:
    The News Hour GlacierGate Debate Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOknLq1uQiI&NR=1

    The News Hour GlacierGate Debate part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SGr6Dqy4o&NR=1

    ..og denne publikation (third report to the Club of Rome)fra 1976 ringer en klokke, kan downloades her:
    http://repub.eur.nl/resource/publication:7970/index.html
    Reshaping the International Order

    Comment by Svend — January 25, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress