More on Pachauri, head of IPCC, and his business empire – Sorry, it should officially be a “Non Profit Charity Organization”.
Ana as an update on my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 231
Interesting isn’t it, that the guy who was speculating, and after passing thru a “science” magazine and WWF, ends up as Hard Irrefutable “science” in IPCC:s 4 AR ; IS NOW ACTUALLY WORKING FOR Pachauris company TERI.
What a coincidence wouldn’t you say?
And that TERI got a $500,000 grant as a result of these speculations.
Another coincidence wouldn’t you say?
“Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as ”voodoo science”. “
Pachauri: there’s money in them glaciers
Posted by Richard Monday, January 18, 2010
Syed Hasnain (pictured), the scientist at the centre of the growing controversy over melting Himalayan glaciers (not), is now working for Dr R K Pachauri’s TERI as head of the institute glaciology team, funded by a generous grant from a US charity, researching the effects of the retreat.
Highlighted in The Sunday Times yesterday, Dr Hasnain was the scientist responsible for claiming that the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. This was picked up by the New Scientist and then by a 2005 WWF report, and subsequently published as a definitive claim in the IPCC’s 2007 fourth assessment report, masterminded by Dr R K Pachauri.
But, while Dr Hasnain, who was then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, has admitted that the New Scientist report was based on ”speculation” and was not supported by any formal research, he is now a direct beneficiary of that speculation.
Using Dr Hasnain’s claim that the Himalaya glaciers ”will vanish within forty years as a result of global warming…resulting in widespread water shortages,” Pachauri’s ”alarmism” was bolstered by the WWF report which stated:
As apocalyptic as it may sound, it needs to be underlined that glaciers need to be studied for a variety of purposes including hazard assessment, effects on hydrology, sea level rise and to track climatic variations. There are several problems associated with retreating glaciers that need to be understood in order to proceed to the next stage of quantifying research and mitigating disaster.
With the case for more research thus established, Pachauri’s institute, TERI, approached the wealthy Carnegie Corporation of New York through a consortium led by the Global Centre for funding to carry out precisely the work to which his own ”independent” report had drawn attention.
In November 2008, they were successful, being awarded a $500,000 grant for ”research, analysis and training on water-related security and humanitarian challenges to South Asia posed by melting Himalaya glaciers.” This helped Dr Pachauri set up the TERI Glaciology team, putting at its head now professor Syed Iqbal Hasnain.
The Global Center is an Icelandic-based private institute with links to the office of the president of Iceland, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson. Its aim is to establish ”a major research and training program involving scientists from South Asia, Europe and the Americas,” of which Dr Pauchari’s TERI India is a central part.
Thus, this month, on 15 January, Iceland president Grímsson and Dr Pachauri, together with a team from Ohio State University, launched their collaborative programme, declaring that TERI and the Carnegie Corporation of New York had ”joined hands” to work in the fields of glaciology and soil science.
The purpose of the joint effort, they said, was ”to improve understanding of the effects of climate change on the Himalaya and the manifold consequences that follow for the possibilities of water management and food production on the plains below.”
The research fund is also to be topped up from the $108,000 proceeds of the Nehru Prize awarded to Grímsson this month.
Nevertheless, Dr Hasnain does not seem always to be upholding his earlier ”speculation”. He was ”on message” in November 2009 but, on the first day of the two-day conclave on ”Indian Himalayan glaciers, change and livelihoods” in October 2009, he told his audience that scientists projected ”a 43 percent decrease in glacial area on average by the year 2070 and 75 percent decrease by the end of 21st century at the current warming rate” – a very far cry from disappearance in 2035.
However, with the addition of EU funding, Dr Hasnain can afford to be more candid. He has been able to set up a major research facility at Latey Bunga, Mukteshwar, with several outstations in what is now a well-resourced operation.
Meanwhile, Dr Pachauri, head of the parent research institute, TERI, and a ”full-time salaried employee”, is seeking to disown his own 2007 report. Despite having dismissed criticism of it by the Indian government as ”voodoo science”, he told an Indian news agency today that he washed his hands of the controversy saying he has ”absolutely no responsibility”.
Still, with $500,000 in the bank, and EU money flowing into the coffers, the report has served its purpose and he can afford now to walk away from it.
“So, to recap: in the course of a garbled phone conversation a scientist accidentally invents a problem that doesn’t exist. This gets reported as if gospel in an influential Warmist science magazine and repeated by a Warmist NGO, before being lent the full authority of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report which, as we know, can’t be wrong because it is vetted by around 2,500 scientists. Then, on the back of this untrue story, the scientist gets a cushy job at the institution whose director is also in charge of the IPCC.
Nice work if you can invent it, eh?”
‘India being vindicated in Himalayan glacier issue’
New Delhi, Jan 18 (PTI) As the controversy over retreating Himalayan glaciers took a new turn, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh today said India stood vindicated with a UN body moving to retract its own ”alarmist” warning that the glaciers would melt by 2035 due to climate change.
Ramesh slammed as ‘alarmist’ the warning by Rajendra Pachauri’s Nobel-prize winning Inter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the glaciers would vanish and said it was without any scientific basis.
Pachauri, who is the IPCC Chairman, washed his hands of the controversy saying he has ”absolutely no responsibility”
”The health of the glaciers is a cause of grave concern but the IPCC’s alarmist position that the glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence,” Ramesh told reporters.
18 January 2010
Glacial Fallout and the IPCC
The IPCC’s error with respect to Himalayan glaciers has all of a sudden gained enormous traction. Here is a quick round up of the latest.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, says that the Panel is revisiting the erroneous claims on glaciers:
”We are looking into the issue of the Himalayan glaciers, and will take a position on it in the next two or three days,” Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told Reuters in an e-mail.
What this might mean isunclear since the AR4 is disbanded and it is not clear that the IPC has any policies or procedures for revisiting or addressing errors in previously published reports. Depending on how the IPCC responds, there likely will be other issues to be addressed, including of course the IPCC’s egregious errors on disasters and climate change.
In Indian media, Pachauri also appears to have disavowed any responsibility for the IPCC error, while India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh claims to have been vindicated in his dispute with Pachauri and the IPCC:
India’s Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh Monday said “I was right on the glaciers” while maintaining that the Himalayan glaciers are ”indeed” receding, which is a cause for great concern, but the view that these rivers of ice would melt down completely by 2035 due to global warning is ”alarmist” and without any scientific basis.
”It is a clear vindication of our position. (But) It is a serious issue. (Himlayan) glaciers are serious issues for India. Most of the Himalayan glaciers are in a poor state, but the report that suggested that the glaciers will vanish completely by 2035 is alarmist and misplaced,” Ramesh told reporters in New Delhi.
He maintained that the causes for the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas needs to be carefull studies.
Ramesh was referring to the study by the Nobel prize winning group – United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 had – that claimed that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.
The Rajendra Pachauri-led UN panel had warned that the melting of glaciers would have far-reaching consequences for India. However, new evidence has emerged to suggest that the IPCC may have been mistaken.
The IPCC’s claim was based on an article in a London-based science journal which had borrowed the statement from India’s glaciologist Syed Iqbal Hasnain. “The study was not made on any scientific evidence,” a very happy sounding minister.
WWF-India Climate Change and Energy Programme chief Shirish Sinha admitted that there are ”limitations to scientific models used for such studies.”
”We need to look at new data and study. The larger issue is the coming of scientific data which is not validated,” said Sinha.
The report was based on compilation of papers. We regret the report that was put out. The information used in the report was not validated and the predictions were based on scientific models. What WWF has seen is that smaller glaciers are more vulnerable but larger ones are not that vulnerable,” Sinha has been quoted as saying by CNN-IBN television channel.
A little-known scientist Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, Syed Husnain who first issued the doomsday warning, has admitted that it was based on a news story in a science journal.
Pachauri, however, washed his hands off the report saying Husnain was not working with him but in the New Delhi-based Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) when he published it
”Husnain was with JNU when the report was published in 1999. I am not responsible for what he did in his past, can’t say anything now. Have to assess facts first,” Pachauri replied when asked if the misleading report was an embarrassment for The Energy and Resources Institute.
. . . In this case, we relied upon a published article rather than the original report for the information we cited in our own document. Referring to this article without double-checking the primary source was a mistake inconsistent with our high standards and one we sincerely regret. . .
How can the IPCC justify not having peer-reviewed this statement before including it in their report?
A: This is a question for the IPCC.
Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 1/18/2010 10:05:00 AM
THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE SCANDAL
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>
Etiketter: Al Gore, Carbon Trading, CO2, Etanol, EU, EU Parlamentet, Global Warming Hysteri, Havsis, Havsnivå, IPCC, Isbjörnar, Journalism, Klimatmodeller, Korruption, Kyoto, Media, News, Obama, Orkaner, Pachauri, Peer review, Politik, Press, Riksdagen, Snötäcket, Temperaturdata, Traditional Media, UN, Vindkraft