Not one, but two ... and counting - by Richard... Monday, January 25, 2010

Not one, but two ... and counting - by Richard... Monday, January 25, 2010

"You can't say it's careless science ... it's one mistake," says Pachauri, referring to the use of the WWF "grey" reference (i.e., not peer-reviewed) to support the contention that Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035.

That was in Chapter 10 of the Working Group II report on Asia but this is not the only outing for the WWF reference. In Chapter 8 on Human Health, written up by a completely different set of authors, we come to Section 8.4.2.5 on "Populations in mountain regions". And there we find these immortal words:

Changes in climate are affecting many mountain glaciers, with rapid glacier retreat documented in the Himalayas, Greenland, the European Alps, the Andes, Cordillera and East Africa (WWF, 2005).

Moving down to the reference list at the end of the chapter, we then see the full citation:


By comparison, the reference in Chapter 10 is cited thus:


This is the same reference – although the citation style is slightly different - the very same that supported the contention that: "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."

But what is particularly bizarre about the Chapter 8 reference is that, not only is it "grey", a study of Nepal, India and China is used to support assertions relating to "the Himalayas, Greenland, the European Alps, the Andes, Cordillera and East Africa."

Now we turn to the IPPC web entry for Chapter 10. The HTML but not the .PDF version) is accompanied by the IPPC statement of 20 January, which in part declares:

It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.

And claims of rapid glacier retreat "documented in the Himalayas, Greenland, the European Alps, the Andes, Cordillera and East Africa" are not "poorly substantiated" and the "well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures" have been followed?

One assumes that this must be the case, as Pachauri assures us that there is "only one mistake" and the chances of there being additional mistakes are "minimal".

However, Donna Laframboise, a Canadian blogger in Toronto has picked up "dozens" of instances where WWF reports have been cited as the sole authority for contentious claims, including one about coastal developments in Latin America.

She lists them all on her site, making Dr Pachauri's confident assertion look just a tad thin. How many "mistakes" will there have to be before Dr Pachauri resigns?

PACHAURI THREAD

Print ready

Pachauri must resign - by Richard... Sunday, January 24, 2010

If Dr Pachauri does not resign voluntarily, he will be forced to do so.

It was not until the Sunday Times last week actually highlighted it that he was forced to take action. And on that basis I don't think he has any credible alternative but to resign and he is either going to resign voluntarily or as the media are increasingly saying he is going to be forced. 

It is a very clearly recognisable tactic where he simply denies the undeniable and for a while if you are in a very elevated position you get away with it. He hasn't yet recognised that his position is already untenable and the more he denies, the way the media work the more evidence they are going to find until such time as his denials will be so lacking in credibility that he will be unable to operate ... 

Via Liberty New Central.

PACHAURI THREAD

Print ready

Tory eco-bullies rampant - by Richard...

James Delingpole explains.

Meanwhile, Biased BBC notes almost complete silence from the BBC on "Glaciergate".

CLIMATE CHANGE – NEW THREAD

Print ready

Pachauri: the natural disaster scam - by Richard...

One can hardly admit surprise at the report in the Mail on Sunday which has the scientist "behind the bogus claim" on melting Himalayan admitted that the offending section "was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

This is from Dr Murari Lal, the lead author of 4AR's chapter on Asia. He also said he was well aware the statement did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. "It related to several countries in this region and their water sources," he says. Thus: "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."

Lal, in making this admission confirms that which we have known, and asserted, for a long time – that the IPCC is not a scientific body. It is political institution, dedicated to delivering a highly political message in single-minded pursuit of its global warming agenda.

What we learn, therefore, ties in perfectly with the report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which sets out in detail the attempts to modify the Himalayas section, and the blank refusal of Lal to make any changes. 

As such, the 2035 claim can hardly be called a mistake – or even representing of failure of the IPCC processes. Lal did what he was supposed to do, and then defended his work to the hilt, as indeed did Pachauri until forced to concede the "error".

No doubt, there is a similar political agenda behind the false claims by the IPCC linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. This false link has been highlighted by Jonathan Leake in The Sunday Times today – but there is much more to his report than meets the eye.

The story is also picked up by The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph but none of the papers so far have pursued the motivation behind this newly reported "error".

In fact, there is little to go on, a yet, but already it is clear that the driver behind this particular scam is as much financial as it is political. And behind that is the lucrative re-insurance industry which sees in "climate change" several business opportunities.

One is the ability to dump its liabilities for what are defined as "climate related events", drawing instead on a newly-created global catastrophe insurance fund underwritten by the governments of the developed states. Another – already up and running – is the Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF), a World Bank-backed scheme designed to allow developing countries to take out insurance against "the increased risk of climate-change related storms and extreme weather events."

The business agenda is scarcely concealed in the eagerness of Munich Re to talk up the effects of climate change and its heavy investment in research into insurance-related aspects of climate change.

It also explains the role of one of the leading research institutes on climate change, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), based near Vienna in Austria which, under the guidance of Shonali Pachauri, daughter of Rajendra – has taken a special interest in climate change and insurance, alongside Oxfam and the WWF.

Strangely enough, much of the work is sponsored by Munich Re and its Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII), initiated in April 2005 – of which Dr Pachauri's TERI is a founder member,actively contributing to the development of various schemes.

Dig a little deeper and you will find the European Climate Forum and behind them is the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Further embedded id the Geneva Association, formally known as the International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics, which has produced a detailed report (152 pages .pdf) on the issue, under the presidency of Nikolaus von Bomhard, chairman of the management board, Munich Re Group, Munich. It's a small world.

However, if there are no fully established schemes in place yet, that is because the development of global financial packages is still work in progress. Although insurance featured in 4AR and was discussed at Copenhagen, ideas have not fully matured.

Nevertheless, this will be one of the main concerns of the fifth assessment report, with working group II already considering the matter under the generic heading of "Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation".

Meanwhile, we have another of those cosy little cartels, where powerful vested interests are getting together to ramp up public concern in order to enrich themselves, all in the name of saving the planet.

This time, though, they are not getting a free run at it. Concerned at the rising costs of premiums– not least because of the increasing levies from the re-insurers – causing customers to drop out of the market, the retail insurers are fighting back, questioning the global warming hype.

Despite all that though, Dr Pachauri's TERI is keen to offer its expertise in dealing with the "visible impacts of climate change" (for a fee, of course), and supporting Munich Re and its MCII initiative, arguing for the creation of a multi-billion adaptation fund.

But, whenever there is some cash to be made, there is always a Pachauri around.

PACHAURI THREAD