There are some interesting developments on the climate-gate frontier.
Apparently, the Himalayan glaciers aren’t melting, after all.
Or at least, not as fast as the IPCC (the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change , the UN body tasked with climate change) thinks they should.
The IPCC was established in 1988 and won the Nobel Prize with Al Gore in 2007.
[Since we know that the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 went to Barack Obama, man of perpetual war, we can only imagine what a Nobel prize given to the IPCC signifies].
Among the IPCC’s more striking claims was that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, a claim that Indian geologist Vijay Kumar Raina says is a gross exaggeration based on misapplying Western data in an Indian setting. The claim didn’t account for variations in geology and rainfall, for example.
Raina prepared a government report that actually found that the Gangotri glacier melted the fastest in 1977 and has been at a stand-still since then.
This research was dismissed by Indian environmentalists who said it wasn’t peer-reviewed and lacked international citations.
Ah. The good old colonial mentality. Desi research not good enough. Indians always need the Raj to tell them how to think.
Anyway, you know what climate-gate told us about peer review? That it’s turned into a politically motivated PR tactic to endorse certain views and reject others.
(Not that anyone with half a brain needed climate-gate to figure that out).
As Robert Higgs puts it at the Independent Institute:
“The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another’s work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions. “Scientific consensus” often emerges because the members of this exclusive club, and those who support them, have too much invested in the reigning ideas to let go. In this context, it behooves bright young scientists not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute review committees of funders or journals. The terms “peer review” and “scientific consensus” often serve to suggest a process of disinterested neutrality and saintly pursuit of truth. Like every other human endeavour, however, science is conducted by people with the full range of human emotions and motives. Good rules of thumb for the non-scientist might be the following: government-funded research that is used to justify that government’s policy should be suspect, whether or not it’s peer-reviewed; and the research of scientists who appear at press conferences in the company of politicians or activists whose agendas they are there to support should be suspect, whether or not the work upholds the consensus opinion.”
India’s environment minister was understandably gleeful, because in the past the IPCC had scoffed at Indian research as voodoo science. Now it’s his turn to call the IPCC voodoo:
“India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, has openly raised his anger on the IPCC’s report, and said that the IPCC scientists had given the wrong facts about the glaciers and there was no evidence of the same.
The Environment Ministry also released a report in November last year which admitted that the Himalayan glaciers were indeed shrinking, but the receding pace was not an immediate cause of worry.
Skeptics also called the error report as IPCC’s ‘Vodoo Science.’
As Minister Ramesh notes in the Times of India, the IPCC has been used by western states to provoke environmental alarmism in developing countries so that they sign up for technology and regulations that benefit the globalist agenda.
“The IPCC is only meant to include peer-reviewed information that has passed the litmus test of being published in reputed journals. But this is not the first time that data on India, often used by industrialised countries to put pressure on Delhi to take actions, has been found to be incorrect.
In 1990, US raised a scare that methane emissions (an intense greenhouse gas) from wet paddy fields in India were as high as 38 million tonnes. It was later found by Indian scientists and globally accepted that it was as low as 2-6 million tonnes,” Ramesh said.
Again in 2000, just before crucial negotiations, US and other industrialised countries flogged an unverified report of UNEP that claimed soot from chullahs (earthen cookstoves) was adding greatly to climate change, calling it the Asian Brown Haze.”
Meanwhile, the person who wrote the IPCC reports in 2001 and 2007, Professor Pitman, claims that the reason that “warmists” are losing the battle to skeptics is because the skeptics are heavily funded while the “warmists” are operating on a shoe-string.
Take a look at the “shoe-string” supporting the leading warmist research center, which I blogged about in an earlier post on the subject:
“British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).”