Climategate: Indian Environment Minister Says IPCC Wrong On Glaciers Melting

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.’

More here.

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).”

3 thoughts on “Climategate: Indian Environment Minister Says IPCC Wrong On Glaciers Melting

  1. Like many of my fellow travellers I like to chat with God; Fiona, that’s Her name, is a good listener and does offer me the occasional advice. The last chat I had with Fiona was about something that burns my brain – climate change.

    You see I have no idea who to believe when it comes to carbon “pollution” and anthropogenic global warming. I had two questions for Fiona: What causes our climate to change? And, do human beings contribute to global warming?

    Fiona informed me that the complex matrix of variables related to climate change could not be comprehended by mere mortals. “After all” said Fiona, “have you ever been able to understand the inner workings of your wife’s mind?” “That’s a hard one” I replied.

    She then followed with a more difficult question: “Do you not think it a little bit arrogant of you, or anyone else, to think you could understand the way I manage your universe, let alone get me to change my ways?”

    I must admit at that point I felt like looking for another God; but She did follow that if human beings had their hearts set on this carbon reduction game then She had a solution that would meet all our carbon reduction targets for years to come. And it would be painless; so painless in fact we could party for the rest of our lives and reduce carbon levels.

    “How’ I enquired. “War.” She replied.

    Fiona then informed me that if war was a country the annual carbon emissions would equal 139 of the world’s nations. “Wow Fiona, I never thought about that.” I replied.

    She then suggested a little homework regarding war and carbon emissions. “After all I did give humans a particularly large brain and a free will, so get to it.” She ordered – mmm, so much for free will.

    Having consulted my trusty abacus, slide rule and particularly large (overworked) brain it soon became obvious that if homo sapiens stopped dropping bombs, building war ships, tanks and nuclear bombs we could meet all our carbon reduction targets for the next 137 years, 9 months, 3 days, 2 hours, 25 minutes and 13 seconds; this is a fact, if you don’t believe me then consult the scientists.

    When I got back to Fiona She was most pleased that I had done my homework and rewarded me with a sunny day and a headache (She really does work in a mysterious way – but so does my beautiful wife).

    She then concluded that Homo sapiens were a weird mob, for too often a solution to their problem stares them in the face – but they keep telling it to go away.

  2. Interesting about Fiona…I’ve had a few chats with Morgan le Fay myself..
    and she said much the same thing.

    In fact, I do recall arguing with a few people over it. I said, why is it that environmentalists and the Pentagon both agree on one thing..which is that everyday people are the problem..why do both of them not mention missile testing, and weapons testing, and war and military exercises when talking about this stuff?

    And the conclusion I came to is that both the Pentagon and some environmentalists (I am not talking about the average guy..I am talking about large groups with an impact on policy)…must be reading the same script.

  3. Methinks global warming and carbon tax is a bit like religion, redemption, guilt and the usual stuff.

    Organic life is defined by carbon. Carbon is now sold to the public at large as a pollutant, a sin; so much so we have to redeem ourselves by buying carbon credits and all that sh*t; otherwise we will burn in hell. A tax on life itself – how convenient.

    We may as well return to buying redemptions from the local priest to ensure our life in eternity – it’s similar psychology.

    These days politicians need a bloody good reason to raise taxes – democracy can be a bitch. The west is in deep debt and needs to raise taxes or reduce welfare or both to manage that debt. May as well tax life itself through a complex money game designed by the usual suspects, for their benefit.

    Next they will figure out a way to tax the air we breathe – it’s only a matter of time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>