Not by Fire but by Ice


Discover What Killed the Dinosaurs . . . and Why it Could Soon Kill Us


UN climate chief admits (spins) mistake

on Himalayan glaciers warning

Wants to use three glaciers as "benchmarks"

page delimiter

21 Jan 10 - (Excerpts) - "The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035." ("Flawed"? How about fraudulent?)

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards."

     "Poorly substantiated?" Now about deliberate fraud? The IPCC prediction
       was based on a single phone call by a reporter to a little-known Indian
       scientist who supposedly speculated that the Himalayan glaciers might
       melt by 2035. The reporter then wrote an article for New Scientist based
       on that one phone call, and the IPCC then based their entire fraud on that
       one article.  

"The stunning admission is certain to embolden critics of the panel, already under fire over a separate scandal involving hacked e-mails last year. (As it should.)

"The 2007 report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.
     A Nobel Peace Prize based on fraud.

"It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine."

     As far as I know, neither has he ever denied making such a statement ... until
     now. You'd think that ten years would have given him enough time to have  
     disavowed the article.

"Professor Hasnain works for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Rajendra Pachauri, head of the climate change panel.

"Despite the controversy, the IPCC said that it stood by its overall conclusions about glacier loss this century in big mountain ranges including the Himalayas. “This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment,” it said. (Based on what proof?)

"The scandal threatens to undermine the panel’s credibility." (As it should.)

"Monitoring Himalayan glaciers is extremely difficult because most of them lie in some of the most inhospitable terrain in the word at an altitude of more than 5,000 metres (16,000ft).

"Most studies until now have therefore been based necessarily on a mixture of outdated and incomplete data, satellite imagery, photography, and anecdotal evidence." (And fraud.)

"Last year, however, TERI launched a project to install high-tech sensors on three glaciers which it will use as benchmarks to assess the situation across the Himalayas.

     There are more than 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. And we're going to
     use only three as benchmarks?

     I know of 230 Himalayan glaciers that are growing,
- including Mount
     Everest, K2 and
Nanga Parbat
g. (See Glaciers Growing in Western
) Why not use them as benchmarks?

 Professor Hasnain, who is running the project, said that he would soon be presenting a report on the status of Himalayan glaciers, based on research works by Indian and international scientists published in different peer reviewed journals across the world.

     Is this the same Professor Hasnain who now insists that he did not speculate
     that all of the glaciers would be gone by 2035?

     Is this the same Professor Hasnain who "works for The Energy and Resources
     Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Rajendra Pachauri, head of the
     climate change panel"?

"He hopes that these studies will help to produce more incontrovertible evidence that the Himalayan glaciers are under threat.

       He hopes this produce evidence that the glaciers are "under threat"?
       Why would anyone hope this? How about hoping to establish the truth?
       Why should we trust "evidence" from such a biased source?
       I think the IPCC should be dismantled.

See entire article by Jeremy Page, entitled
"UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning":
Thanks to Benjamin Napier for this link


                                                                         * * *

See also:
Glaciers Growing in
Western Himalayas
24 May 09 – In a defiant act
of political incorrectness, some
230 glaciers in the western
Himalayas - including Mount Everest, K2 and
Parbat -
are actually growing. See Glaciers Growing in Western Himalayas

See also:
Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
23 Nov 08 - A study published by the American Meteorological Society
found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further
west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are "thickening 
and expanding".
See Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding


See also:
Melting Himalayan glaciers - Not an iota of scientific evidence
20 Jan 10 - "The health of the glaciers is a cause of grave concern, but the IPCC's alarmist position that they would melt by 2035 was not based on an
iota of scientific evidence," says India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.




Order Book I Q & A I Book Reviews I Plant Hardiness Zone Maps I Radio Interviews I Table of Contents I Excerpts I Author Photo I Pacemaker of the Ice Ages I Extent of Previous Glaciation I Crane Buried in Antarctic Ice Sheet I Ice Ages and Magnetic Reversals I It's Ocean Warming I E-Mail Robert at l Expanding Glaciers