Rear Mirror: Fake but Accurate
Source: Climate Skeptic
January 24, 2010, 9:18 am
I have written a number of times about climate science and post-modernism, where taking the politically correct position and pushing for the ?right? government actions is more important than fact-based analysis or the scientific method. This is a great example of the IPCC acting as just such a post-modernist institution:
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report?s chapter on Asia, said: ?It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action?.
Dr Lal said: ?We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was ?grey literature? [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.?
In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
Of course, IPCC leader Pachauri is unrepentant
Last night, Dr Pachauri defended the IPCC, saying it was wrong to generalise based on a single mistake. ?Our procedure is robust,? he added.
It was Pachauri who originally lashed out with these words at folks who originally criticized the Himalayan glacier claim:
However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: ?We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don?t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.??
Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not ?peer reviewed? and had few ?scientific citations?.
?With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.??
In response Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of ?climate change deniers and school boy science?.