Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen

Times Online (UK) ^ | January 30, 2010 | Ben Webster, Environment Editor

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.

[Inyo-Mono]

Thanks ernest! Bookmarked.

[Fred Nerks]

PACHARUSIS CARBON CHOO CHOO OFF THE RAILS

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ping!

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks E!

[dennisw]

Sounds like Entourage

[dennisw]

Even before the big CRU leak Australia was ahead of the pack in repudiating cap and trade legislation and giving “climate change” the disrespect it richly deserves. For me in the the USA it seems Australia is more skeptical and realistic about this climate hoax

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well they have joanne Nova and the Guy that designed the Carbon Trading Scheme for the Australia State...both shouting it is all bogus...

I see she has some new stuff...

Horrifying examples of deliberate tampering

And this is a good one from last year:

Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Historic Proportions

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Guy...is :Dr David Evans,....who has summarized the explanation and evidence here for the Missing Greenhouse Signature .a pdf

[SunkenCiv]

The whole bunch of them should be sent back to skoal.

[Fred Nerks]

HE'S HERE!

LISTEN TO AUDIO

ARTICLE EXCERPT:

Having been singled out for vilification last year by Kevin Rudd in an extraordinary speech, Monckton finds the times suit him well.

Rudd's vehemence attracted the attention of semi-retired engineer John Smeed, who splits his time between Lane Cove and Noosa. He and another engineer, Case Smit invited Monckton to Australia, footing the $100,000 bill for his eight-city tour from their own pockets, offset by donations.

I was invited to a small lunch for Monckton this week, hosted by Smeed and a Newcastle engineer, Jeff McCloy.

In person, Monckton is taller and more serious than he appears on screen. Being a mathematician he has a logical mind, as well as irrepressible self-confidence, which makes him a formidable opponent for climate alarmists.

Andy Pitman, a co-director of the University of NSW's Climate Change Research Centre, complained on ABC radio this week that climate sceptics are so "well funded, so well organised [and] have nothing else to do . . . They are doing a superb job at misinforming and miscommunicating the general public, State and Federal Government."

Huh? How can climate alarmists pitch themselves as the underdog when they have had on their side the full force of government (and opposition until lately), media (apart from a few individual holdouts) and big business?

Public opinion has changed as the credibility of the IPCC ebbs, the crippling cost of climate change measures becomes apparent and the array of rentseekers and phonies grows. Monckton is a man whose time has come because he owes nothing to anybody and he has the capacity to interpret the science to a public looking for answers.

As an adviser to Margaret Thatcher, he learnt that when you make policy about an issue that is outside your expertise, you must distill it down to one proposition. In this case, how much will a given increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause warming? The answer determines whether or not you spend trillions of taxpayer dollars "and wreck the economies of the West".

Monckton pored over scientific papers on climate sensitivity and concluded the IPCC exaggerated climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide at least sixfold, so we have time cautiously to decide whether or not to attempt to change global temperature.

In any case, he says, what if every nation agreed to cut emissions by 30 per cent in the next 10 years? The "warming forestalled would be 0.02 celsius degrees, at a cost of trillions. There's no point doing it."

The last refuge of alarmists is the precautionary principle, in which we "give the planet the benefit of the doubt". But Monckton says bad policy guided by the precautionary principle has already led to the death of millions of people as the transfer of farmland to grow biofuels meant less food, higher prices, food riots and starvation.

He cites the United Nations special rapporteur Jean Ziegler, who said growing biofuels instead of food when the poor were starving was a "crime against humanity".

Monckton says public opinion is "galloping" in his direction, which bodes ill for Rudd as he prepares to push through his emissions trading scheme next month.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore ! ____________

[dennisw]

Hilarious how these two retired engineers took action and spent money to bring Lord Monkton to Australia to inflict him on that idiot Kevin Rudd and the “warmist community”

[Fred Nerks]

Federal Minister for Climate Change, Jenny Wong.

She hasn't had an awful lot to say lately...thank goodness; I was sick of her regular robotic lectures on the evils of carbon emissions.

[neverdem]

Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.

I remeber that vaguely. Maybe Rush mentioned it.

[dennisw]

Actually I am familiar with your imported lesbian Climate Czar due to one of your farmers who has been on a hunger strike protesting her land use policies

Just like our Janet Napolitano, they love being in power since it gives them a chance to inflict their anger, revenge and pathologies on millions of innocent people laboring in the private sector

[dennisw]

penny, ha’penny whatever she’s useless as a plugged nickle

[Fred Nerks]

YOU'RE NOT WONG:

[Marine_Uncle]

Rain Forest, glaciers, tree rings, hockey sticks, ice shelf melts, Arctic Sea melt, hidden temp declines world wide... their running out of excuses to scam the planet.