Stop the Check: Grant Applications Cited Bogus Glacier Melt
On Wednesday came the revelation that the UN IPCC – the United Nation’s global warming panel – had grossly exaggerated the rate at which the Himalayan glaciers will melt. (They had said it would melt in decades; the correct estimate of “centuries” is probably inadequate in light of the cooling trend that even AGW advocates admit we are entering.)
Touching in part on motive, the Daily Mail (UK) reports that
A scientist responsible for a key 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warning Himalayan glaciers would be completely melted by 2035 has admitted that the claim was made to put political pressure on world leaders.
Some would point out that these “scientists” lied to shape public policy. But let us be not so quick to condemn: after all, Uncle Al said it was perfectly fine to do exactly that.
Now the lastest development. The Sunday Times (UK) reports that
The chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.
Whoops. Looks like some revisions to those grant applications are in order.
“When we said ‘decades’, we actually meant …”
“The ‘decade’ is the new ‘century’ …”
What does that mean??
“We employed the term ‘decades’ in the bibical sense …”
Think, man, think! Four million dollars is at stake …
I was considerably amused by a stout disclaimer in the earlier IPCC statement which admitted the glacier error but defended the balance of that section of the report.
This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment.
Science? Really? Let’s review. We had the breaking of Mann’s hockey stick . We have substantial problems with AGW computer models upon which the warming conclusions of the IPCC relies. There was the stunning expose of the “Hide the decline” ClimateGate data scandal. (British Parliament announced on Friday that they are opening an investigation.) Dare we mention that an uncooperative Earth has not warmed nearly as much as expected? Could that be attributed to the minisculity of man’s role in generating greenhouse gases? And the IPCC glacier meldown Wednesday was followed by an admission that, contrary to the IPCC’s prior assertion, severe weather is not a symptom of global warming.
It’s becoming more and more clear that the “underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment” on global warming may be consistent, just not necessarily consistent with science and some facts on the ground.