UN Climate Scientist: False Claims Used to "Pressure" World Leaders, page 1

UN Climate Scientist: False Claims Used to "Pressure" World Leaders

Glacier Scientist: I Knew Data Had Not Been Verified

---

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.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

---

Once more, the Manmade Global Warming house of cards is collapsing before our eyes — as it should.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by melatonin

---

Here are more of his quotes:

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."

...

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said.

...

Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report.

Link.

I don't know. Are these quotes lies too?

[edit on 7-2-2010 by loam]

"Updated February 05, 2010
Dutch Point Out New Mistakes in U.N. Climate Report

FOXNews.com

The IPCC's beleaguered climate report faces the prospect of still more errors, as Dutch authorities point out factual inaccuracies about the Netherlands.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The cover of the IPCC's fourth assessment report to the U.N., "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report," more frequently referred to as AR4.

The IPCC's beleaguered climate report faces the prospect of still more errors, as Dutch authorities point out factual inaccuracies about the Netherlands.

Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart has asked the U.N.'s climate change panel to rethink its assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level. Dutch authorities explain that, in fact, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level.

According to an AFP story, IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said. "They should have been clearer," Vallaart pointed out, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had the exact figures.

He noted that correcting the error had been "on the agenda several times" but had never actually happened. Vallaart told the AFP that he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed, adding that it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC's numbers.

The Dutch environment ministry will order a review of the report to see if it contains any more errors, Vallaart said.

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been mired in scandal since the theft and subsequent publishing on the Internet of e-mails from a key climate research group. The e-mails revealed internal debate about the veracity of certain studies, and led to revelations about mistakes in the IPCC's main report.

The IPCC report inaccurately warned that Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035, and included apparently unsubstantiated fears about threats to the Amazon rainforests.
www.foxnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.foxnews.com... 05/dutch-point-new-mistakes-climate-report/?test=latestnews


Just to add a little more kindling to the climate change fire here is another reason to doubt the findings in the UN report. I want to know who is fact checking /reviewing the data being shoved down our political leaders throats. If they are missing basic information like this, even after it had been pointed out to them, what other "misleading" information will be found?
I say good on the Dutch government. I hope others start taking a more critical look at this data.

reply to post by melatonin

---

Of course, you resort to your most readily wielded "weapon:" attack the messenger rather than challenge the message.

As for Loam's quotes the sources are Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings of the Times:

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Lal has access to voice any "denials" through the IPCC, TERI and his own organization. He has yet to personally, directly refute the Mail's quotation. AGW "lackeys" no doubt will spin his words otherwise. Let him speak for himself, he knows how.

Again, considering the extent to which people wear their harrumphing regalia over the MSM here, some of you are pretty keen to accept any old BS which conforms to your pre-existing biases.

As for "pre-existing biases," Mel and her AGW gods, as well as the IPCC "prophets" (profits?) find what you want to support your own, then challenge critics applying the same methodology.

"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."

Henri Poincare

"Evidence" does not a "scientific consensus" make. There is "plenty of" evidence to the contrary, as well.

The problem lies in part with the Billions of pounds, dollars and euros that flow to advocates of either side.

Another significant part of the problem is the lack of transparency. Most scientists gladly submit the entirety of their work to scrutiny in the hope that it will either be disproved or, failing that, implicitly verified.

AGW advocates have claimed or taken their "work product" to be "proprietary;" that is Bought and Paid For.
( Aye, there's the rub!)

Thus far the IPCC's "pre-existing biases" (and outside funding) have resulted in admissions or outside proof that it has used non-scientific information to support:

Overestimating the total area of Himalayan glaciers,
Himalayan glacier destruction,
50% loss of arable land and African food shortages,
Lack of a Medieval Warm Period,
Netherlands, an entire nation, 50% below sea level,
Destruction of Amazon rain forests,
Loss of mountain ice fields,
Exaggerating the average melting of the Pindari glacier,
East Anglia University e-mails that scientists’ views inimical to climate change be suppressed,
Extreme natural disasters (hurricanes, severe floods and heat waves)
A rise in diseases like malaria,
Destruction of the Amazon forest,
A “hockey stick” graph,
Rising sea levels and global flooding,

All as attributable to AGW.

(More revelations of falsehoods are coming, just wait)

The "Climategate" scandal only adds further proof that the AGW agenda is a house of cards built with others' money and a steady flow of public, private and NGO funding and spending.

Not one of the "models" works, except to enrich their progenitors.

Your faith is misplaced. AGW evangelism is coming apart at the seams because your "god" is a false one, your prophets (profits?) liars and moneychangers.
(nice juxtaposition, no?)

Real "science" will win out when the "consensus" is exposed for the sleight of hand worthless drain of resources and diversion of attention it is.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Lake Vostok Antarctica: breakthrough imminent.
  Posted 11 days ago with 176 member flags

Sky Sounds 1/25/2012 Atlanta, GA Personal Video/Audio
  Posted 19 days ago with 146 member flags

Strange sounds warn us of incoming, and very soon...
  Posted 7 days ago with 136 member flags

Volcano in Iceland Erupting Alongside The Aurora Borealis (pics)
  Posted 8 days ago with 121 member flags

6 of the oldest trees from around the world.
  Posted 12 days ago with 108 member flags

West Coast USA: Pay Attention, Cascadia May Be Ready to Rupture
  Posted 9 days ago with 87 member flags

CONFIRMED: Global Warming \'Ended 15 Years Ago\'
  Posted 15 days ago with 75 member flags

Humpback Whale Shows Amazing Appreciation After Being Freed From Nets
  Posted 12 days ago with 56 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: