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

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

What really hacks me off with all this is the deceit the "scientists" are using to get their own way on a topic.

It hurts the credibility of science in general, and does NOHING for the pursuit if truth.



Anyone noticed that in the last 100 years there has been little in the way of REVOLUTIONARY science?

Frankly, in this instance of a UN-commissioned "scientist" manipulating the facts in such a way as to manipulate world leaders in altering governmental policies on a global scale, I think the perpetrator(s) should receive the full extent of legal prosecution — even if it means putting this guy and his cohorts behind bars for 30 years or so.

I mean, if their little plan had worked, and world leaders had acted to "adjust" governmental policies on a global scale, this would have precipitated major environmental, industrial and economic harm that would have fallen on the shoulders of the general population.

"Carbon taxes" could have been implemented, industrial jobs would have been lost, new and more oppressive environmental laws would have been enacted — all based on a lie.

Or a whole series of lies and "errors," as we are discovering. These guys deserve the sharp end of Justice, yes?

— Doc Velocity

Let's bump this one again, because we are either having some members wanting to ignore these facts, or we got some religious fanatics still wanting to keep the AGW religion alive.

It wasn't a mistake like the IPCC policy makers, and some others are claiming, including those people who still believe in AGW after we have found concrete and danming evidence that shows it is nothing more than a scam...

Dr Murari Lal has admitted that they included the unfounded claims to pressure nations, and politicians into accepting the Kyoto Protocol...

Of course NOW that we found out this "error" this scientist is trying to come clean before this was found out through an investigation....

Not only have the IPCC "policy makers" which includes scientists who back the AGW lie have used dubious tactics which include false reports, and rigged data, but we also know the main proponents of the AGW scam have been using similar tactics...

Are people still so blind that they will continue to believe the lie that AGW is?...


[edit on 31-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Where are the AGW lackeys claiming it was just one little mistake in amongst the best science the world has to offer?

Just like they made a mistake attributing AGW to more serious weather and storms, one of the cornerstone components of the AGW alarmists.

Will they say that claiming that "the science is settled", was a mistake too??

Or is the thought of giving up on AGW alarmism too much to bear...

I forgot about this. THis is the original post which was posted by Doc Velocity. So let's bump this thread. Good work Doc Velocity.

For a long time, many people on here have said that the IPCC reports are written for political purposes, not an unbiased scientific collection like they claim to be. Usually one or two of the regular pro AGW members would then try to shoot this down, usually by attacking the poster rather than the information. They would then claim that anyone disagreeing with the IPCC is (one or more of the following) a kook, an oil funded disinfo agent, a denier, anti-science, a moron, stupid, idealogically driven etc...

And now that one of the scientists and authors themselves say it, and... Not a peep.

Interesting

(although I'm sure one of them might pop up and say that this guy is a kook, and we can trust that everyone else who contributed was a shining example of scientific excellence. )

Perhaps it's because most 'AGW lackeys' were curious and concerned sufficiently to check this further and find that Murari Lal said he said no such thing to a journalist.

Perhaps he's saving face after the fact, of course. But the journalist in question, David Rose, also misquoted and misrepresented another scientist recently (Mojab Latif).

Perhaps he was also saving face, but the daily mail article which contained the misrepresentation of Latif also contained a misrepresentation of the work of the NSIDC.

Perhaps they were saving face, but the same person also misrepresented Roger Pielke Jr late last year.

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.

David 'Quick-Quotes Quill' Rose appears to have issues with his approach to this topic. Caveat emptor.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by melatonin]

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]

Originally posted by loam
I don't know. Are these quotes lies too?

Depends. First thing I would do, Loam, is check whether the article was authored by David Rose.

If it isn't then they are more than likely a fair representation of his own words and, further, not really related to my point or that of this thread.

Cheers.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by melatonin]

"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