The Times UK continues to report on the various climate change scandals. Today they reveal that IPCC chief Pachauri knew about the bogus Himalayan ice melt claims months before the Copenhagen summit but declined to reveal them.
Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.
Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”Pachauri maintains his innocence and claims that he never knew about the issue until after Copenhagen. It would be helpful if these emails or other proof could be made public to substantiate these claims.
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit comments on the media coverage of this story.
The Times coverage of this has been terrific, which is more than you can say for pretty much any mainstream American media outlet, most of which are still trying to pretend there’s no story here. It’s — again — a complete abnegation of journalistic responsibility.
Just one post down, Glenn also links to an article that suggests that the NOAA and NASA are complicit in data manipulation.
There was a major station dropout — and an increase in missing data from remaining stations — which occurred suddenly around 1990. Just about the time the global warming issue was being elevated to importance in political and environmental circles.
A clear bias was found towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations — the cooler stations — during this culling process, though that data was not also removed from the base periods from which “averages,” and then anomalies, were computed.
The data also suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors, such as land-use/land-cover changes and improper siting.
There are also uncertainties in ocean temperatures. This is no small issue, as oceans cover 71% of Earth’s surface.Bad science done using bad data to start with is a recipe for disaster. Or, perhaps more to the point, is a recipe for being able to manipulate public opinion. The scientific method is a way of discovering observable truths about the world around us. To use it as a propaganda machine is shameful and the mainstream media’s silence on the story is doubly so.
