Blamefest 2010, or, How did the IPCC mess up so badly?

Glaciergate, a Modern Mystery.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a mea culpa, saying it was sorry for saying in its fourth assessment report that all Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. After an extensive analysis, this prediction turns out to have no basis in scientific fact.

How did this happen? Who was responsible for this horrible mistake? Let us examine the mystery.

The facts are these. (By the way, I owe much of this sleuthing to Graham Cogley, an excellent scientist and one of the lead authors on the IPCC report - although he was not involved in the portion of the report in which the mistake was made.)

In 1996, a little-known Russian researcher named V Kotlyakov published a paper in which he claimed that if global warming continues to bake the planet, all glaciers could disappear by 2350. Alarming.

In 1999, the Indian environment advocacy group CSE printed an article in which they claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, accelerating Kotlyakov's glacier D-day by about two centuries.

In 1999, Syed Hasnain, one of India's top glaciologists, spoke to Fred Pearce, a journalist with New Scientist (a popular science magazine), about Hasnain's research on Himalayan glaciers. Pearce wrote an article that claimed Hasnain's research demonstrated Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

Six years later the World Wildlife Fund printed a report about glaciers in which they quoted from Pearce's article.

In 2007, the IPCC's second Working Group published its report, which contained the damning sentence: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)." See, they cited the WWF as a source.

In November 2009, the Indian government sponsored a glaciers study by VK Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, which suggested that the 2035 estimate was perhaps overheated. The journal Science contained a followup article in which many top glaciologists agreed with Raina.

RK Pachauri, head of the IPCC, referred to Raina's report as "voodoo science." Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh retorted by insulting Pachauri's science.

So whodunit? Here are the suspects, and their defenses:

Syed Hasnain, for telling Fred Pearce that glaciers would be goners by 2035. Defense: Hasnain says he never said this, and that Pearce inferred it.

Fred Pearce, for making up the 2035 figure. Defense: he says he didn't make it up.

CSE and WWF, for printing the wrong date in their reports. Defense: they thought these dates came from Hasnain, who has published peer-reviewed papers on glaciology before.

Murari Lal, the Indian glaciologist who wrote the flawed IPCC report, for not verifying facts before putting them in the paper. Defense: Lal says that although he relied too much on "grey" literature, it really was Hasnain's fault.

The scientists who reviewed the WG II report, but didn't catch the mistake. Defense: according to a new editorial in Science, no one reviewed this part of the report. Why? Who knows.

RK Pachauri, for going into attack mode on the Indian scientists who suggested the IPCC's figures might be wrong. Defense: Pachauri says it was Hasnain's fault for making the speculative remark in the first place. Wait, what?

Western nations, for inventing climate change in the first place in order to "flog" India. Defense: no one invented climate change, as is evidenced in the working group I report of the IPCC...in which, of course, we all have absolute faith...still...

The entire IPCC, for not working together to prevent these mistakes. Defense: the entire IPCC? The several thousand of them, many of whom couldn't tell a glacier from a tundra?

Environmental journalists, for not following up the story when the questioning article first appeared in the journal Science. Defense: print journalism is dead, didn't you hear?