Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

The quote from this article, "the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air" by Dr. Murari cast doubts on anything we have been reading on Global Warming. What scientist on the environment can we trust?

Using flawed data when you suspect it is flawed, it so wrong on so many levels from any member of the scientific community. When did scientists become so political that they would use flawed data to make a point? How deep does this scandal go is a question we would like answered, but don't expect it any time soon as stories like this continue to drip, drip, drip. Every week we learn more about how they used flawed data in their analysis for a variety of issues dealing with the impact of Global Warming on the World. Yet they don't seem to think anything is wrong as it was for the 'good of the people.'

The environmental community of scientists may have cried wolf once too often as the people are disgusted at so much money Government's (aka taxpayers) from around the World gave grants to keep these research projects funded. How much money was given? Our guess is it would be astronomical.

Taxpayers of the world need to demand OUR money back from these university professors and others who were part of this scheme to make Global Warming a fact against the evidence. Why? Was it keep their funding coffers full when there is a strong competition for dollars? Time to shut off the valve of grant money to the professors/scientist involved in this Global Warming hoax until everything is made public.

All we know is that the Himalayan glaciers research that won Dr. Lal the Nobel Prize for a UN report on the glaciers melting by 2035 was done purely to put political pressure on World Leaders according to his own words. What kind of rationale is that? Lack of checking scientific data being used paints a picture of greed and manipulation to get the results they want not backed up by facts. These 'so-called' scientists using grants from our tax dollars to fraud the World on global warming should have everyone up in arms.

The Nobel Prize Committees seem to be making a habit of awarding their prizes to undeserving candidates. Al Gore comes to mind first on Global Warming. When is the Nobel Prize Committee going to demand their prize money be returned?

Bottom Line: How much of the data all these scientists have been using on how Global Warming affects our environment has been flawed? Sen Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is right to call all of this 'junk science.'

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified
By David RoseLast updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

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.’



Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.


Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’


In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.


Excerpt: Read more at: Daily Mail