No Apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for Glacier Fallacy

Published on
by
The Guardian/UK

No Apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for Glacier Fallacy

Head of UN climate change body 'not at fault' for false claim Himalaya ice caps would melt by 2035

by
David Adam and Fred Pearce

Pachauri said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that Himalayan glaciers (above) could melt away by 2035. (Photograph: Channi Anand/AP)

The embattled chief of the UN's climate change
body has hit out at his critics and refused to resign or apologise for
a ­damaging mistake in a landmark 2007 report on global warming.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that ­Himalayan glaciers
could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for
that part of the report. "You can't expect me to be personally
responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report," he said.

The
IPCC issued a statement that expressed regret for the mistake, but
Pachauri said a personal apology would be a "populist" step.

"I don't do too many populist things, that's why I'm so unpopular with a certain section of society," he said.

In a robust defence of his position and of the science of climate change, Pachauri said:

• The mistake had seriously damaged the IPCC's credibility and boosted the efforts of climate sceptics.

• It was an isolated mistake, down to human error and "totally out of character" for the panel.

• It does not undermine the "basic truth" that human activity is causing temperatures to rise.

• That he would not resign and was ­subject to lies about his personal income and lifestyle.

Pachauri
spoke as the second day of the Guardian's investigation into the emails
stolen from the University of East Anglia reveals how climate
scientists acted to keep research papers they did not like out of
academic journals. One UEA scientist, Dr Keith Briffa, wrote to a
colleague to ask him for help rejecting a paper from a journal which he
edited. "Confidentially I now need a hard, and if required, extensive
case for rejecting." The request apparently broke the convention that
the review process should be independent and anonymous. Briffa was not
able to comment because of an ongoing independent review into the
stolen emails.

In another email, sent in March 2003, the leading
US climate scientist Prof Michael Mann suggested ostracising a journal
for publishing a paper that attacked his work.

"I think we have
to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed
journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer
submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Mann denies any attempt to
"stifle legitimate sceptical views".

The emails also reveal that
one of the most influential data sets in climate science – the "hockey
stick" graph of temperature over the past 1,000 years – was
controversial not just with sceptics but among climate scientists
themselves. "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story [in
the forthcoming IPCC report], but in reality the situation is not quite
so simple," wrote Briffa in September 1999.

In his Guardian
interview, Pachauri defended the IPCC's use of so-called "grey
literature" – sources outside peer-reviewed academic journals, such as
reports from campaign groups, companies and student theses. The false
Himalayan glacier claim came from a report by the green group WWF. He
said reports of further errors in the IPCC report linked to grey
literature were ­spurious and the result of a "factory" of people "only
there to create pinpricks and get attention".

Stories that
claimed errors about losses from natural disasters and Amazon
destruction were false, he said. "We looked into that [Amazon claim]
and we're totally satisfied that what's been stated in the report is
totally valid."

The IPCC is beginning work on its next climate
report, and Pachauri said it would stress to authors and reviewers the
importance of checking sources. "Our procedures are very clear on the
use of grey literature. Whenever an author uses grey literature they
need to double check the source of information is authentic and
defensible. People have been using grey literature for quite some time
now. Apparently in this [Himalayan glacier] case there has been a
failure because authors did not follow the procedures required."

To
exclude such reports, he said, would give an incomplete picture. "The
reality is that in several parts of the world, which will be influenced
by the impacts of climate change, it's an unfortunate fact that we just
don't have peer-reviewed material available."

Pachauri also
rebutted newspapers' claims that he lives a lavish lifestyle and wears
$1,000 suits. He said: "It's ridiculous and it's a bunch of lies."

His
salary from the research institute that employs him is fixed in the
range of 190,000 rupees (£2,600) a month, he said, while he receives
only travel expenses for chairing the IPCC.

He added: "There is a tailor who stitches all my suits for 2,200 rupees (£30)."

The
panel's report at the centre of the controversy said: "The likelihood
of them [the Himalayan glaciers] disappearing by the year 2035 and
perhaps sooner is very high," a statement referenced to a report by
WWF, which had taken it from a magazine article. It was subsequently
found to be wrong.

Questions were raised about the glacier claim
in an article in the US journal Science in November, and again by the
BBC on 5 December, leading to allegations that Pachauri had been told
by Pallava Bagla, the Indian journalist who wrote both, that it was
problematic, but failed to act.

But Pachauri said he had not
become aware of the problem until January. "If he [Bagla] sent me an
email and I didn't see it, I can only say that I'm sorry that I didn't
see that email. A lot of my emails are handled by my office and I don't
get to see them personally."

Pachauri also said he was taking
steps to strengthen the staff employed by the panel. "We're in an
information society today and we have to respond adequately and
professionally. We've been weak in that regard to be honest. The IPCC
is starting to realise we're living in a very different world to what
we had in 1988.

"I think this [glacier] mistake has certainly
cost us dear, there's no question about it," he said. "Everybody
thought that what the IPCC brought out was the gold standard and
nothing could go wrong. But look at the larger picture, don't get
blinded by this one mistake.

"The larger picture is solid, it's
convincing and it's extremely important. How can we lose sight of what
climate change is going to do to this planet? What it's already doing
to this planet?"

Share This Article

More in: