by F. William Engdahl
January 23, 2010
Only days after the failed Copenhagen Global Warming Summit, yet a
new scandal over the scientific accuracy of the UN IPCC 2007 climate
report has emerged.
Following the major data-manipulation scandals
from the UN-tied research center at Britain’s East Anglia University
late 2009, the picture emerges of one of the most massive scientific
frauds of recent history.
Senior members of the UN climate project, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been forced to admit a major
error in the 2007 IPCC UN report that triggered the recent global
campaign for urgent measures to reduce “manmade emissions” of CO2.
The IPCC’s 2007 report stated,
“glaciers in the Himalayas are
receding faster than in any other part of the world.”
this is the world’s highest mountain range and meltdown implies a
massive flooding of India, China and the entire Asian region, it was
a major scare “selling point” for the IPCC agenda. (see
Glaciers Are Growing All Over The World)
As well, the
statement on the glacier melt in the 2007 IPCC report contains other
serious errors such as the statement that,
“Its total area will
likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers
by the year 2035."
There are only 33,000 square kilometers of
glaciers in the Himalayas.
And a table in the report says that
between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters.
Then comes a math mistake: It says that's a rate of 135.2 meters a
year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year.
around the world are scouring the entire IPCC report for indications
of similar lack of scientific rigor.
It emerges that the basis of the stark IPCC glacier meltdown
statement of 2007 was not even a scientific study of melting data.
Rather it was a reference to a newspaper article cited by a
pro-global warming ecological advocacy group, WWF.
The original source of the IPCC statement, it turns out, appeared in
a 1999 report in the British magazine, New Scientist that was cited
in passing by WWF.
The New Scientist author, Fred Pierce, wrote
“The inclusion of this statement has angered many
glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading
Indian glaciologist, wrote in a paper published by the Indian
Government in November that there is no sign of 'abnormal' retreat
in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh,
accused the IPCC of being 'alarmist.'
The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra
Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as
'voodoo science' lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very
clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.” 
Pachauri, co-awardee of the Nobel Prize with
Al Gore, has
recently been under attack for
huge conflicts of interest related to
his business interests that profit from the CO2 global warming
agenda he promotes.
Pearce notes that the original claim made by Indian glaciologist
Syed Hasnain, in a 1999 email interview with Pearce, namely that all
the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by
2035, never was repeated by Hasnain in any peer-reviewed scientific
journal, and that Hasnain now says the remark was "speculative".
Despite the lack of scientific validation, the 10-year-old claim
ended up in the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007.
Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the
Since publication of the latest New Scientist article, the IPCC
officially has been forced to issue the following statement:
“the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of
rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan
glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and
well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC
procedures, were not applied properly."
The IPCC adds,
"The IPCC regrets the poor application of
well-established IPCC procedures in this instance."
statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute
adherence to IPCC quality control processes.
"We reaffirm our strong commitment
to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said. 
In an indication of the defensiveness prevailing within the UN’s
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, insists that
the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that
showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely
He told BBC News:
"I don't see how one mistake in a
3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report."
Some serious scientists disagree.
Georg Kaser, an expert in
glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author
for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the
implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the
Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly
wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published.
[date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of
magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in
the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had
not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we
will do better next time'. It is clear now that working group II has
to be restructured." 
The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal
comment on the glacier claim. It appears he is as well shaken by the
wave of recent scandals.
He told a conference in Dubai on energy
"They can't attack the science so they attack the
chairman. But they won't sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown
(sic). In fact, I will float much higher," he told the Guardian.
remarks suggest more the ‘spirit of Woodstock’ in 1969 than of what
is supposed to be the world’s leading climate authority.
 Fred Pearce,
Debate heats up over IPCC melting
glaciers claim, 11 January 2010.
 F. William Engdahl, UN IPCC Climate Change chief in Conflict of
Interest Scandal, December 27, 2009.
 Seth Borenstein,
UN climate report riddled with errors on
glaciers, AP, January 20, 2010.