Following a revelation in a New Scientist article, the media recently reported that Senior members of the UN’s climate science body, including the vice-chair, admitted that a claim made in 2007, that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, was unfounded (as shown in Guardian article here).
This lead to Glaciologists asking for an apology as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri had claimed they used “voodoo science” when they were not in agreement with his (now known to be) inaccurate claims on the extent of glacier melt (as shown here).
The data he presented was used to inform the Copenhagen 2009 Climate conference and is reviewed and approved by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
It was claimed by the IPCC Chairman, that he did not know of the error before the Copenhagen Summit, in which he presented the information. However, the Times disputed that claim today, as they say that before the summit, he was made aware “that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.” (Times article here).
This could be said to be another example of how some scientists seem to allow agenda’s to guide scientific advice.
Thankfully, there are still scientists that stand for principles such as scientific integrity, such as Professor David Nutt who lost his position as Chief Drugs Adviser on the government’s advisory panel (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD)) after refusing to endorse the governments recommendations when his scientific research revealed that government policy was out of line with scientific findings.
His dismissal by the Home Secretary, Howard Johnston, resulted in other senior scientists resigning from their post in protest (earlier article here). This lead to the the formation of an independent drugs advisory panel, The Independent Council on Drug harms, by Professer Nutt and the majority of his colleagues that had resigned from ACMD.
The integrity of those giving us scientific advice is the measure of the value of that advice. Once agenda’s start guiding the advice, over real science, it becomes a pseudoscience and so looses any value it may have had. Indeed, you could ask, if the case for global warming is so strong, why would scientists have to resort to using data they have been told is inaccurate.
Climategate.com is one of many websites which assert that we are being duped into believing in a phenomena that doesn't exist. Why? To increase the amount of control that can be exerted over us and the amount of money they can take from us.