Work
09.April 2010 - 00:00
IPCC mistake on melting Himalaya glaciers
The credibility of the IPCC has again come under fire after it admitted that the claim in the IPCC’s 3 000-page 2007 report on climate science that Himalayan glaciers will almost disappear by 2035 was inaccurate and not subjected to peer review.
The New Scientist traced this claim to an interview it conducted with an Indian glaciologist Sayed Hasnain in 1999. It was never repeated in any peer-reviewed study and was only used by the WWF in their report in 2005, which the IPCC blindly trusted. Consequentially, this claim has encouraged large investments in research projects in the Himalayas to study this phenomenon.
Such a project, sparked by this false alarm in the IPCC report, is the ‘HighNoon’ research project in India, launched by the EU, aimed at assessing the impact of Himalayan glacial retreat and possible changes to the Indian summer monsoon. The EU has earmarked EUR 3 million for this 3 year project, bringing together leading research institutions in Europe: Netherlands, UK and Switzerland, and India: TERI, IIT-Delhi & Kharagpur.
The Indian Government criticised this IPCC claim in November at the launch of its own discussion paper, written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina(1), which admitted that, while some glaciers in the Himalayas were retreating, it was ‘nothing out of the ordinary, nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear.’ At the time, the IPCC dismissed these findings and it has continued to do so until it was no longer possible.
How does the Commission see the reliability of the IPCC in light of the growing evidence of inaccuracy in its predictions and methods? EC Deputy Director-General, Jos Delbeke, has said that we have no other choice but to trust the IPCC. Should we now re-evaluate this trust in order not to choose wrong measures and investments in the future? If the EU makes its decisions based on falsified scientific evidence, who carries the political and legal responsibility?
Has the Commission re-evaluated the purpose and aim of the ‘HighNoon’-project in terms of the EU funding it has received from the FP7? Would it not make sense to rapidly reallocate the funds to research with a better quality and a more acute need?
As Mr Pachauri leads The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), does the Commission see any conflict of interest for Mr Pachauri and the IPCC in relation to the ‘HighNoon’ project, operated by TERI, which employs Mr Sayed Hasnain, who is the origin of the false Himalayan 2035 glacier melt prediction? Greenpeace UK head John Sauven has stated that the IPCC needs a new leader to replace Mr Pachauri in order to regain its credibility. Has the Commission a differing opinion?
(1) http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF Discussion Paper _him.pdf
9 April 2010
Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission
The reference on the melting of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 in the 4th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report, referred to by the Honourable Member, has been thoroughly investigated by the IPCC. The Panel conceded that this information was erroneous and had not been detected within the peer-review process. IPCC officially recognised this in a formal statement in the press. This was a responsible reaction.
The unfortunate error however does not undermine the large body of evidence gathered in the IPCC reports (and studies published later on) that highlight the impact of human actions on climate, including on glaciers.
Regarding the reference to the ‘HighNoon’ research project, the Commission would like to recall that the rules of the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007 13)) are very strict as regards the rigorous evaluation process of proposals. This process relies on panels of independent experts guaranteeing that EU funded projects respond to important research questions, knowledge gaps and societal challenges and meet the criteria of scientific excellence.
Among the different types of research projects funded by the Commission, Specific International Cooperation Actions (SICA) are dedicated to developing and emerging economies, including Asia, and the ‘HighNoon’ project is an example of one such SICA project. Its principal aim is to assess the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat (and check retreating trends) and possible changes of the Indian summer monsoon on the spatial and temporal distribution of water resources. The project is expected to provide recommendations for appropriate and efficient response strategies for adaptation to hydrological extreme events.
The importance of assessing the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat and possible changes of the Indian summer monsoon on water resources in Northern India has emerged as a research question, following the usual FP7 consultation procedure. As a consequence, the topic has been included in the Work Programme of the 2nd FP7 call for proposals, namely topic ‘ENV.2008.1.1.6.1. Impacts of Himalayan glaciers retreat and monsoon pattern change on the water resources in Northern India, and adaptation strategies’, which was published on 30 November 2007.
Nine proposals were submitted in response to the above topic, and they were evaluated following standard EC procedures by a panel of independent experts. The ‘HighNoon’ project received the highest score from the evaluation panel and was selected for negotiating a Grant Agreement (FP7-ENV-2008-1-227087) of EUR 3 311 750. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) is one of the three Indian partners (receiving a contribution representing about 14 % of the budget share) of the project consortium; its contribution in the project is focusing on socioeconomic analysis, in particular on participative development of multi-sector adaptation measures and stakeholder's perception. Mr Sayed Hansain, who is cited by the Honourable Member, is not participating in this project.
Based on the above, and in particular in the light of the rigorous consultation and evaluation process, the Commission sees no reason for either re-evaluating the purpose and aim of the ‘HighNoon’ project or to changing the scientific basis for its climate policy. The Commission will continue to pay close attention to relevant research work undertaken and consider sound scientific findings for its policies.
The credibility of the IPCC has again come under fire after it admitted that the claim in the IPCC’s 3 000-page 2007 report on climate science that Himalayan glaciers will almost disappear by 2035 was inaccurate and not subjected to peer review.
The New Scientist traced this claim to an interview it conducted with an Indian glaciologist Sayed Hasnain in 1999. It was never repeated in any peer-reviewed study and was only used by the WWF in their report in 2005, which the IPCC blindly trusted. Consequentially, this claim has encouraged large investments in research projects in the Himalayas to study this phenomenon.
Such a project, sparked by this false alarm in the IPCC report, is the ‘HighNoon’ research project in India, launched by the EU, aimed at assessing the impact of Himalayan glacial retreat and possible changes to the Indian summer monsoon. The EU has earmarked EUR 3 million for this 3 year project, bringing together leading research institutions in Europe: Netherlands, UK and Switzerland, and India: TERI, IIT-Delhi & Kharagpur.
The Indian Government criticised this IPCC claim in November at the launch of its own discussion paper, written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina(1), which admitted that, while some glaciers in the Himalayas were retreating, it was ‘nothing out of the ordinary, nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear.’ At the time, the IPCC dismissed these findings and it has continued to do so until it was no longer possible.
How does the Commission see the reliability of the IPCC in light of the growing evidence of inaccuracy in its predictions and methods? EC Deputy Director-General, Jos Delbeke, has said that we have no other choice but to trust the IPCC. Should we now re-evaluate this trust in order not to choose wrong measures and investments in the future? If the EU makes its decisions based on falsified scientific evidence, who carries the political and legal responsibility?
Has the Commission re-evaluated the purpose and aim of the ‘HighNoon’-project in terms of the EU funding it has received from the FP7? Would it not make sense to rapidly reallocate the funds to research with a better quality and a more acute need?
As Mr Pachauri leads The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), does the Commission see any conflict of interest for Mr Pachauri and the IPCC in relation to the ‘HighNoon’ project, operated by TERI, which employs Mr Sayed Hasnain, who is the origin of the false Himalayan 2035 glacier melt prediction? Greenpeace UK head John Sauven has stated that the IPCC needs a new leader to replace Mr Pachauri in order to regain its credibility. Has the Commission a differing opinion?
(1) http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF Discussion Paper _him.pdf
9 April 2010
Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission
The reference on the melting of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 in the 4th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report, referred to by the Honourable Member, has been thoroughly investigated by the IPCC. The Panel conceded that this information was erroneous and had not been detected within the peer-review process. IPCC officially recognised this in a formal statement in the press. This was a responsible reaction.
The unfortunate error however does not undermine the large body of evidence gathered in the IPCC reports (and studies published later on) that highlight the impact of human actions on climate, including on glaciers.
Regarding the reference to the ‘HighNoon’ research project, the Commission would like to recall that the rules of the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007 13)) are very strict as regards the rigorous evaluation process of proposals. This process relies on panels of independent experts guaranteeing that EU funded projects respond to important research questions, knowledge gaps and societal challenges and meet the criteria of scientific excellence.
Among the different types of research projects funded by the Commission, Specific International Cooperation Actions (SICA) are dedicated to developing and emerging economies, including Asia, and the ‘HighNoon’ project is an example of one such SICA project. Its principal aim is to assess the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat (and check retreating trends) and possible changes of the Indian summer monsoon on the spatial and temporal distribution of water resources. The project is expected to provide recommendations for appropriate and efficient response strategies for adaptation to hydrological extreme events.
The importance of assessing the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat and possible changes of the Indian summer monsoon on water resources in Northern India has emerged as a research question, following the usual FP7 consultation procedure. As a consequence, the topic has been included in the Work Programme of the 2nd FP7 call for proposals, namely topic ‘ENV.2008.1.1.6.1. Impacts of Himalayan glaciers retreat and monsoon pattern change on the water resources in Northern India, and adaptation strategies’, which was published on 30 November 2007.
Nine proposals were submitted in response to the above topic, and they were evaluated following standard EC procedures by a panel of independent experts. The ‘HighNoon’ project received the highest score from the evaluation panel and was selected for negotiating a Grant Agreement (FP7-ENV-2008-1-227087) of EUR 3 311 750. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) is one of the three Indian partners (receiving a contribution representing about 14 % of the budget share) of the project consortium; its contribution in the project is focusing on socioeconomic analysis, in particular on participative development of multi-sector adaptation measures and stakeholder's perception. Mr Sayed Hansain, who is cited by the Honourable Member, is not participating in this project.
Based on the above, and in particular in the light of the rigorous consultation and evaluation process, the Commission sees no reason for either re-evaluating the purpose and aim of the ‘HighNoon’ project or to changing the scientific basis for its climate policy. The Commission will continue to pay close attention to relevant research work undertaken and consider sound scientific findings for its policies.