Scepticism helps

When temperatures revert to near normal on a scientific argument that had turned very personal,Jairam Ramesh,Union minister for environment and forests,will probably stop seeing the long overdue constitution of an Indian panel to study climate change just as a counter to R.K. Pachauri and the IPCC. For now,he can be allowed his victory lap for pulling off one of the biggest scientific scoops of recent times. Ever since he took over his current portfolio last summer,Ramesh has been arguing that the IPCCs warning in its fourth assessment report that,given the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are retreating,they could disappear by 2035 was unscientific and alarmist. But the current climate is such that to demand due diligence and rigour from those studying global warming is not just to risk being portrayed as a sceptic,but to have serious moral questions raised about your agenda. So,now that the IPCC has accepted its mistake and apologised albeit without taking adequate responsibility for the alarm it raised Ramesh is underlining the lapse.

With or without the IPCCs rigour,India needs a broad-based national agency for climate change assessment. Climate change prediction is an evolving science and the geographic and demographic diversity of this country demands careful study of complexities that could inform threats to its peoples and habitats. But certainly,confirmation that the IPCC could have been as much as 300 three hundred years off in its prediction on the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers is a wake-up call. As climate change becomes a factor in a variety of policy decisions within and among governments,the number of stakeholders in overstating and in understating threats is growing.

The next hoax may not be as glaring,and therefore easy to expose,as the glacier prediction. A national database is therefore crucial. The episode should also serve as an alert that we need to create more fertile ground for informed questions.