Opinion Himalayan meltdown

That’s not good enough. What was this WWF source and should the IPCC,which prides itself on peer-reviewed scientific evidence,have used it? This is a report by the WWF’s Nepal programme,titled “An Overview of Glaciers,Glacier Retreat,and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal,India and China.” In the India section,it said: “In 1999,a report by the Working Group on

Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: ‘Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and,if the present rate continues,the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.’” There is more about glaciers vanishing within 40 years (citing the New Scientist),but 2035 figures in the quote given,and the buck passes further to WGHG and ICSI. Subsequently,the WWF said: “This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.” To quote Alice,it gets “curiouser and curiouser”. The ICSI report in question was published in 1999 and authored by Syed Hasnain of JNU. It is titled,“Report on Himalayan Glaciology” and says absolutely nothing about Himalayan glaciers or 2035. However,there is Kotlyakov and Down to Earth.

On the Climate Science Watch website,Rick Piltz has pointed to a Down to Earth piece published in April 1999 and titled,“Glaciers Beating Retreat”. This stated: “‘Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and,if the present rate continues,the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high,’ says the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) in its recent study on Asian glaciers. ‘But if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate,it might happen much sooner,’ says Syed Iqbal Hasnain of the School of Environmental Sciences,Jawaharlal Nehru University,New Delhi. Hasnain is also the chairperson of the Working Group on

Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG),constituted in 1995 by the ICSI. ‘The glacier will be decaying at rapid,catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square km by the year 2035,’ says former ICSI president V.M. Kotlyakov in the report ‘Variations of snow and ice in the past and present on a global and regional scale’.”

So the buck now passes to Kotlyakov. In 1996,the report “Variations in Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale” was published by UNESCO and edited by V. Kotlyakov. As has been reported in media,this report said nothing about 2035. Instead,the year mentioned was 2350. “The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid,catastrophic rates — its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350.” What occurred is now being interpreted as a typo,an inadvertent replacement of 2350 by 2035.

Pointing to similarity in language between the Down to Earth report and the IPCC publication,Rick Piltz argues authors of the IPCC report based themselves on that article and didn’t even bother to read WWF,ICSI or Kotlyakov. So much for tight procedures. An organisation that proclaims scientific evidence as its bulwark relies on journalistic accounts. Had it been otherwise,surely sources like ICSI or Kotlyakov would have been checked and verified and cited in references. The reference instead is to the WWF. Thus,the question is more than a mere typo. Admittedly,the IPCC’s combined report has almost 3000 pages and the Working Group II report itself has almost 1000 pages and,so far,no one has yet pinpointed another such Himalayan blunder. Nor does the 2035/2350 bloomer dilute the substance of the IPCC’s work and the importance of climate change.

Nevertheless,two questions arise. First,notwithstanding proclaimed stringent procedures,the IPCC’s procedures leave a lot to be desired. Otherwise,scrutinised by such a battery of scientists,such a blunder ought not to have occurred.

The second question is more serious. Suggestions are now floating around that the error was deliberate rather than inadvertent given that we know there are interests in favour of alarmist positions on climate change. Sunday Mail’s David Rose spoke to Murari Lal,lead author of the offending Asia section of the IPCC report,and this is what Lal reportedly said: “We thought that if we can highlight it,it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” In Rose’s words,rather than Murari Lal’s,Lal admitted IPCC knew there was no robust evidence for the 2035 claim. If true,this is an explicit activist agenda,not one associated with objective science. It’s because of this the IPCC has a lot of explaining to do,not because of a possible typo. Indeed,questions have also been raised about quality of scientific evidence linking climate change to melting of glaciers. Extrapolating further,questions have been raised about evidence on climate change itself. Had it not been for the 2035 claim,developing countries would have faced less pressure in Copenhagen. Did the IPCC consciously cater to creating such pressure?

The writer is a Delhi-based economist

express@expressindia.com