Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

A changing climate for the IPCC

By Mike Hulme - posted Friday, 12 February 2010

The incorrect statement in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the Himalayan glaciers could completely disappear by 2035 is remarkable in many ways.

First, how could such a physically implausible claim have entered an early draft of an assessment undertaken by “the world's leading experts”, as IPCC authors are frequently described? Second, how did the claim survive several rounds of peer review from other IPCC authors and outside experts? Third, how did the claim, published in April 2007, remain unchallenged for more than two years before hitting the news headlines?

But perhaps most remarkable of all was the reaction of the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, when the results of a specially commissioned Indian study of the glaciers challenged the IPCC's claim. He dismissed the new study as "voodoo science".


Pachauri's haughty attitude helps explain why the controversy surrounding the mistaken claim - which, after all, is a rather minor piece of the picture of climate change impacts - is now filling newspapers, blogs and broadcast media.

But to fully understand the timing of this affair we must reflect on the unexpected turn of events in the politics of climate change science over the past three months.

Under fire

The seminal moment was “Climategate”, when more than a thousand emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, were made public, either stolen or leaked (see "Lessons about science from 'Climategate'").

The emails made front-page news for several weeks and prompted a torrent of allegations about the conduct of some climate scientists and their attempts to withhold data.

Crucially, although the leaked emails hardly constituted evidence of a global warming conspiracy, they legitimised those commentators who have challenged the scientific orthodoxy and the IPCC.

The emails gave such commentators unprecedented credibility in the eyes of the mainstream media and the public to question even more sharply, and less deferentially, the science underpinning human-induced climate change. Is the scientific evidence sound? Or have scientists been sexing up the risks and playing down the uncertainties?


The IPCC is the obvious target for such questions. It gained public status and stature through its Nobel Peace Prize, its outspoken chairman and its key role in forging consensus on the effects of climate change, and it has become the ultimate source of authority for scientific claims about climate change.

Many of its pronouncements have been used by political advocates to justify their policy prescriptions. "As the science demands" was the cry echoing around the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December, and, indeed, for months and years before.

Inaccurate claims

Both Climategate and the unexpected outcome of the Copenhagen talks have enabled critics to openly attack the IPCC. As a result, the false claim about the Himalayan glaciers has taken on considerable symbolic significance.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published by on February 3, 2010.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

34 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mike Hulme is professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, and was founding director of the UK-based Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. His most recent book is called Why We Disagree About Climate Change.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mike Hulme

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 34 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy