In Andy Revkin’s article about Pachauri’s resignation, Revkin, apparently without awareness of the irony, included the following quotation from Grist (from The Hindu in India).
Some in India are also calling for Pachauri to step down from The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), where he is currently on leave. “To safeguard the interest of global climate science Pachauri should step down immediately from the Chairmanship of IPCC and TERI,” Iqbal S. Hasnain, a former professor of environmental studies, told The Hindu.
The surname of Revkin’s informant ought to have attracted his interest.
CA readers will doubtless recall that Syed Hasnain, a scientist working at Pachauri’s TERI with the same surname as Revkin’s source, had been at the center of the false claims about glacier disappearance by 2035. See for example Delingpole here or Booker here:
What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI),
Here’s the punchline. Syed Hasnain, the senior employee at TERI, is the same person as Iqbal S. Hasnain, formerly of Jawaharlal Nehru University.
The identity of the two can be confirmed in various ways. The article in The Hindu about Pachauri’s resignation also says that Iqbal S. Hasnain was Former Vice-Chancellor, University of Calicut, Kerala and former Professor Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Richard North here gives the full name of Syed Hasnain of TERI as Syed Iqbal Hasnain, saying that he had previously been at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi at the time of the 2007 IPCC report, moving to TERI only after it had received lavish grants to study Himalaya glaciers. (Total grants included $500,000 from a US foundation and 3 million euro from the EU.) See presentation by Syed Iqbal Hasnain of TERI here.
Hasnain’s claim of Himalaya disappearance by 2035 was widely publicized e.g. Geoffrey Boulton here and here , IPCC vice chair van Ypersele -see here.
It turned out that Hasnain’s claim that Himalaya glaciers would gone by 2035 was without foundation. It had been contradicted in November 2009 by a report by Indian geologist V.K. Raina, a report viciously attacked by Pachauri as “voodoo science” among other expletives. Richard North’s disclosure of the financial benefit to TERI from the false information about Himalaya glaciers resulted in a challenge to Pachauri in January 2010, e.g. the Der Spiegel editorial recommending Pachauri’s resignation, with which Andrew Weaver had apparently denoted agreement to Canwest reporter Richard Foot on January 25, 2010.
Several points of irony arise. Given Hasnain’s casual science in the 2035 projection, it’s ironic that he now purports to defend the “interest of global climate science” by demanding Pachauri’s resignation. One can hardly help wondering what happened to him at TERI after the 2010 controversy. Also, given both Pachauri’s eventual resignation and the many calls for his resignation in January 2010, it’s ironic that it’s a tort in Canada to say that Andrew Weaver was one of the first to call for Pachauri’s resignation.
Climate Audit 
67 Comments
Reblogged this on JunkScience.com and commented:
What’s in a name
The infighting in the doomsday warming believers has begun!
After seeing all the various hominem attacks on sceptics such as the calls for us to be “tattooed and executed”, and seeing the paper thin skins of most alarmists at the mildest and justified rebuke from a sceptic, there’s no doubt that this infighting will be most bitter.
Sorry, Steve … But as I was reading this, all I could think of were two Joni Mitchell songs (that almost need no parody) To my mind, they simply work … on so many past and current levels!
Stabbed in the back by his own crony.
The wheels are coming off. And most of these folks think us unwashed flat earthers do not know about the wayback machine, or have the ability to make archival backups. Going to be a lot of ‘fun’.
Shoot straight. Aim to killl. Fire at will.
Hilary Ostrov: Beautiful!
It is going to be extremely interesting to see who replaces Pachauri.
There are always disparate interests at work and we might get to see who and what are behind the scenes.
Can we not suggest that Ross McKitrick should take over. That would certainly send IPCC off in a new direction
It was Ross who expressed the hope around 2010 – on CA I think – that Pachauri be kept afloat for as long as possible, as this would do maximum damage to the other negative forces at work in the IPCC, as shown by the lousy defences thrown up over Climategate, Glaciergate and the rest.
To be honest I wasn’t sure – I’m of the HL Mencken school of “throw the rascals out”. But the current debacle lends weight to Ross’s original feeling. Who better to be the replacement.
I would like to suggest Steve Mosher. I think he would shake them up. Someone with a work ethic.
Or a truth ethic?
I’d like to see Peter Gleick get the job.
He’s experienced.
Cui Bono?
Panchauri acted like a seasoned Indian politician: he arranged to be hospitalized when facing an arrest warrant. The usual trick is to complain about “chest pain”. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/pachauri-hospitalised/article6934963.ece
For Indians TERI is obviously a deluxe gravy train with Western funding plus being into the present favorite “intellectual” meme of CAGW: lots of brownie points, trips and publications guaranteed: an oasis in the desert.
Antony,
TERI looks very much like a gravy train. Is TERI funded from Western sources? I remember TERI as the Tata Energy Research Institute; I thought that it was funded by Tata.
TERI started off in 1974 as a Tata undertaking by J.R.D. Tata (I shook hands with the Great man once). it was renamed The Energy and Resources Institute in 2003. Tata was renowned for never giving out bribes even though it cost him a lot of “business”. The name change is much more than just that. One proof is their involvement in “Climate Policy”; J.R.D. was allergic to government “policies”.
Of course TERI also gets Indian funding but it has a lot of Western imports
I think S McIntyre needs to watch his step. To claim to have discovered irony in the doings, undoings, mutual back-scratchings and stabbings of great mean like Pachauri, Hasnain and Weaver is surely by now a capital offence in the people’s republic of Canuckstan.
A cynic might interpret “To safeguard the interest of global climate science” as meaning something rather different from “To safeguard the interest of good science”.
“Hasnain’s claim of Himalaya disappearance by 2035 was widely publicized e.g. Geoffrey Boulton here and here , IPCC vice chair van Ypersele -see here.”
since P. van Yperseele de Strihou is a compatriot, I am particularly interested in his wisdom …
however, if I follow the link to Hans Von Storch, who then refers to an IPCC ppt, the ppt seems to have been changed to “version II”, without any mention of the Himalayas, and a reference to an Andes glacier on “page 5” instead …
maybe someone still has an original copy ?
no problem … the wayback machine has it …
Interesting. After von Storch pointed out IPCC chairman van Ypersele’s use of the erroneous information, rather than publishing a corrigendum on the presentation, van Ypersele cleansed his November 3, 2009 presentation by removing the two slides on the Himalayas to remove evidence that he had ever presented erroneous information. Pretty cheeky. One of the removed slides looks like it was used in the EU presentation in which they awarded 3 million euros to Pachauri’s TERI.
Hmm, could that be a case of the five-letter F word that is popular in climate circles?
Funds?
No.
Frack.
Fable?
Faith?
Faked?
FUBAR?
I commented on this underhanded edit on Von Storch’s website nearer the time.
I did find a single, opaque one-line reference to this edit on the IPCC website, amongst a list of corrections published on their website. I haven’t been able to locate it since but if IIRC, it didn’t say what was changed.
Cheeky ? I guess that’s what Pachauri meant when he told reporters that van Ypersele “had the courage to take a larger share of the responsibility for the [Himalayan] problems”
Steve,
When you say that he was at the center of the false claims
(I don’t think you linked to your earlier post) do you mean
that he was a source for the Climbing Magazine (IIRC) that
the 2035 figure appeared in or was he the one who used that
Magazine as a source in the summary for policy makers?
The Teri meeting where he had himself to be introduced as a Nobel Laureate.
Faux-y.
As another rather significant example of the same kind of thing UK prime minister Gordon Brown told the Major Economies Forum in London on 19th October 2009:
The BBC report on that is still there. In the video at the top you can hear him say it but this segment is not quoted in the text. Ben Pile was on the case the next day though.
That’s in Ben’s Gordon Browns His Trousers and Goes Green, at the foot of which it’s striking to see comments from Donna and Geoff. They know who I mean.
Hasnain apparently failed to consider Type B error or carefully examine the (closest) NW Indian glaciers: Why Asia’s Glaciers Are Mysteriously Expanding, Not Melting
Haisnan has claimed he was misquoted in a telephone interview.
Then he had other things to do while the erroneous information went from article to WWF to IPCC to news headline carrying his name attached to the claim. Other things to do, so said nothing. But he was wrrking for Teri by that time.
What an opportune find for Teri.
As usual, Steyn has an entertaining take on the Pachauri Comedy of the Absurd:
Link
Steyn continues to skirt the edge of a plateau above a valley of legal trouble IMO.
Jerk Pachauri faces the justice system, claims could be false though there is much claimed evidence including emails.
The Indian legal system can kick a can further than any other legal system in the world , ten or more years is not usual and for those with politician connections its even possible to kick it far enough that the people concered die before the case ever gets near to a court.
A question in my mind is whether or not Hasnain is still employed by TERI. Stephen wonders what happened to him after exposure of his Himalayan glacier botch.
(The Eve Adams saga may or may not be relevant, it is an example of an accused individual trying to evade responsibility and adopting the language of her new friends to attack her old ones (who she claims rapidly changed their spots, or perhaps she’d claim she finally woke up).
The Member of Parliament of Canada denies it: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/03/eve_adams_calls_riding_allegations_categorically_false.html, Wikipedia has brief info.)
Finally you are taking Revkin to task. I have never understood why you have stood by him for so long.
You once elegantly said that he comes “from a perspective.” I think it is more than a “perspective.”
I would be early to vouch for Andy Revkin’s curiosity and intellectual integrity. But ‘perspective’ is bias unseen. He would do well to interest himself in helping order how the globe will sustain nine billion people in just a few more years. Mebbe study up Julian Borlaug a bit more.
================
Er, that was an infertile cross of Julian Simon and Norman Borlaug.
============
Yes, the high yield disease resistant wheat geneticist who saved a billion lives. He did make a mark.
Julian Simon, well worth the read.
Hi Kim,
I don’t doubt Revkin’s curiosity or intellectual integrity. I think he is sincere and means well, and is a good writer.
But I also think he is notably unable to see his own bias. I say”notably” because we all are to some degree unable to see our own biases. You can see that in what he chooses to cover and what he doesn’t, and in the begrudging nature of his occasional expression of respect for Steve’s work: Even when he provides that (which I think is commendable) it is always in a backhanded way. It reminds of “the silent bigotry of low expectations” that was in the news maybe 10 years ago. He just doesn’t take Steve’s work very seriously, and I don’t think that is based on merit.
I’ve never liked seeing that, or Steve’s proclivity to not call that out. I’m sure he sees that himself and has his own reasons. I wonder what changed to encourage this post on Revkin’s sources.
P.S. I didn’t express myself well. I do think Revkin takes Steve’s work seriously. I also think he subjects it to a much higher standard than he does the work of other researchers who share his “perspective.”
Some of the Press has sold its soul for the luxury of enjoying bias.
==================
Parallel with, and necessary for searching out the facts, was searching the soul for bias. They go together like a horse and carriage, but this one is a wonderful one hoss shay, now, foundering.
=====================
I’ve been an big fan of your site and work for a good while, Steve. But in recent times, your posts have trended toward becoming a rather tedious and boring legal review, rather than interesting science and statistics. As you will eventually learn, the Law serves only itself (i.e., lawyers) and cannot adjudicate science. I keep hoping your blog will return to the good old days. Any chance of such a return?
BrianM
Rather courts have abdicated and CHOOSE “[]not [to] adjudicate science”. Courts have the tools to do so appointing special or expert “Masters” to objectively marshal the facts and compare them against the models – IF you can find and trust an objective Master.
Pachauri: 97% of climate scientists believe that women love me.
Very good.
It should be remembered that the “IPCC Statement on the Melting of the Himalayan Glaciers,” at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf , does not state the nature of the erroneous statement, or even admit that it is erroneous:
A footnote alludes to the second paragraph in section 10.6.2 of WGII, but with no mention of the claim in question or whether it is wrong, or true but simply not adequately substantiated with an appropriate citation.
The online HTML version of WGII 10.6.2 does not strike out the erroneous claim, but merely provides a hotlink to an erratum saying that lines 32-43 on p. 493 should be deleted. However the HTML version gives no page numbers or line numbers!
High standars indeed.
Although the 20 Jan 10 IPCC statement is still on the IPCC website, I was unable to find a link to it there, and only relocated it by Googling the subject of Himalayan glaciers. A link to it was provided in a notice in Nature and other reports at the time. Is there now or was there ever a link to it on the IPCC site?
Nature notice at http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100119/full/463276a.html
There’s a link to the statement here. The online versions of affected sections (WG2 10.6.2 and Box TS.6) link back to this page of errata.
Thanks, Harold — I should have spotted that. But still, the statement does not correct the error or even admit any actual error. For all the reader knows, WGII merely quoted a true fact from a secondary source rather than correctly going back to obtain the same information from the original source as they were supposed to do.
I recently hiked and flew over the Himalayas. Anyone who can envision those glaciers vanishing in 20-25 years is seriously disconnected from reality. It is such an obvious error that it is unbelievable that anyone would have defended it.
Pre-Copenhagen everything was defended, from Pachauri down. FOIA (as he/she became known) thought it’d be fun to give them more to try to defend.
Now much/many need to be defunded….
Steve,
Way off topic but according to the temperatures measured at the guhi known as Toronto International Airport, February 2015 was the coldest February recorded since records start there in 1938. The “average” temperature for the month was -12.8°C. The next coldest February was -10.8°C in 1978.
We set a record for the coldest days on the 16th, 23rd and 24th, though these never came close to the record low of -31.1°C (Jan.23, 1976 and Feb.13, 1943).
We also set a record for the longest period of time without the temperature rising above 0°C, 32 days and counting. Tonight may end the run.
Jeff: re that 32 days for temps below freezing: the last time Toronto has had 32 consecutive days of DAYTIME frost was 1985.
However, to me the most impressive (in a WILL IT PLEASE WARM UP SOON kind of impressive way), is that we are currently riding a 65 day NIGHTTIME frost streak.
The last time Toronto had a 65 night streak AND a 32 day streak was 1977 (when the daytime streak went to 37, something to which I am not looking forward, even it if it is “only” five days”.)
It sounds like Hasnain is trying to build a case that the unreliable Pachauri should now be replaced by himself as head of TERI — even though he himself was Pachauri’s unreliable source on this matter!
Excellent catch. A scientist specializing in hype chases off a bureaucrat specializing in hype. I can only encourage them to fight on and fight hard.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
3 Trackbacks
[…] en tidligere miljøprofessor ved Jawaharlal Nehru Universitetet så sent som i 2007 og som ifølge Climate Audit har vist seg å være samme person som Syed Hasnain, en ledende ansatt ved TERI i noen år etter […]
[…] actual words, which could have put him at the forefront of the anti-Pachauri brigade, instead of strangling freedom of speech in Canada with his […]
[…] https://climateaudit.org/2015/02/26/revkins-source/#more-20687 […]