There has been a swing away from the upbeat mood before the Copenhagen summit. Even as countries prepare for climate change talks in Mexico City in December this year, it’s not certain that an agreement would be possible among 192 nations. Some of it has to do with the battering the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has taken because of its shoddy and unsubstantiated conclusions in some parts of its fourth assessment report. Two investigations, one by the University of East Anglia and another by the science and technology committee of the House of Commons in the UK has shaken the public’s firm belief in science. The university’s climate research unit, which supplied much of climate change data to IPCC, was hit by a email leakage scandal that allegedly showed that scientists may have been involved in manipulation of data. That has come on heels of IPCC’s acceptance that its conclusion on melting of Himalayan glaciers was faulty. All these have led analysts to believe that the United States senate is highly unlikely to pass the climate change bill under consideration. Without the US, climate change talks are doomed, say skeptics. One of the leading skeptics, professor emeritus of environment science at the University of Virginia S Fred Singer was in Delhi recently to talk about why an agreement was not possible. He spoke to Hardev Sanotra. Excerpts:



IPCC chairman R K Pachauri says there are hundreds of lobbyists in Washington trying to discredit the IPCC. Is that right?

That’s partially true. But most of those lobbyists are working for companies to get as much of the money that Congress can allocate for cap and trade. The law would raise the price of energy to be paid by consumers. Costs would rise by more than 800 million dollars, if the law passes. But it won’t pass.

Why do you say that?

The senate is not going to pass it. President Obama would be lucky if he is able to retain the House and Senate majority in November just before the next COP meeting in Mexico. It’s possible he may lose his majority in Congress. Then it is finished. It will be all over.

Are you suggesting that Mexico talks are doomed?

Well, even though the world is waiting for the US to legislate, the Senate won’t do it. Yet, really, no one cares. Mexico is going to be another big gabfest with developing countries trying to get money from the US and Europe. Nothing else is going to happen. No one is going to pass a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The science of climate change, as enunciated by the IPCC, is discredited and the so-called consensus is disappearing.

Apart from what is loosely called glaciergate, other questions have been raised about the IPCC report. What do you think is the impact of all this?

It is a distraction from the real issue which is that climate changes because of natural forces and not because of human impact. The melting of glaciers doesn’t tell you anything about the cause. It could be natural, it could be because of humans. On the other hand, the public can understand questions like glaciergate and half a dozen other ‘gates’ which has already discredited the IPCC. The volume two of IPCC report which talks of the consequences of climate change has all sorts of problems with inadequate scientific back up and with Pachauri recipient of much of that criticism

You have been critiscisng IPCC for years. Did you not anticipate this?

I have beeen primarily working on Volume I of IPCC which deals with the science. Volume two is a different story because that deals with the consequences. These people no longer worry about what is causing climate change, because they take volume one conclusion as granted. I am not much interested in volume two. It’s a useless exercise.

What do these scandals mean for the next assessment report?

They make them more cautious. It’s clear IPCC has not lived up to its promise that it would use only peer reviewed sound science. They have used anecdotal information, written by environmental organisations or journalists.

What would your message to Pachauri be?

We are challenging the basis of scientific evidence. We don’t see any evidence for any significant human contribution to climate change. All the evidence given by the IPCC for human induced action doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. None of it is any good. Our message to Pachauri would be the same as that given by the Chinese vice minister of the National Development and Reform Commission Xie Zhenhua who said in Delhi that there’s a legitimate body of science which is sceptical about climate change and it must be taken into consideration. If Pachauri wants the next assessment report to be balanced, he must incorporate the sceptical views of scientists, something like the report of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change. They could say this contradicts the official view and let the public decide.

But wouldn’t that go against its charter?

Yes, the IPCC charter says they are supposed to find evidence for human caused global warming and nothing else. That’s why the Chinese suggestion is very radical and may even force a revision of the charter.

If you say the science of climate change is not settled, why aren’t more climate scientists coming out and objecting?

Give them a little time and I think they will. Because they are much encouraged from what we are learning from climategate so far. This will encourage many scientitis to speak up, who have otherwise kept quiet because of public pressure. Climate alarmism represented by the IPCC is losing its appeal. Just before the Copenhagen conference there was another conference where all sorts of alarmist predictions were made. Because of glaciergate and other revelations many more scientists will be speaking out, and I hope they speak out strongly.

What do expect to be the outcome of investigations underway?

We can only hope that there would be fair and honest investigation of climategate emails and other matters. The committee headed by Sir Muir Russel is looking into the University of East Anglia email leakage and the house of Commons committee on Science and Technology is also investigating. If the republicans win in the US in November, the Congress will also investigate. Because of public money involved, it’s necessary to know how these organisations were handling climate data, including Godard Insititute of Space Studies of Nasa and national climate data centre of National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration.