Thursday, November 12, 2009

India's environment minister will not believe any stupid scientific fact about global warming

India's Minister of Environment, Jairam Ramesh, who is also the first Cabinet rank minister in India to have an openly-Lesbian hairdo, has been hard at work during the past few months trying to come up with a coherent policy for prevention of climate change while continuously listening to the Madonna song "4 Minutes" on his iPod.

So let's check in and see how that seems to be going:

For the first time, the Indian government has challenged western research that says global warming has hastened the melting of Himalayan glaciers. On Monday, environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh released a paper saying there was no evidence of such a link.

. . .

“The health of Himalayan glaciers is poor,” Ramesh said. “But according to the paper, the doomsday prediction of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore is also not correct. I want scientists to critique the report.”

Hooray, everyone!

There is no global warming. That's all a myth that has been perpetuated by those gay hippies and that giant talking carbon footprint people refer to as Al Gore. There must be some other reason why all those cities in Southern Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka  look like large, open-air aquariums.

And those effing glaciers? They probably melted because of the heat generated by the poster of Kareena Kapoor with Saggy McManboobs.

And what do these environmental terrorists known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change know anyway?

The IPCC and Gore, a former US vice-president, were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

The government’s view goes against the IPCC’s claims that most Himalayan glaciers will vanish by 2035.

“Our prediction [in 2007] was based on government data, and a peer review was done by all countries before our report was released,” IPCC chief R.K. Pachauri said.

. . .

The IPCC’s forecast was based on Indian Space Research Organisation data that said 1,000 Himalayan glaciers had retreated by 16 per cent between 1962 and 2004.

Yeah those commies who run the nobel prize thing award these prizes for doing nothing anyway. And ISRO, those moon geeks went looking for water on the moon when they could have easily bought it at the Moon Starbucks for $50 a pop. 

Pachauri, who is also chairman of the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), said the report prepared by geologist VK Raina was based on "insufficient data" and "unsubstantiated observations" made over a small two-year period.

While Pachauri was not in town, a Teri spokesperson said he disagreed with Raina's findings which flew in the face of well-researched and documented studies by thousands of IPCC scientists.

Pachauri pointed out that Raina's research was still to be reviewed and authenticated by peers. "It is like schoolboy science," he said. Teri glaciologist Shresth Tayal questioned Raina's conclusion that the melting of the Gangotri glacier had "come to a stand still". He said, "If rain is scarce for two years, can one say drought is here forever?"

Certain aspects of Raina's study were self-contradictory, Tayal said. For example, it claims that glaciers in western Himalayas are melting faster but also says the Siachen glacier is advancing. Even the conclusion that glacier melting is more pronounced in western Himalayas than eastern Himalayas was wrong, Tayal pointed out.

"Our research shows all lakes formed by melting of glaciers are in eastern Himalayas. A glacier in Sikkim, East Rathong, has reportedly lost over 80% of its mass. No one has recorded a glacial lake in western Himalayas," he said.

OH MY GOD. He didn't just say that. You can take your "thousands of scientists" and get stuffed, Pachuri. C'mon, Raina. Don't let him get away with this. Tell him to "unsubstanciate" his whatchamacallit.

“Nothing abnormal is happening to Indian glaciers,” said Raina. “They’re retreating because of negative mass balance. There’s no evidence of climate change.”

Mass balance is primarily determined by annual snow precipitation. Raina could not give reasons for the decrease in snowfall in the Himalayas. “It is for the weather departments to tell,” he said.



Ramesh says Himalayan glaciers not melting, PM's adviser says rubbish [DNA]
No proof of Himalayan ice melting due to climate change [
Government quells panic over Himalayan glacial melt [
Kareena talks about bareback shot in Kurbaan [
Total Filmy]


neo said...

Yes, there is no evidence of aging. The retreating hairline is just seasonal.

Stray said...

I love you to bits sweetheart, but IPCC's two-bit on global warming is all a conspiracy theory to give the carbon credits market a booster.

It has never been conclusively proved - ONE WAY or THE OTHER - that the release of certain gases into the air destroys the planet any more/ quicker than before. I'm not saying global warming is a myth per se; just that it would be incorrect to say that there exist scientific fact(s) to this effect.

Also, you might want to check Al Gore's investments into firms engaged in the carbon trading business (directly or indirectly) (it is believed he has more than 80% of his indirect investments in such firms) - this would explain his keen interest and advocacy in the matter. FYI, he also has investments in firms that seek to avoid/ mitigate global warming, but these are red herrings.

Ketan said...


Coincidentally, I have just a vague remembrance of the only documentary I had ever watched of Al Gore, and was one in which he was trying to plot a graph of few previous years' temperatures, and extrapolating it to a few years ahead. To demonstrate this, he was manually plotting points on a white board. What he did in the process was most disgusting! He had selected the scale and origin (the lowest/minimum point on the Y axis) of that graph such that a very nominal increase in temperature would appear like a huge one, and to plot which he would have to use a ladder to mark the point manually! Of course, this alarmed the studio audience a lot, and they had got carried away by his exaggerated sensationalist depiction. That was the point when he totally lost credibility for me. I started thinking if he had something substantial to say, why would he resort to misguiding people. But of course, that's my way of looking at it.

I don't know what our environment minister was trying to say, but I do not trust all the environmentalists' speculations at their face value. I've personally known a case wherein a very well known ecologist had written total BS for Bombay Times about the colony where I used to live.

And now that even Obama has won a Peace Prize, credentials of Al Gore have started seeming even more suspect to me. What to do, cynical me. ;)

Also, I think our expectation that climate must remain the same through successive years itself is wrong, because climate is most significantly determined by the Earth's orbit around the Sun, which is elliptical, and I'm not sure if it stays EXACTLY the same every year. Even a very minor change in Earth's orbit and axis would make extreme alterations to global climate. For instance, it is said that life would've been totally impossible if Earth's distance from the Sun would've altered only by 10 percent!

But I liked your post for its entertainment value. ;)


Rakesh said...

Stray: I'm not saying global warming is a myth per se; just that it would be incorrect to say that there exist scientific fact(s) to this effect.

No offense but I couldn't really understand the above sentence. So is there global warming or is there no such thing?

And with regards to his investments, I think he's just dealing in something that he believes in. I don't see a conflict there. I suppose he was an advocate of the environment long before he made those investments.

And Ketan, 1 environmentalist may have bullshitted about your colony but they generally have more integrity than politicians. And secondly, this is not an environmentalist talking - it is the chief of IPCC.

And global warming is a fact, there aren't any two ways about it. I mean who do you belive - Government or IPCC? We can't even belive the government when it comes to matters of governance, let alone science and climate change.

Just look at the process at how the conclusion was reached - done scientists at ISRO and peer review done by all countries. You seriously need concrete evidence to dispute such a report instead of saying I just don't believe this.

Over Rated said...

@Neo: Hey, HOW DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE RETREATING HAIRLINE? I'm sure it's just a phase. It's probably an allergic reaction or something. I'm sure they'll grow back. *Fingers Crossed*

@Stray: I'm not much of a science student and most of my experiments were conducted way outside any lab, but really, even I remember studying about their being a connection between the release of harmful gases into the atmosphere and the changing of the weather. Supposedly this change has been taking place ever since the industrial revolution when te human race learnt how to make useful shit out of burning stuff. It is also supposed to be the reason the ozone layer is sort of disappearing, unlike Sandra Bullock movies which will probably bring the end of the world. I am well aware of Al Gore's investments,and you know how much I enjoy conspiracy theories, but the thing is global warming is something I can see. The earth's climate has changed in the past two decades, and I've experienced it happening. So when our point man for climate change negotiations believes a scientifically inaccurate report about there being no global warming, it kind of scares me. A little.

Over Rated said...

@Ketan: Hi!! I never watched Al Gore's "documentary" in which he tried to mate with trees to prevent the earth from blowing up. I only saw him in a his almost hilarious SNL appearance as "President" Gore,in which he promised not to make out with tipper Gore on television anymore. Anyways, my point is that my "opinion" on global warming is based on the fact that I can see it happening. I trust environmentalists more than I trust economists, which is not saying much. As per my understanding, and I may be wrong here, the climate started changing at a rapid pace after the industrial revolution. Ergo, I draw the conclusion. But, hey, I am a flip-flopper, and who knows what I'll think tomorrow.

@Rakesh: I agree. I wouldn't trust a politician to walk my dog, let alone come up with an argument against global warming. Although, at some level I am glad that he didn't quote the bible. Just sayin'. :P