CLIMATE Change Minister Penny Wong has leapt to the defence of the United Nations' benchmark document on climate change as it faces a fresh challenge to its reputation as the world's most credible study on the impacts of global warming.
The UN's top climate officials have launched a review of the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, following claims that a section of the report contained exaggerated and unreliable information about the rate of glacial melting in the Himalayas.
Jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in 2007, the IPCC's report is relied upon by most governments and scientists as the best guide to the effects and projections of climate change.
But a sentence in the report that claimed there was a ''very high'' chance of Himalayan glaciers melting entirely by 2035, has been questioned and widely rebuked.
The original source of the claim was this week discovered to be a 1999 article in New Scientist magazine, which published an untested claim by an Indian glaciologist.
That claim was repeated in a report by environmental group WWF, whose report was referred to in the IPCC report.
Himalayan glaciers are crucial for water supplies in many Asian nations, including India, and Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said although the glaciers were receding at a worrying rate, the 2035 claim was not based on any sound research.
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said yesterday the sentence would be investigated, but he said even if it was proved incorrect, it would not disprove the overwhelming weight of science that did point to climate change.
''We are looking into the issue of the Himalayan glaciers, and will take a position on it in the next two or three days,'' he said. ''We are looking into the source of that information, the veracity of it and what it is that the IPCC should say on the subject.''
Ms Wong yesterday remained bullish in her support for the report.
''The (IPCC) report is a nearly 3000 page document published in 2007. It has been intensely scrutinised with very few errors being identified, and none that challenge the central conclusions of the report,'' she said. "There is substantial credible evidence in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report revealing accelerated glacier melt impacting on river dynamics and water availability.''
Professor David Karoly, a University of Melbourne expert who participated in the 2007 report, said, however, the offending sentence was ''almost certainly'' wrong and suggested there had been a ''breakdown'' in the review process for the report.
He welcomed the review, but he too said the IPCC's main conclusions held firm.
''It's important for the IPCC to review not only the material but its processes to ensure such errors, if they are errors, don't occur again. It perhaps demonstrates it is important to keep with peer-reviewed scientific literature,'' he said.
The glacier controversy is the second blow to the IPCC's credibility in recent months, after hacked emails from England's University of East Anglia showed prominent climate researchers discussing keeping some scientific work out of the IPCC report.
Email a friend