Pachauri: “Skeptics are flat earthers”

From the Chicago Tribune, August 3, 2008

PERSON OF INTEREST RAJENDRA PACHAURI
By Michael Hawthorne
Story link: Blunt answers about risks of global warming

Note: Photo changed to this one at 4:40PM PST 8/3/08 due to previous one inviting negative comments about Pachauri’s personal appearance. – Anthony

Rajendra Pachauri isn’t nearly as famous as Al Gore, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with an international panel on climate change that Pachauri, an Indian scientist and economist, has led since 2002. But as chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Pachauri has an urgent message for world leaders about the perils of global warming. He talked to the Tribune recently while he was in town to meet with Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago civic leaders. An edited transcript follows.

Excerpts:

Q: What do you think about the small but vocal group of doubters still out there

Pachauri Answer: There is, even today, a Flat Earth Society that meets every year to say the Earth is flat. The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point.

Q: What have you done personally to shrink your carbon footprint?

A: I’ve become a vegetarian. I try to minimize the use of cars. Where I’ve failed is my impact with regard to air travel. I tell people I was born a Hindu who believes in reincarnation. It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint. There’s no way I can do it in one lifetime

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change. Bookmark the permalink.

145 Responses to Pachauri: “Skeptics are flat earthers”

  1. Craig McPeck says:

    Im sorry but he looks like the Geico Caveman!

    They are all still flat out wrong!

  2. Aileni Noyle says:

    As one of ‘a small but vocal group’ I say ‘ostrich’ !

  3. hyonmin says:

    Pachauri
    How about some facts to support your position. The AGW story was hard to support ten years ago, but now impossible to defend. To call to your support ‘Flat Earthers’ as a rebuttal to facts seems quite a reach.

  4. Steven Hill says:

    shaking head, that’s about all I can say…..nothing

    I love the part about it’s all the USA’s fault. I seem to recall that we followed Europe in the Industrial Revolution.

  5. M White says:

    Glad to see it’ll be at least least six generations before the world comes to an end.
    Check out the sea ice at the north pole May 6th 1986

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_Submarines_surfaced_at_the_North_Pole.jpg#filelinks

  6. Smokey says:

    Now UN officials are resorting to name-calling. But they still run from any debate.

  7. John McLondon says:

    Well, he is the Bush Administration’s pick for the post (may be under the advice of some with oil interests), to replace Robert Watson, whom the administration did not like. Imagine how it would be if Watson is still there.

  8. Pierre Gosselin says:

    “There’s no way I can do it in one lifetime!”

    Yet, he expects everyone else to abstain from carbon. These arrogant bureaucrats think reducing carbon emissions is for little unimportant people only. High priests like Gore and Pachauri, through their holiness and righteousness, are exempt

  9. statePoet1775 says:

    “It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint.”

    No disrespect intended, but wouldn’t he have to come back as a plant to neutralize his carbon footprint?

  10. David Gladstone says:

    It seems more and more evident that the UN and other international agencies are under someone’s thumb and cannot be trusted; I don’t believe in giving up one iota of sovereignty to these corrupt organizations led by morons!

  11. Oldjim says:

    and this is the person who is head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    How can he make this statement with a straight face

    Q: Some scientists think your panel’s conclusions are too conservative and underestimate the risks we face. Is it too late to act?

    A: The fact that the impacts of climate change are turning out to be more serious than we expected shows how important it is to act soon. If we do nothing, things are going to get so much worse. We should do something about climate change with a sense of urgency.

  12. M. Jeff says:

    What we’ve all been waiting for, a realistic cost-effective solution to the AGW problem.

    … It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint. There’s no way I can do it in one lifetime! …

  13. billadams says:

    So much for the “wisdom of India”.

  14. Michael Alexis says:

    My understanding of karma and reincarnation is that it’s all pretty tit-for-tat. Eat a cow, get reincarnated as a cow that gets eaten. I wonder what you need to be born as to work out all those carbon offsets. A tree? Phytoplankton? Al Gore?

  15. Leon Brozyna says:

    That photo alone makes me squeamish. Having a post about Gore or Hansen is bad enough, but a third rate non-entity? It’s almost as though The Astronomical Journal were to devote an issue to discussing the values that astrology could impart to the science of astronomy. Just thinking such thoughts makes me feel unclean.

  16. IMHO, Flat Earth and Reincarnation belong to the same category.

  17. Jock says:

    A.S.A. Another Salaried Activist.

    The wiki has him down as “an economist and environmental scientist ” possibly hoping that further scrutiny will be avoided. He has zero “environmental” qualifications (MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, a PhD in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in Economics). So he is just like our Al. Well, maybe not.

    I do not partake of, or condone, ridicule of a person’s chosen religion (I have a Hindu daughter amongst my diverse offspring) but must point out the parallels between believing in reincarnation or CO2=warming or, indeed, a flat Earth.

    Activists, especially, do not thoroughly investigate claims or think innovatively (in general) and in so doing become prey for those who …ahem, twist the facts around the agenda rather than vice versa. A lot of quackery gets through to the public awareness in just this way.

  18. Werner Weber says:

    In the seventies, I lived in the US. At that time, Richard Daley was Mayor of Chicago. It was the time when Jimmy Hoffa disappeared. Wasn’t he last seen somewhere near Chicago? I remember that Daley organized a big wedding for his son, with a lot of (old) Daley’s friends participating.
    When Kennedy was elected, Daley also had been Mayor of Chicago. Kennedy took Illinois, a decisive vote. Chicago results which came in after the (Republican) rest of the state, made the difference. There is a conspiracy theory that Kennedy disappointed Daley’s friends and had to pay a final price for it.

    Now we know why Pachauri visited present day Daley. He probably asked present day Daley to ask his friends to do him a favor. GOING AFTER THE FLAT EARTHERS!!!

  19. Manfred says:

    “What do you think about the small but vocal group of doubters still out there ?”

    Mr. Michael Hawthorne is actually not aware, that the group of doubters is huge and growing.

  20. Robert says:

    Sadly for Mr. Pachauri, it seems more likely that the alarmist positions will be regarded like the Piltdown man.

    An elaborate hoax, that many choose to go along with because it serves their agenda.

    Robert

  21. swampie says:

    He must be offsetting some of that carbon footprint by avoiding barbers.

    Luckily, I was born in America and believe in neither the perils of global warming nor reincarnation.

  22. David L. Hagen says:

    Dogmatic orthodoxy exhibiting a closed mind. Contrary evidence no longer makes any impression.

  23. George Bruce says:

    Well, there you have it. Some guy who believes in reincarnation thinks we are all kooks.

  24. Flowers4Stalin says:

    Wow, great guy.

  25. Mike Bryant says:

    What a great idea. I am now a Hindu and will expiate my climate sins in my subsequent lives.

  26. steven mosher says:

    6 reincarnations? Ok. Start today and get one out of the way, Rajendra.
    Do the future a favor.

  27. Steve in SC says:

    Where does this cat’s money come from?

  28. steven mosher says:

    sorry a mosh pit moment

  29. Tom in Florida says:

    Pachauri: ” I tell people I was born a Hindu who believes in reincarnation”

    Talk about flat earthers! His beliefs are his beliefs but as a scientist how can he slam the door on more scientific investigation of climate change? I see he is also an “economist” so that may explain it. Never met an economist who was right more than 50% of the time.

  30. steven mosher says:

    If I can’t be carbon neutral what will I do? . I know, I’ll be reincarnated and
    send you a check next month.

  31. Mick says:

    A true scientist would not dismiss a flat earther’s criticism but would rather demonstrate the roundness of the earth empirically. The implication that any matter is not open to question is anti scientific, and in the case of our Hindu friend, possibly religeous.

  32. bill allen says:

    It didn’t say where the questions came from, but they sounded like they came from greenpeace. When is anyone in the MSM going to do the job of a journalist and ask the tough questions?

  33. Steve Moore says:

    “There’s no way I can do it in one lifetime!”

    That is the best cop-out line I’ve ever heard. “Can’t do anything now; I’ll fix it in my next life.”

    That’s as good as my all-purpose excuse: “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

  34. Captain Obviousness says:

    Wait, so are we now allowed to reduce our carbon footprint retroactively from our reincarnated future selves??? And if so, how do I get in on the market of selling carbon credits to entities that do not yet exist?

  35. Ron McCarley says:

    Maybe in his next life he’ll wind up in Siberia or Antarctica, and be in a unique state of bliss.

  36. Jim Black says:

    As the science continues to mount up against AGW (i.e. latest Aqua satellite data supporting “negative” feedback and GISS, UAH, RSS, Hadley data showing no warming since 1998 and a trend towards cooling), I see “doubters” getting rounder and rounder, and Pachauri, Gore, Hansen, et al getting flatter and flatter.

    If Monckton’s paper, recently submitted to APS debate forum (Physics and Society), and which is aligned with Aqua data, proves the IPCC over-stated CO2 effects on climate sensitivity, AGW just dives deeper into doo-doo.

    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

    If the science of AGW is so settled, according to IPCC and Gore, why has APS opened up debate on Monckton’s paper? Between Monckton and Aqua, AGW could be headed for the deep six.

    Prof. Deming testimony and “Hockey Stick” debunking prove the real “flat earthers” (AGWers) have something other than global temperatures in their deck of crumbling cards. Why did they have to “get rid of” the medieval warm period and little ice age?

    http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

  37. Mike C says:

    Now that the Earth is cooling and he is about to become unemployed, he can always audition for the next sequel to Planet of the Apes.

  38. Bruce Cobb says:

    The good news for pachauri with regard to needing 6 lives to neutralize his carbon footprint is that there is absolutely no need to, in this lifetime or any other, since the whole concept of “carbon footprint” is a huge fraud. The bad news of course is that by perpetuating that fraud and spreading lies and disinformation it will no doubt be very damaging to his karma. Further, the AGW lies he is perpetuating is creating economic hardship, which will only be getting worse, particularly for the poor, ultimately causing many deaths worldwide. That, unfortunately for pachauri could take a thousand lifetimes to atone for.

  39. Marot says:

    Many thanks for this blog.

    R. Pachaury, a good specialist of hundreds sects of India talk about only one of ours.

    R. Pachaury, all but climatologist talk us about minimization of use of cars.

    Thanks to the former head of TERI of Tata group,
    to the former member of :
    Board of Trustees of the Indian Oil Corporation (1999-2003)
    Board of Directors of GAIL (India) Ltd (2003-2004) a gas company
    National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd (2002-2005)

  40. Adrian S says:

    It would be nice to have a proper debate on AGW without name calling on both sides. I would love to see a 3 hr documentary special , where each side is given the same time to state their cases, and barristers are allowed to cross examine, the case then goes before a jury. Although this could only answer a simple question, it would stop experts and those who promote them from hiding behind name calling and allow the public to concentrate on the real hard issues of whether this is real, a danger, or no problemo!
    I think both side should be given a proper opportunity to state thier cases without name calling or slurs.

  41. McGrats says:

    It doesn’t surprise me one iota they ran this article. The Chicago Tribune has been in a tail spin for a number of years and this is but one small example of its readeship level… if it even reaches that high.

    The Trib has lost most of its readership, advertising, and what little stature it ever had. It has cut back on staff, paper size, and distribution. It is simply a rag in the truest sense of the word. They have to give the paper away (at Starbucks, etc) in order to show any movement, and have been caught fudging their sales figures on several occasions.

    It was recently sold to Sam Zell, and he has proceeded to peddle its pieces like so much confetti.

    It is simply one of the biggest rags in the Nation, bar none!

    Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate Project
    http://www.climateclinic.com

  42. Timo van Druten says:

    First of all, it is only an edited transcript so we do not exactly know what Pachauri actually said. But if the transcript of Pachauri’s statement is genuine, I would like to comment as follows.

    He doesn’t really answer the question, but only implies something. He can always say that his answer is taken out of context. He acts as a real politician and not as a scientist. His statement can be ignored as we usually ignore many statements of politicians.

    Further, he doesn’t understand the position of many “skeptics” because he doesn’t listen to and communicate with them. His unwillingness to debate or force others to debate the science of climate change with the vocal group of “doubters” is a shame for the position of the IPCC and other intergovernmental bodies. His comparison of “skeptics” with Flat Earthers is ungentlemanly for somebody with his social standing and raises the question whether he and the IPCC are driven in a corner!

  43. sunsettommy says:

    What an embarrassment.

  44. Patrick Henry says:

    Can’t he do carbon trading in return for absolving his bad plane travel karma? Gore could make a killing jumping on that opportunity.

  45. Richard deSousa says:

    What a hypocritical bureaucrat… his very own country is spewing CO2 like there’s no tomorrow yet he expects the rest of the world to go on a CO2 diet. A pox on his progeny.

  46. Tom Klein says:

    Anthony,
    Please give this guy as much publicity as you can. He is the perfect poster boy for dumb and hypocritical alarmism.

  47. Hoi Polloi says:

    “I’ve become a vegetarian. I try to minimize the use of cars. Where I’ve failed is my impact with regard to air travel. I tell people I was born a Hindu who believes in reincarnation. It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint. There’s no way I can do it in one lifetime!”

    It’s now official, IPCC is ruled by vegetarian green enviromentalists. A scary thought.

    “You may not be interested in strategy, but strategy is interested in you.” (Leon Trotsky)

  48. George Patch says:

    I just want to say I’m proud to hang out with all you “flat earth” folk.

    Didn’t Al Gore use this same analogy recently? It looks like everyone got their talking points memo. This really is political!

  49. Parchesi wants to engage Americans in a battle of insulting ad hominem attacks? Doesn’t he know what “don’t bait the bear” means?

    When it comes to derogatory vitriol, nobody can hold a candle to me and my good buddy neighbors. We hold back out of pity for poor [snip]; he is way way out of his league.

    Reply: First insult left in, second removed due to racist overtones~charles the moderator.

  50. Mike Bryant says:

    Off Topic:

    Anyone seen Mauna Loa? Mauna Loa takes BIG stumble…

  51. Bruce Cobb says:

    Why does he need a plane anyway? He could always travel astrally. Who’d want to look on that face? It’s enough to turn one to stone.

  52. DrawMaster says:

    Most of us find it very frustrating to wait for good science to percolate up through the pseudo-scientific political morass anchored by Gore, Hansen, and the IPCC. I know I do. Fortunately, in addition to the breakthrough of good science there are a number of show stoppers that help fend off wasting money on faux AGW relief. Perhaps the most significant is that India and China have no real intentions of participating in this silly game.

  53. statePoet1775 says:

    AGW is looking more and more like a blessing in disguise. All the loonies are gathering under one tent. When it collapses, they will be discredited and maybe we’ll have 30 years of peace and prosperity till the next crop of loonies matures. There is a theory that history has 30 and 60 year cycles. According to the theory, it takes that long to forget lessons learned from the past.

  54. Mike Bryant says:

    I just received 10.000,000 carbon credits. My question is… can I roll over any unused credits to my next life? Maybe I should ask Shirley MacLaine…

  55. mbuel says:

    We’re only a “small” group of deniers. (according to the questioner), nevermind that scientists are leaving the IPCC almost weekly, and coming to the side of denying man made global warming.

  56. Jock says:

    Mike Bryant (13:05:09) :

    Off Topic:

    Anyone seen Mauna Loa? Mauna Loa takes BIG stumble…

    Nice one Mike – (also nothing is off topic on this topic methinks) I had not looked until you pointed it out. Greater minds than mine will dissect but my two-penneths-worth; it is quite a big drop but this year’s trend (that “nice sinusoidal” I have been having my nose rubbed in since I first realised that AGW was political not scientific) was skewed in April already (for Mauna Loa) Globally this ” The last year of data are still preliminary, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks. ” is still possible. But yes, it is “veeery eeenteresting”

  57. Pops says:

    “Aw, nuts!”

  58. Mike Bryant says:

    Patrick that is a good point. Surely al can relieve pachauri of some of his money and all of his guilt. If pachauri does not purchase carbon credits he truly is hypocritical. I would like to be a fly on the wall during the negotiations between al and pachauri.

  59. mbuel says:

    “AGW is looking more and more like a blessing in disguise. All the loonies are gathering under one tent. When it collapses, they will be discredited and maybe we’ll have 30 years of peace and prosperity till the next crop of loonies matures.”

    I wonder if that will be the case or it will be like this:

    In Seattle Komrade Premier (mayor) Greg Nickels is making “car free sundays” every week of August and September. When the climate starts cooling to the point where it’s undeniable (apparently the surface temperature of the US went up last year, contradicting the global drop in temperature….) they will take credit for it.

    The question is, at what point of the cooling will they start telling us to drive more to effect warming? My guess is, like the 70’s they blame the cooling on some sort of unscientific method as well.

  60. Mike Bryant says:

    Pachauri needs seven lifetimes, Gore says WE need only ten years.

  61. Bill Illis says:

    All the warmers are hyprocrites.

    We are supposed to be at the proverbial “tipping point” for the climate right now.

    And this guy wants to take SIX lifetimes to solve his personal part of it. (6 X 72 years = 432 years)

  62. swampie says:

    Perhaps not that long (432 years), Bill.

    After all, if they are successful in rolling back everybody’s carbon footprint, the average lifespan should shorten accordingly.

  63. My goodness, Charles, my reference was to a well-known TV character who is on a very popular show, that runs all the time and has been running for 15 years!

    In any case, said reference was obliquely to the good doctor’s nationality, which is mentioned in the article above, and not to his race, which is what?

    Note that the first commenter also made reference to a TV personality (albeit an ad character) that was far more derogatory than mine.

    Tut tut, Charles. Your Political Correctness is showing.

    Reply: Be that as it may, I’m allowing a little over the top derogatory from most posters, including you, but drawing the line at overt, even if unintentional, racism~charles the moderator.

  64. Dee Norris says:

    Dear Dr. Pachauri,

    I am not a flat-earther, nor am I a hypocrite.

    I am a climate criminal, thank you very much. Just ask npower!

  65. Mike Bryant says:

    The picture isn’t from Planet of the apes… it’s the Wolf Man, Bela Lugosi…
    That is really scary, man.

  66. Suzanne Morstad says:

    Suzanne
    Mr. Pachauri’s remarks are quite incredible considering the scientists and leader of his country led by Prime Minister Singh have published a governmental position paper that examined the “problem” intensively and concluded that while there was weather change it was not likely to be catastrophic and the contribution from fossil fuels was mininal. They deided to “prioritize economic development and poverty eradication over some nebulous climate change action plans. ” His belief in reincarnation has nothing to do with with his climate alarmism. I suspect someone to him to the same woodshed for instruction in political correctness as Michael Griffeth of NASA.

    ave discounted these claims as exaggerated. They also lack supporting evidence.

  67. Dave Andrews says:

    Hey,

    First of all this was a cr*p Q&A in a newspaper.

    Second, ad hom attacks on people’s hairstyle and more importantly on their religious beliefs have no place in our arguments about AGW. Guys this isn’t RC or Open Mind so lets not sink to theuir levels.

  68. Mike McMillan says:

    statePoet1775 (09:37:45) :
    “It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint.”

    No disrespect intended, but wouldn’t he have to come back as a plant to neutralize his carbon footprint?

    Truly beautiful.

  69. L Nettles says:

    Perhaps Pachauri will give Steve McIntyre his email address so Steve can provide Pachauri with a list of missing data and emails. Certainly Pachauri is the man to provide the missing links. (in case anyone wonders this is my lame attempt at sarcasm)

  70. dercks says:

    why is there still no prove than when it is so clear? Believing in a religion is not speaking in his favour for any scientist. Climat always changes, and there are always peolple looking for power and money. What is ne, is that they are stealing it in a ligitimate way by taxes. It time for a war against these criminlas.

  71. dercks says:

    If everyone who is spreading the new climate communisme would kill himself earth would be heaven.

  72. jeez says:

    I would prefer and I’m sure Anthony would as well, that posters refrain from commenting on Pachauri’s appearance, and limit themselves to the content of his interviews, other statements, and actions~charles the moderator

    REPLY: Ditto that. I was in a hurry this AM to leave for a day out with the kids (now that the smoke has cleared) and that was the first picture that came up in Google image search. I’ll see if I can find a better one. – Anthony

  73. Frederick Davies says:

    “I tell people I was born a Hindu who believes in reincarnation. It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint.”

    …and I was born a Catholic, so I will have all eternity to sort out mine!

    Sorry, but I can’t take this guy seriously; that has to be a joke.

  74. David Segesta says:

    It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint. There’s no way I can do it in one lifetime!”

    Well I guess I’ll do the same. At 80 years per lifetime, I’ll get my carbon footprint under control in about 480 years, just like him.

  75. CodeTech says:

    I’m not exactly the most superficial person in the world, but that picture is downright scary! If I didn’t know better, I would swear that was the man that begged change from me the last time I was stopped in traffic downtown.

    Superficial? Maybe… but it will be a below-freezing day in Hawaii before I let someone who looks and acts like this guy tell me how I should live my life. I guarantee that this man can NOT relate to my life, my lifestyle, my business, my society, or even the civilization I am a part of.

    Personally, I’m proud of my job, which has me flying a few times per week. I fly commercial (737s), and lately my company has me flying in and out the same day. My current record is six flights in one day.

    I do everything I can to increase my “carbon footprint”, thank you. And from 39,000 feet it is very clear that the Earth is not flat… then again, it’s also very clear that our little portion of the atmosphere is miniscule.

  76. Mike Bryant says:

    Apologies to J Pauchaury and all others here. As an older, balding male I have also been the at the receiving end of taunts. I take them in stride. I am sure that Pachaury sees himself as a very handsome man, even as I see myself. What the human mind is capable of in fooling itself!

  77. John McLondon says:

    Here is the evidence, as I have been suggesting in another thread, how easy is to make someone look so stupid with one comment he made. There are close to a billion Hindus in India, and their religious beliefs are no more or no less credible to a neutral person than our beliefs. His comment about reincarnation is immaterial on AGW. it is unfortunate to see these discussions sometimes being reduced to personalities than dealing with substance alone.

  78. Mike Bryant says:

    “Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), compared Bjrn Lomborg, Danish statistician and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, to Adolf Hitler in an interview with Jyllandsposten, a leading Danish newspaper (Apr. 21).”

    From a google search.

    The more and more I learn of this fellow, the less and less I like him.

  79. Mike Bryant says:

    “This is not the first time Pachauri has launched an ad hominem attack on his critics since becoming chairman of the IPCC. In December in Milan at the ninth Conference of the Parties to the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Pachauri sent out a press release attacking the motives and affiliations of Ian Castles, former chief statistician of the Australian government, and David Henderson, former chief economist of the OECD. Castles and Henderson have pointed out that the storylines used to produce IPCCs predictions of future warming are based on ludicrously improbable economic assumptions.”

    From a google search. These are not very current, maybe four years old. However, it seems he is using his same tactics. This time WE are his targets.
    Shame on you Rajendra, what would your mother think?
    Perhaps next time you answer questions from a reporter you might insert just a sentence or two about science between the attacks…

  80. Steve in SC says:

    It seems not a single person in the college of cardinals of the church of the most revered AGW has any idea what the Flat Earth Society actually is.
    It is mostly a drinking club. Very tongue in the cheek so to speak. John Glenn is an honorary member.

    Wonder who funds this particular cat?

  81. Tom in Florida says:

    I have been, from my own research, a plant for my last 6 lifetimes. I can therefore leave as large a carbon foot print as I like. In fact, I should make sure I balance out my former lives as a carbon sink.

  82. George M says:

    C’mon, people. Remember the IPCC was mandated to find as many reasons for climate change caused by humans as they could (fabricate). There was never any serious attempt at a scientific investigation of facts stated or intended. And I still maintain referencing science in this context is all wrong anyway, as this warming nonsense is simply the output of (poorly constructed) computer models, or computer games as they are known to the younger generation. PlayStation® science?
    As far as ad-Hominem attacks are concerned, can anyone tell me what makes Hansen a climate expert in the first place? He is an astronomer, and his job is supposed to be concerned with outer space. NASA has a terrestrial climate operation wholly separate from GISS. Seems like a good subject for an Inspector General investigation for misuse of funds.
    I might mention at this point that federal agencies do get reorganized, and IMHO, NASA is long overdue. CAA stubbed their toe back in the 50s and was reorganized as FAA. NASA used to be NACA, and space exploration requirements arose just in time to provide a politically viable reason for that reorganization, which was initiated to answer some accusations of incompetence in aviation research. FAA is looking good for another comeuppance, and maybe AGW will be NASA’s Achilles heel this time.

  83. Paul Shanahan says:

    In an increasing politically correct westernised society, I think it it dangerous to allow religion overtones into a clearly scientific matter. Climate Science is already extremely political, but adding in Religion with the backing of the PC Bragaide is downright stupid. Religion absolutley must not be the driving force (intentionally or not) in this matter. Proof is what counts.

  84. Cathy Wilson says:

    Can’t think when I last enjoyed a comment section this much. Ya’ll are funny and the levity helps the daily slog through all the mind-numbing absurdity out there.

  85. Smokey says:

    That was a substantial drop in Mauna Loa CO2 readings, at a time of rapidly increasing industrialization worldwide: click

  86. Hellfish. says:

    He still looks like he needs a bath and a haircut. Sloppy is sloppy from any angle.

  87. Paul K says:

    I find it interesting that most of the readers here don’t know that Pachauri got his job with the backing of President Bush, because Bush couldn’t stand the other guy (talk about attempted totalitarianism failing dismally).

    To Jim Black at 11:23 am on 3 08 2008 who wrote: “If Monckton’s paper, recently submitted to APS debate forum (Physics and Society), and which is aligned with Aqua data, proves the IPCC over-stated CO2 effects on climate sensitivity, AGW just dives deeper into doo-doo.”

    Mr. Black, you need to follow-up on his actions since the APS provided him the soapbox:
    The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (hereafter referred to as TVMOB), who inherited his title, has been challenging Al Gore, who won a Nobel prize, to a debate for years now.

    In July, a newsletter for APS published one of TVMOB’s analyses, wherein he summarizes the data he would likely use in the debate versus Gore. Within a week, scientists all over the web gutted his article; Deltoid, realclimate, and Duae Quartunciae are a few sites with well written critiques.

    Meanwhile [skeptical] sites lauded TVMOB and gushed wonderfully about how wonderful he was. But they ignored the fact that his analysis had been trashed. But most importantly, they said nothing about the Viscount’s aberrant behavior as evidenced from his own postings on SPPI site. Viscount Monckton was sent a private copy of a rebuttal by Arthur Smith as a courtesy, at the same time Smith submitted the rebuttal for publication. The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley then added additional text to the paper, then PUBLISHED it on the SPPI site, with his own rebuttal of the rebuttal. This was before the author could possibly respond to any comments from the organization where he submitted the paper, and was done entirely without the permission of the author!

    Meanwhile the editor indicated that the paper they published by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was NOT peer reviewed. Normally this would involve three peers, often anonymous referees, reviewing the methods and calculations in the paper, for those not familiar with peer review. The paper had received editing and the scientist who suggested some editing changes said he didn’t conduct a peer review. The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley then accused both the editor who published his paper, and the scientist who suggested some edit changes (who actually tried to constructively help him get the paper published), of being LIARS.

    These kind of public attacks and behavior by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is without precedent in the scientific world, as far as I know. Any reputable scientist knows that you can’t publish the work of your colleagues without their permission, especially private courtesy copies. This is essentially stealing the fruits of another person’s work. I would think that those on this site, who believe in free enterprise systems, can appreciate and condemn these actions.

    And so it is, that one of the leading opponents, a man who many in the denier camp admire and quote repeatedly, instead demonstrated himself any real principles!

    For more on TVMOB’s bizarre behavior:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/07/biter-bit-arthur-smith-has-had-quite.html

  88. Nicholas Harding says:

    How can I check to see if I have a carbon credit carryforward from my previous 6 lives?

  89. Joy says:

    Charles the moderator:
    this man brought religeon into the subject of climate change, where it was highly inappropriate. it warrants comment.
    His casual aproach to his role as an international figure that may be infered from this strange inclusion demonstrates a lack of both intellect and integrity. The IPCC clearly has a loose cannon right at the top of it’s organisation. One that is suppose to represent the “greatest” government scientists of the world. How embarrassing for any nation that has commissioned such aman. Correction, how embarrassing for any nation to be SEEN commissioning this sort of person.

  90. jeez says:

    Why you telling me? I don’t moderate the UN.

  91. Graham H says:

    Up Next: on Lifetime :: Interview with a Vampire IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra

    Sad, when you had achieved the greatest natural form of enlightenment. Your first lives were:

    Switchgrass
    Water Lily
    Coral
    Zooplankton
    Algae (apologies to Gore)

    Raj, this was your sixth lifetime. You have been absolved of the carbon indulgences of your previous life-forms in your previous five lifetimes.

    This was the pinnacle of being, the confluence of wisdom over your five lifetimes. And you have thrown it all away, have you learned nothing from all the carbon you have neutralized over the past centuries?

    Most of the time at the sixth day (incarnation) the human form is wise enough to realize that they are part of the world around them – including the human population. When this is learned, true enlightenment has occurred and you can move on.

    I would have thought it not possible for one who has had every opportunity to be erudite, but it may take you another five lives to achieve elemental wisdom. You will return as one of the ad homo sapiens that you so vehemently misunderstand, to learn about your place in (with) the cosmos. For you cannot be alive until you embrace what you are.

    From another time and place, a la Chicago, I am reminded of an SNL skit with Michael Jordan and Stuart Smalley: Dr Rajendra Pachauri, say it with me now: “I am good enough, I am smart enough, and doggone it — people like me!” Good – well, I think we’ve made progress today ..”.

    Whatever will carbon, will carbon …

  92. Mike Bryant says:

    How would you like to see this headline?

    ALERT: THIS IS A FAKE NEWS RELEASE

    Head of IPCC recalled By Indian Prime Minister,

    Earlier this week R Pachauri was recalled as head of IPCC because of the embarrassment he has caused the government and people of India. Indian climate scientists say that his actions have already caused much distress to India’s poor. They also add that his careless actions to eliminate the useful trace gas CO2, may actually cause the deaths of millions. India has already made it clear that they stand on the side of the advancement of their people, not the advancement of the catastrophic notions of the IPCC and others.
    “We are protecting our people and our sovereignty.”, said Manmohan Singh, India’s forward thinking prime minister.

  93. Paul K says:

    Wow, this board is loaded with ad hominem attacks. Craig McPeck starts it off at 9:52 with a personal attack, and then by 10:52, steven mosher suggest Pachauri should kill himself. And it just keeps going on.

    The extraordinary truth, is that President Bush tried to control the IPCC and wouldn’t accept Watson, and so selected Pachauri (former oil company connections) instead.

    I mean really, isn’t this whole post about a personal attack agenda, not based on what the man thoughts or his academic arguments, but instead attacking his appearance, his religion, and his sense of humor? Good grief, you wonderful denier people, get a life!

    Reply: Yes, we have suggested people tone it down and raise the bar somewhat, but it is one those threads more about outrage than debate so it is what it is. Mosh did apologize at least.~charles the moderator.

  94. J. Peden says:

    [yes, your presnip comments applied~charles the moderator]

    Sorry, apart from their controllist intent, I just can’t seem to take many of these cultist Believers very seriously anymore. It’s getting pretty boring trying to demand that they actually start doing Science .

    [But inquiring minds still want to know, just when do the members think the next Comet will get close enough to save them?]

  95. mike walker says:

    “ It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint. There’s no way I can do it in one lifetime!”

    So, I guess because he is Hindu, he gets a bye on this lifetime, because he will make it up in future lives. And those of us who are not Hindu, also get a pass, or not? Well, obviously not, because if we all get a pass then who is going to do anything about catostrophic global warming.

    This to me is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Carbon reduction doesn’t really apply to the true believer elite. Only to the rest of us. Take Al Gore for example, he also gets a bye because he offsets his carbon footprint by buying credits (actually stocks) through “Generation Investment Management”, which is what everyone else should do. This way Al makes money on AGW the same way big oil makes money on carbon. But because he is a member of the enlightened elite, its not really like he is making money, because he must save the world from itself.

  96. David Corcoran says:

    Paul K: For my own part I don’t engage in uncivil, ad-hominem attacks… except against those like Dr. Pachauri & Dr. Hansen, who want me in an eco-gulag along with anyone who can read a thermometer or interpret a chart.

  97. Paul K says:

    More personal attacks… now Graham H. at 18:10 refers to him as a vampire, and J. Peden at 18:30 says he is Yassir Arafat.

    Regarding the original article, if readers follow the link, they find the bulk of the article is on the subject of the IPCC, but only the last two Qs were excerpted by Anthony Watts… an edit, of an edited interview. Fantastic.
    Not to mention, Mr. Watts inserts a picture into the text of the article, right under the real author’s name, Micheal Hawthorne, of the Chicago Tribune. The picture isn’t in the original article. Wow. Plagerism at work.

    I think I see what this site is about. Anthony puts up sound-bites and sight-bites, then the readers all congratulate themselves on how smart they are, and complain about how foolish scientists look. Not to mention, the fact that if the scientist practices a religion that believes in reincarnation, instead of something reasonable… like a married woman, still a virgin, who somehow is chosen by God himself, and impregnated by angels, and who delivers the lamb of God, who we (I am a Roman Catholic) celebrate each Sunday by eating his body and drinking his blood;
    that because his religious beliefs are so outlandish, we should dismiss him as a scientist.

    Wow. Is this any way to treat GW Bush’s man on the IPCC? And my God, what a site this is.

  98. jeez says:

    Paul K,

    I’m leaving your latest post embargoed for Anthony to be final arbiter on–as far that comment I edited out of J. Peden, it could not have been up for more than ten seconds. I have to approve before I can edit. ~charles the moderator.

  99. Mike Bryant says:

    Maybe this is a silly question. But it seems that whenever I discuss global warming with people i run into on a daily basis, the majority, about 70%, think it is a crock. Usually those that believe are younger college graduates. Does this square with the observations of others here?
    Adapting to Climate Diversity,
    Mike Bryant

  100. Joy says:

    Paul K:
    What, exactly does The Lord Monckton, 3rd Vicount of Brenchley have to do with the head of the IPCC?The Lord Monckton is not as you describe. Whether he inherrited his title is immaterial. He has as much right to comment as you. Go to Icecap and read further. Watch Lord Monckton’s lecture and judge the man as you see him rather than relying on Gavin’s opinion. You simply express rank prejudice and inverse snobbery otherwise.
    Did youread the IPCC report? Any of it? Have you looked at the data? any of it? Do you trust Gavin Schmitt simply because it suits you? Have you simply been dazzled by Gavin Schmit’s habbit of blocking any descenting argumenton the RC site? If you do not care to go to the IPCC report to see how it compares with the rhetoric you hear from Al Gore and his like, I would recommend a little lighter viewing: The IQ2 debate on utube is revealing. Gavin Schmitt’s dereliction in making any sort of scientific argument when given a golden opportunity was weird. He definately let the side down. This is because the strength of the pro-AGW crisis debate is in the politics, not the science or common logic..
    Isn’t it lucky for you that this site allows your views to be aired? Did you ever wonder why that is? why the disparity in treatment of opposing views between RC and this site? Ca is similarly transparent.
    Do you smell any kind of rat there? I cannot understand, but am fascinated by your zeal for agw and your faith inAl.

  101. Mike Bryant says:

    Climate Diversity

    Do you have any stories that illustrate how any of your ancestors adapted to the climate diversity of the past? Of course this includes parents, grandparents and others from journals, letters or other family documents? I’m sure i am not the only person that would like to hear these stories of climate variety that our families endured.

  102. Paul K says:

    Mr. Corcoran, you write to me:

    “Paul K: For my own part I don’t engage in uncivil, ad-hominem attacks… except against those like Dr. Pachauri & Dr. Hansen, who want me in an eco-gulag along with anyone who can read a thermometer or interpret a chart.”

    Hmm, very similar statement was given by Mr. Bill O’Reilly, who appears on Fox News (unfortunately supported by my money, because I subscribe to a cable TV package):

    “I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama, UNLESS of course, this is how the woman really feels!” He then goes on to explain why she deserves it.

    And so we have one of the most popular news figures of our day, who wants to lynch the WIFE of a Senator and presidential candidate. Do you know what lynch means? It means he wants to participate in and incite a mob of people to chase down and murder a woman he doesn’t like!

    [snip -sorry, moveon.org is not a site we link to here]

    Is that what America has come to? We can now treat anyone we don’t like in an inhuman way? This is what you seem to be advocating.

    REPLY: Ok everybody, lets all settle down a bit, we are getting too much ad hom and too far offtopic on both sides – Anthony

  103. Joy says:

    Charles the moderator:
    I was remarking on what I mistakenly thought was your request for posters not to comment on Raj’s religeon, but then re-read your request an realise that you requested no comments on his appearance, sorry. It was others who claimed these remarks on creed were out of line. My error.

  104. fpk says:

    Isn’t that great? We can wait till the next life to repay our carbon sins.

  105. jeez says:

    Paul K, I’m leaving that second post embargoed as well. As far as I’m concerned it adds nothing, brings in irrelevancies, and projects the general from the specific. But again, I’ll leave it to Anthony to decide.

    But I do agree with the point that a more civil, respectful discussion is warranted.

  106. Aviator says:

    The criticism of ad hominem attacks would be apropriate in normal circumstances but, in this case, the head of the IPCC started it with his flat earth denunciation. Turnabout is fair play.

    In response to Mike Bryant (13:48:17) :
    “Pachauri needs seven lifetimes, Gore says WE need only ten years.”

    Ten years can be several lifetimes if one is reincarnated in a lower form of life; to be honest, I can’t think of one lower than the head of the IPCC at the moment.

  107. Tom in Texas says:

    Regarding an earlier post about the July CO2 from Mauna Loa, I checked the link and the actual data:

    Oct. 2007 384.46 ppm
    July 2008 384.54 ppm

    Up only 0.08 ppm in last 10 months. It’ll be interesting to see the Aug. data.

  108. Mike Bryant says:

    Amen Aviator

    Jeez thanks for the moderation because we are so often immoderate…

  109. jeez says:

    Hey, if I can give Anthony time with his kids that’s worth it.

    Also, I built a modeling website for a friend of mine while doing this today so it’s not a total loss.

  110. Mike Bryant says:

    Tom in Texas,
    How many times has the July number been LESS than the January number?
    CO2, that is.
    Adapting to Climate Diversity,
    Mike in Texas

  111. John Anthony says:

    This chap has already been discredited by his own government and academy of science. See Larry Solomon’s report on the G8 discussions with India. The conclusion of the Academy was that here is no proof of AGM, India’s climate has varied over the past, some himalayan glaciers are growing some shrinking and the monsoon is no more drier or wetter than normal. Further more the Govt is not willing to give up growth and prosperity for ephemeral benefits which could hurt millions of people. They say the west should do it and leave India alone until it attains western affluence. Vegetarian indeed!!

  112. Dee Norris says:

    It is interesting to note that this blog seems to always draw a troll or two from MoveOn or one of the other AGW propaganda sites whenever there is a outrage thread, but these trolls never seem to never participate on the threads that focus on the science supporting the need to take a skeptical approach to AGW. In fact, they act as if they deny that those threads have even existed.

    Humor aside, I take offense at being labeled a denier, a climate criminal, a flat-earther, etc… These context loaded labels are intentionally used to imply that I refuse to evaluate the facts supporting AGW as spoon-fed to the masses by Gore, et al. But the truth of the matter is that I force myself to be open to being convinced by the pro-AGW arguments and despite this willingness, I remain unconvinced.

    I am a skeptic and that means I think for myself. If that threatens some people and they don’t like it, too bad.

  113. Mike Bryant says:

    I looked up the CO2 monthly means at Mauna Loa. It seems that the July mean has never been less than the preceeding January mean (in recorded history), except for this year.
    Adjusting Myself to Climate Diversity,
    Mike

    REPLY: I’ve been looking the data tonight and have come to the same conclusion, look for a post soon. – Anthony

  114. A. Fucaloro says:

    Below are the comments I posted on chicagotribune.com.

    This interview perplexes me for several reasons, some of which are listed below.
    1. Dr. Pauchari refers to scientists such as Drs. Lindzen, Pielke, and Spencer as “Flat Earthers”with nary a rejoinder from you.
    2. He implies that the US (our country) should immediately take draconian measures while developing countries like India (his country) be given a pass for some indefinite time, using a rationale based upon his sense of social justice. Assuming that the rise in greenhouse gasses is a danger to our planet, it makes no difference where it originates! How serious can he be about his stated sense of danger?
    3. I suggest you get the available information about the time-dependent frequency of severe weather events so you can challenge these claims that we are currently experiencing more of them. Most of the claims are conditional, for example if the temperature rises, we may experience more severe hurricanes. In point of fact, there is no trend in hurricane severity.

  115. Dee Norris says:

    If Mauna Loa CO2 has indeed dropped, it will be interesting to see if the AGWers claim 1) Kyoto is working, 2) this is why 2008 was a cool year and 3) we need to cut even more C02 now that we know it is working to keep the planet cool!

    AIRS will soon be turning the assumptions of uniformity of atmospheric CO2 on its collective head and so I am holding my breath before speculating on a cause for any CO2 drop.

  116. Mike Bryant says:

    The July CO2 mean has actually been a little more than the FOLLOWING January mean more than several times especially in the earlier years.
    Acclimatizing to Climate Acclimatization,
    Mike Bryant

  117. Mike Bryant says:

    Dee
    I don’t think the drop is enough to support those claims. But who knows? It doesn’t have to be logical only saleable.
    Becoming Fit for all Climate Outcomes,
    Mike

  118. Evan Jones says:

    Leif beat me to it.

    (The guy who believes in reincarnation is going on about flat-earthers, is he? Oh, the irony.)

  119. Evan Jones says:

    Never met an economist who was right more than 50% of the time.

    Actually, Herman Kahn’s economic predictions were astoundingly accurate. (No, wait. He wasn’t an economist, he was a physicist!)

  120. Dee Norris says:

    @Mike

    Agreed. Saleability is the key concept in propaganda. weither you are selling snake oil or AGW, you still need to dress the product so the buyer wants to believe it.

    I doubt the drop even exists globally. The whole concept of assuming that CO2 is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere is starting to become questionable.

    If the drop is confirmed, my gut says cooling SST, but I hesitate to jump on that ship until a single drop becomes a trend.

  121. randomengineer says:

    Pauchari is one of the people atempting to recast any possible debate as one between sensible normal people and “others.” He will probably succeed. In recent history there has been an ongoing attempt by creationists to “debate” evolution. Scientists of any repute whatsoever refuse to do so; it’s pointless (you can’t exactly debate fact.)

    On the NYT dot earth site there is a telling post from a Sociologist PhD named Brulle from Drexel Univ discussing media failure, who says “The right wing strategy, well documented in numerous studies, is to try to sow doubt, highlight the conflict between different scientists (even over trivial items), in an attempt to convince the public that global warming is not a certainty. “

    This dovetails Pauchari. On the one side we have science and ideological purity, and on the other, the right wing. Don’t believe me? Replace “global warming” in the quote with “evolution.” Oh dear. I’ve heard this before. So have you. And when this statement is about evolution, it makes sense, and it’s true to a point (well, not really true but the right wing *is* bad about hopping into the sack with fundamentalists and the media portrays this constantly, so it’s true enough.)

    So what we have here is the mechanism by which this is known to be a left/right type of problem. Yeah I know there are skeptical lefties, and so does he. But that’s not the point. He’s painting (with a broad brush) the big picture of skeptics being the same group as creationists. Since the media already pounds this image and this is an article of faith (heh) among many of the left, it’s working… and it will continue to work.

    I can guarantee this — it’s going to continue to work and because it does we will all continue to hear this same recasting. It will even get worse, and this will continue until such time as the right is no longer associated with the fundamentalists.

  122. Evan Jones says:

    The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (hereafter referred to as TVMOB), who inherited his title, has been challenging Al Gore, who won a Nobel prize, to a debate for years now.

    Actually, the Monck is an official IPCC reviewer and had pointed out factors which resulted in substantial changes in the AR4 supplement earlier this year (a large reduction in sea level predictions).

    So he is a co-winner of that same IPCC Nobel Beauty Prize. (Unlike Gore, he actually earned his piece of it.)

  123. Evan Jones says:

    How can I check to see if I have a carbon credit carry forward from my previous 6 lives?

    be sure you use the discount rate from the Stern Review. That way you get the most future bang for your bucks!

  124. Mike Bryant says:

    Evan Jones
    Didn’t Monckton find some sums that had apparently been trifled with to make the results a little more catastrophic?
    MIke

  125. Evan Jones says:

    all congratulate themselves on how smart they are, and complain about how foolish scientists look.

    Our scientists can beat up your scientists.

  126. statePoet1775 says:

    Paul K,

    I know Roman Catholic doctrine and one of your statements about it is dead wrong. I won’t tell you which one because I am OT as it is. Just run your statements by your local priest, is my advice.

  127. Evan Jones says:

    Is that what America has come to? We can now treat anyone we don’t like in an inhuman way?

    Consider history. Slavery. Lynch Law. Jim Crow. Then consider that the history of most other countries is even nastier, and the further back you go the worse it gets (in percentage terms, it even gets worse than WWII).

    70,000 virgins jumping off the city walls to avoid capture by the Mongols, anyone? Human-head pyramids in Asur, anyone? “Man-corn”? (It’s what’s for dinner.) You need to brush up a bit on “inhuman”.

    Nowadays all we do is invectivize each other over the web. (What the heck so inhuman about that?)

  128. Mike Bryant says:

    Poet, good catch. It makes it seem that he never went to catechism.
    Mike

  129. Evan Jones says:

    Ten years can be several lifetimes if one is reincarnated in a lower form of life

    “i was a vers libre poet and nobody knew it but the bartender then i became a cockroach was that a divine literary kick in the pants or what”

    REPLY: So how many is that in dog-years to reclaim your carbon pawprint?

  130. Evan Jones says:

    Didn’t Monckton find some sums that had apparently been trifled with to make the results a little more catastrophic?
    MIke

    A LOT more catastrophic. The way he put it, the IPCC simply did its sums wrong; he didn’t say they fiddled the books, just made an error. Being a mathematician, he caught the error. The IPCC agreed and made the correction. (Very quietly. In a supplement. That no one seems to be aware of. Least of all the MSM.)

  131. Evan Jones says:

    REPLY: So how many is that in dog-years to reclaim your carbon pawprint?

    Dogs are living so much longer these days it’s hard to say.

  132. statePoet1775 says:

    “i was a vers libre poet and nobody knew it but the bartender then i became a cockroach was that a divine literary kick in the pants or what”

    Evan,

    I tracked down that quote via Google and that guy Ali is a hoot. Thanks for the laughs.

  133. jc stout says:

    randomengineer (22:23:55) :

    you need to recheck your assumptions about the AGW, fundamentalists, left and right. Search just a little, you will find lots of articles like this one:

    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/gores.green.message.resonates.with.baptists/16621.htm

    AGW is fast becoming a major religion and it is idealy suited to recruiting fundamentalists. I have read enough of your posts to know you won’t be too surprised.

    A question occurred to me today. What if the steady stream of AGW trolls that come to websites like this one think of themselves as missionaries that have a duty to enlighten the unwashed? It reminds me of Carlin — “Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes you feel better, fine. Just don’t ask me to wear your shoes. And let’s not nail the lift to the natives’ feet.”

    When it comes to AGW, I guess it is too much to ask.

  134. J. Peden says:

    More personal attacks… now Graham H. at 18:10 refers to him as a vampire, and J. Peden at 18:30 says he is Yassir Arafat.
    Paul K

    Hey, Paul, since you have resurrected my snipped statement, tell me just what’s so bad about looking somewhat like a genuine Nobel Peace Prize winner such as Mr. Arafat?

  135. Smokey says:

    Paul K says:

    “Meanwhile the editor indicated that the paper they published by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was NOT peer reviewed.”

    Just curious. Does Paul K arm-wave over all non-peer reviewed articles published? Or only those written by Monckton? I ask because this goes directly to the question of Paul K’s credibility. Of Monckton, Paul K further states:

    “The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (hereafter referred to as TVMOB), who inherited his title, has been challenging Al Gore, who won a Nobel prize…”

    If Paul K would stick to the science, we could have a good discussion. But Paul K’s comments reek of vicious ad hominem attacks. All they do is demonstrate the bankruptcy of those pushing the AGW/CO2/climate catastrophe hypothesis.

    Finally, linking to Eli Rabett is no different than linking to Tamino or Schmidt. Halpern’s site, like theirs, arbitrarily deletes skeptical arguments that they can not be answer.

  136. (second attempt – If this post has been accepted already, please delete!)

    Mike Bryant, Evan Jones “Didn’t Monckton find some sums that had apparently been trifled with to make the results a little more catastrophic?”

    Yes. Here. It’s the IPCC sums http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Don't-believe-it.html .

    Those who say Monckton’s science in that article was thoroughly “trashed” have not read Monckton’s courteous deconstruction of Schmidt’s discourteous rebuttal here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/chuck_it_schmidt_a_science_commentary_on_web_posts_at_realclimate.html

    Schmidt has, signally, failed to respond to this. Schmidt’s failure to respond here is surely of the utmost importance. If Schmidt had had a response, he would most certainly have given it at that point. Instead, in his latest attack on Monckton’s APS paper, he refers back to his earlier “cuckoo science” cited here, as if he had succeeded in “trashing” Monckton at that point. He had not.

    Schmidt is being dishonest by omitting Monckton’s response.

    I’d love it if people here could post at least the last URL wherever they find blogs claiming that Monckton has been “trashed” or is “unprincipled” or “bizarre” or “not a scientist” as they do. He is an excellent scientist. His writing goes right to the heart of the double problem, the mathematical heart of the science, and the political IPCC issues. We surely need a team who can deconstruct the IPCC math shenanigans as well as Monckton can, to answer the team at Rabett Run, Deltoid and RC.

  137. Bruce Cobb says:

    This is hilarious. The AGW Believers have trashed science, transforming a discredited hypothesis into a quasi-religion, and hurl insults at anyone who refuses to go along. Then, trolls like Paul react in hypocritical moral indignation when the courtesy is returned. This interview, or whatever it was called was not about science, it was entirely political. The softball “questions” weren’t even questions, but statements which he then obligingly expounded upon.
    Yes, some of the responses here have been a bit over the top. We skeptics are human, and we do get angry. So, sue us.
    In the words of The Who, “We’re not gonna take it”.

  138. JP says:

    What should worry the UN is not Climate Change, but slowing global population growth. Even Pachauri’s native India is seeing a slowing in the rate of increase in its population. For nations like Japan, Russia, Greece, Italy, and Spain, their fertility ratess are down near the 1.2 to 1.1 levels (that is, thier populations are about to be halved every generation), while in Canada, New Zealand, Scandanavia, Great Britain, and France the fertility rates are around 1.5-1.85. The US and Austrailia have a fertility rate of 2.1, but need immigration to keep its populations growing. Africa, with the scourge of AIDS and civil war are seeing its native populations decimated.

    While, many may applaud the near anemic growth rates, as a sign that the world’s population growth will slow, for economists this growth level is ominous. Even China has had a 1 child policy in place for 29 years. The UN is chasing the wrong boogey-man. Sixteen of the twenty wealthiest nations on earth are about to set upon a population decrease the the world hasn’t seen since the Black Death. About 80% of the world’s wealth is tied up in the aging populations of these nations. And what does the UN worry about? A trace gas. Even if CO2 is a leading cause of GW (and that’s a BIG IF), the amount of CO2 being exhausted into the atmosphere will begin to decrease qucikly as these 16 nations steadily begin to shrink in size.

    The UN is like the passengers on the Titanic, who spent thier last minutes on earth rearranging the deck chairs. They haven’t a clue.

  139. Jeff Alberts says:

    So Pachauri believes in two fairy tales, AGW and reincarnation. When will we make the great leap out of the dark ages and let rational thought dictate our lives instead of faith?

  140. John McLondon says:

    JP (05:37:58) :

    “What should worry the UN is not Climate Change, but slowing global population growth.”

    Certainly the population growth is by far the most important problem we have to deal with, much more important than climate change. Unfortunately it hasn’t received nearly enough attention that it deserves.

  141. Paul K says:

    There are a lot of incorrect statements above. A lot to fix, and not a lot of time. Let’s start with Joy at 19:09. She writes:
    “Paul K:
    What, exactly does The Lord Monckton, 3rd Vicount of Brenchley have to do with the head of the IPCC?The Lord Monckton is not as you describe. Whether he inherrited his title is immaterial. He has as much right to comment as you. Go to Icecap and read further. Watch Lord Monckton’s lecture and judge the man as you see him rather than relying on Gavin’s opinion. You simply express rank prejudice and inverse snobbery otherwise.”

    I listed his actions and his behavior since getting his paper published. He has accused his editor of lying when the editor stated (correctly) that his paper was not peer reviewed. Meanwhile, the scientific arguments in his paper were demolished by a host of scientists. Right here on this site, Joy, there is a thread where Duae Quartuniciae took the paper apart. Have you read the scientific comments on this very site, on this very issue?

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/american-physical-society-and-monckton-at-odds-over-paper/

    Another scientist, Arthur Smith, wrote a rebuttal and submitted it for publication, sent The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley a private courtesy copy, and his lordship added text to the copy, and published it on a political motivated website, SPPI. He published it without permission of the author, and before the author even had a chance to get comments back from the publisher. These are all facts. I read the rebuttal on SPPI myself, and TVMOB’s own rebuttal of the rebuttal, so I know that TVMOB took the man’s work and published it without permission.

    Regarding TVMOB as part of the IPCC, you are correct. I agree with you. TVMOB is not connected to the IPCC. TVMOB is not an official with the IPCC, even though he claims he is. He submitted comments during the review period, and this does not make him an official of the IPCC. There are some people on this site who claimed he won the Nobel prize himself, because he was an official of the IPCC.

    You ask me to read his papers, and I have, including his response to the rebuttals. And his scientific argument doesn’t stand up. TVMOB reduced the carbon dioxide forcing by a factor of 3, without any substantiated reason to do so. This is simply his biggest error, in a long list of mistakes he made.

    Why didn’t any of you post your scientific analysis on this site’s post on TVMOB’s paper, when Duae Quartuniciae was here and taking comments and responding and reviewing the paper? I came here to read those posts, and because I heard TVMOB was holding court over here.

    As for those who claim I am a troll… I didn’t even know what the word “troll” meant, until I read the article in the NY Times this week on trolls. I get it. I am not welcome here. Opposing viewpoints will not be tolerated. I get it.

  142. randomengineer says:

    jc stout — “you need to recheck your assumptions about the AGW, fundamentalists, left and right.”

    I think that perhaps you misread me, which is my fault for being unclear. Let me rephrase: Gore, Pachauri et al are borrowing tactics.

    Some time back the Kansas school board, under pressure from the ID crowd to revise textbooks, invited a grand debate: “evolutionists” vs. ID supporters. The “evolutionsists” didn’t bother showing up. Why? There was (and remains) no debate to be had, of course. Evolution is a fact; ID is a half baked hypothesis. At best, this does little more than raise the status of ID supporters to that of being equal to the scientists. After all, debate can only happen when there are equal and opposing points.

    Gore and Pachauri et al are borrowing this. They refrain from debates and refer to skeptics in terms designed to let everyone know that this is yet another example of kooks attempting to appear equal to scientists. It’s why Gore proclaimed the “science is settled.” That is why Pachauri refers to skeptics as flat earthers. They’re painting climate skeptics to be just as pathetic and clueless as the creationists. You don’t debate with madmen, and you don’t debate with the clueless, either.

    ***

    Re left/right if you read enough of Revkin’s dot earth blog it becomes clear that many, if not most, of the posters seem to think that climate skeptics are informed by right wing politics. Lots of accusing skeptics as having been told what to say by Rush Limbaugh and so on. The upshot is that they are generally equating skeptics and creationsists. Re-read the quote from Prof Brulle that is in my earlier post; he’s making a claim about RIGHT WING politics and saying that this is the source of “misinformation.”

    In short, they are making the case that there is no valid skepticism because it’s largely an attack from political opposition to science itself, which is precisely what the creationism argument is.

  143. Paul K says:

    To the posters above who criticized my religious knowledge, you guys missed the point. I know Catholicism doesn’t believe that angels impregnated Mary… I was using that as an example of how people can misinterpret religious beliefs. Do you people really know that much about Hindu beliefs on reincarnation?

    Here are these wonderful nasty comments, not snipped:

    statePoet1775 (23:11:00) :
    Paul K,
    I know Roman Catholic doctrine and one of your statements about it is dead wrong. I won’t tell you which one because I am OT as it is. Just run your statements by your local priest, is my advice.

    Mike Bryant (23:23:13) :
    Poet, good catch. It makes it seem that he never went to catechism.
    Mike

    Response to Mike: I did go to catechism. I was even an altar boy who had to say the responses to the Mass in Latin. Your ignorant assumptions are leading you astray from the truth.

  144. statePoet1775 says:

    “Opposing viewpoints will not be tolerated. I get it.” Paul K

    Don’t get your feelings hurt. Post away. People will disagree with you but this site won’t censor any reasonably polite conversation, in my experience.

  145. wattsupwiththat says:

    Ok, I’m done with this thread, it has turned into a religious argument. And while statepoet1775 makes a correct point, I do tend not to “censure polite conversation”, I’m simply growing weary of the off-topic moderation.

    So the simple solution is: close the thread, which it is now.

Comments are closed.