“Pachauri must resign – his position is untenable”

Here in the USA, WUWT readers probably don’t have a true handle on the firestorm that is going on in India over Pachauri’s “glaciergate”.  It is making headlines and the people there are quite angry, because they’ve been led to believe that their Himalayan water supply was seriously threatened in the not too distant future (2035) as reported in the IPCC AR4, and now they find out it’s a bogus, and that a Pachauri peer now specifically admits the 2035 date was known to be false, and used anyway to scare policymakers into action.

Dr. Richard North, who co-wrote the first story with Christopher Booker of the Telegraph that got the inquiry started over two weeks ago, now says on an interview on Indian television that ” If Dr Pachauri does not resign voluntarily, he will be forced to do so.”

Here is video and partial transcript of that interview.

It was not until the Sunday Times last week actually highlighted it that he was forced to take action. And on that basis I don’t think he has any credible alternative but to resign and he is either going to resign voluntarily or as the media are increasingly saying he is going to be forced.

It is a very clearly recognisable tactic where he simply denies the undeniable and for a while if you are in a very elevated position you get away with it. He hasn’t yet recognised that his position is already untenable and the more he denies, the way the media works the more evidence they are going to find until such time as his denials will be so lacking in credibility that he will be unable to operate .

Transcript via Liberty New Central.

About these ads

191 thoughts on ““Pachauri must resign – his position is untenable”

  1. PHONY SOLUTION

    I’m with the fellow who said he should stay, because his resignation only gives credibility to a corrupt organization, and the longer he stays, the more he’ll expose them for the low-lifes they are. They are all crooks an con-men, and the sooner the world realizes that, the better.

  2. There should also be a vote for :

    1) 1-to-5 years
    2) 5-to-10 years
    3) 10-to-25 years
    4) 25-to-life

    When you consider the $billions wasted, jobs lost, children brainwashed, anything less than Option3) would be a miscarriage of justice.

  3. Someone must have reported this already, but just in case anyway:

    Telegraoh -> Telegraph

    In case it was reported, please don’t publish this.

  4. I have a feeling that there are many “scientists” applying for grants right now to cover all the World Wildlife Federation’s papers, with “peer-reviewed” papers.
    That way the next IPCC report will be immaculate…

  5. Congratulations!

    The first positive sign of change from the Climategate scandal.

    Many more will follow if the spotlight of public attention continues to shine on the fraud and deceit promoted on the world’s population by an unholy alliance of politicians, scientists, and publishers.

    Many of our most prestigious research institutions and journals were deeply involved, as well as NAS, NASA, and other federal research agencies.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  6. I have been amazed to see that the mainstream media is extensively covering this story. There was a whole section on this in Google News today.

    I can’t help but think that Climategate made coverage like this possible. Climategate, for many people, showed that it was possible that some climate scientists were fudging their data. Now it’s shown that the IPCC was doing the same. It’s unraveling faster than I expected.

  7. One of the videos playing in a loop in the background is Pachauri with current Australian Prime Minister (and potential future UN Secretary General) Kevin Rudd.

    Gotta love it!

  8. I hate gloating so don’t take this that way (it might sound like it anyways) – but does anyone else feel like the tide has really turned in the global discussion on this issue?

    That some of this is even getting coverage is remarkable to me – I guess I am just far too used to the way things were pre-climategate. I hope people stay vigilant because I honestly do not think this will be a battle won easily – but there has been considerable progress made in a very short period of time.

    Almost none of which would be possible without the incredible effort from bloggers like Anthony and McIntyre and far too many others to list really.

    Anyways, sorry for the tangent.

  9. There is an old Southern U.S. proverb: “The more you stir it the worse it stinks”. Poor Mr. Pachauri, he just can’t stop stirring. Oh! The humanity!

  10. The bigger MSM outfits will want their share of the action real soon now. I bet they all have scribes already working on it, eagerly trawling the blogosphere, fishing for sentences to be re-used in their writeups.

  11. It is not a good idea to anger 1.15 billion people. I’m not sure “firestorm” is adequate to describe what happens when that many people find out they have been intentionally lied to and sold a bill of goods just to line someones pockets.

    Larry

  12. Here are two videos of Rajendra Pachauri using the Himalayan glacier melt story as a primary talking point in April 2009:

    Here is an article about how Rajendra Pachauri “signed a memorandum of understanding to study, preserve and safeguard the Himalayan glaciers under the National Mission of Sustaining the Himalayan Eco-system.” on behalf of TERI in April 2009:

    http://www.thehindu.com/2009/04/09/stories/2009040950490200.htm

    And here is an amazingly prescient Christian Science Monitor “April Fools” article from April 2009:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0401/scientists-worldwide-admit-global-warming-is-a-hoax

  13. blastzilla (20:54:06) :

    The Australian PM is not in favour with the Indians at mo. due to visiting Indian students being targeted for violence. They blame the PM for not doing enough to protect the students.
    So the video showing Pachauri and Rudd together is “guilt by association”. It’s designed to show Pachauri in the worst light possible.

  14. Craig (20:51:55) :

    “Climategate, for many people, showed that it was possible that some climate scientists were fudging their data. Now it’s shown that the IPCC was doing the same.”

    Actually Craig, Climategate is about IPCC climate “scientists”. Jones, the central person in the Climategate emails has been associated with the IPCC since its beginnings. Briffa and Mann and several others in the emails were authors of significant parts of the IPCC reports.

    I must say though that I too am amazed that the press, at least in Britain, are now vigorously digging into the scandalous level of hyperbole that has been dressed up as science by the IPCC and its green allies.

  15. I hope he stays a while – the storys are good and getting better – if he leaves he just disappears, he should stay and keep digging the hole deeper.

  16. Typo – “not to distant” should be “not too distant.” You must have a keyboard like mine!

  17. It seems to me that we owe a world of thanks to many people. Of course, there are the likes of Anthony, Steve and their kindred spirits who have labored all these years for truth and justice and their blogs. Well done gang.

    They (and a few media types) kept the fires burning and then Deepthroat leaked the CRU files.

    Despite the diligence of climate realists (like Anthony, Steve, et al ) and a few realistic journalists, one wonders if any of the current events would have taken place without the CRU leaks. The media have softened up and Climategate got their attention and now the media is reporting these fast-developing stories.

    We are all deeply indebted to Deepthroat in CRU or wherever he or she is.

    I await tomorrow’s revelations. ☺

    Clive

  18. How about a vote for the next chairman?

    There are some intriguing possible candidates – who are probably already lobbying…Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones (currently available), Rod Blagojevich, various British ex-MPs with moats, about 20,000 climatologists looking to sure up their funding, …..Al Gore….

    Would anyone who could restore credibility actually want the job at this point?

  19. In the video Panchauri says he was “elected with acclamation”. But that is a very poor defence of what is happening now. His time is surely running out, but journalists must look into the circular consensual culture of the IPCC and see that Panchauri’s removal is only the start an investigation into this organisation that pretends to be scientific, but is really only an advocacy.

  20. There seems to be an epidemic todya of the “My loss really means I won” mentality. Denial has experienced exponential growth!

  21. “TA (21:26:37) :

    How about a vote for the next chairman?”

    Joe Romm or Gavin. They are best at keeping unwanted discussion at bay.

  22. Isn’t this precisely what Mr Gore has been doing ….. and he’s considered a hero? Perhaps the difference being: Al is never subjected to the glaring, questioning spotlight that is growing on Pachauri. But if the E M Smith story gains traction, could Al’s cozy relationship with Hansen produce the same outcome? I have my fingers crossed. What a colossal story. A giant conspiracy to defraud every nation on earth, and rob the wealth of every western nation. And beloved scientists and politicians all, complicit in the deception.

  23. I think I’ve been censored by the spam filter… and I didnt even get in any profanities. …

  24. hotrod ( Larry L ) (21:07:51) :

    It is not a good idea to anger 1.15 billion people. I’m not sure “firestorm” is adequate to describe what happens when that many people find out they have been intentionally lied to and sold a bill of goods just to line someones pockets.

    Larry

    How right you are.

    Fortunately (at least in this instance, unfortunately in the main) Indians are fairly used to this type of behaviour. Corruption seems endemic at times from what I have been told and seen for myself. If this had happened in the UK or US it would most likely have been swept neatly under the political carpet and most people would not believe the enormity of the deception.

    At least in India they see it right away, and will do something about it.

  25. I vote for Steve McIntyre for the next IPCC Chairman. He’d ensure that only science was published and not Hockey Sticks.

  26. Mr. Pachauri was following the will and wishes of the UN to bring down the economy of the free world. A gross overstatement, I hope!

  27. Carefully kept accounts are a sine qua non for any organization. Without them it falls into disrepute. Without properly kept accounts it is impossible to maintain truth in its pristine purity.

    – Gandhi, Mohandas K. “Mahatma”, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, tr. Mahadev Desai, Part II, ch. XIX

  28. timing couldn’t be better. Making news right now is monckton here in Australia slamming pm rudd. Its a lead story on news.com and is backed up by the ipcc imploding. Could you have believed this 3 months ago. Hats off to this blog, climate audit and many other sources that made this happen.

  29. One also wonders what will happen when the Indians realise that the West’s “profligate practices”, which Mr Pachauri calls upon to be stopped, are in the long run what is essential for India’s advancement; both when carried out by other Indians, and when carried out elsewhere by those consuming Indian-manufactured goods.

    The best thing about being taken to task by India(ns) is that Mr Pachauri and his supporters, at least those in the West, cannot scream “racism” or claim a greedy first-world/”Western” agenda, thus his wriggle room is severely restricted.

  30. It would be easy to say that these AGWs are nut cases. But it is not true. They are card sharks. In it for the money. The leftists is the world proved what simpletons they really are. Unfortunately the whole world has paid for this hoax. In real dollars. Right into bank accounts.

  31. If I counted correctly, as many as 19 out of the 27 major players (scientists alone) in the CRU email exchanges are authors (some are lead authors) of the IPCC’s AR4.

  32. I’m not sure whether I’d rather see Pachauri ride it out to the bitter end, or see him resign and be replaced by someone with equally as much nasty baggage who can be forced out in another scandal four or six months down the line, lather rinse repeat, a couple such cycles and even the most craven peculators in the scientific community won’t be able to associate themselves with the IPCC any longer.

    The climate-science tree needs some serious pruning on top, so that we can find out if there’s serious work to be done and honest people to do it once the Pachauris and Hansens and Joneses and Santers are out of the way and their work has been properly re-evaluated.

  33. Will Obama and Lisa Jackson notice or will their ties to
    Gore and AGW politics continue to blind them and harm us.

  34. The IPCC was established as an advocacy organization by the UN Environment Program. It has always existed as such and it should come as no surprise that it would rely on material produced by other advocacy groups in developing policy recommendations for UN member governments.

    In the 1990’s member governments assigned real scientists to participate in the IPCC but these were either pushed out by activists or resigned from the organization when they realized that science was not a priority of the IPCC.

    The press has known about this state of affairs and has suppressed it in order to help promote the environmental policies they too advocate. Politicians also have known, but they fear the environmentalists, so did nothing about it.

    We have now had two particularly cold winters and a significant economic recession that competes with the environmental agenda for tax dollars.

    I think the agenda could have withstood a few more years of cold, but with 10 to 20 percent of the populations of North America and Europe collecting unemployment benefits, even the most resolute of fence sitters has to decide what is more important to their next election contest.

    It was inevitable that the climate would eventually show that the IPCC and the AGW movement were making unfounded claims. I suspect the environmentalists believed that once they had the world in their pocket they could just shift their argument, but they only got to the beginning of the end game before the climate changed (how ironic).

    The recent revelations regarding the Himalayan glaciers, especially coming after climategate, is however just the beginning of the process of ridding the world of the IPCC and the AGW movement.

    The world temperature record and its manipulation in furtherance of the AGW cause is the big target. It is a huge messy database and it is the floor upon which the entire IPCC case rests.

    The size and state of the database is what makes it the ideal tool for manipulation. I don’t know for sure if the temperature record has been fraudulently manipulated, but I am fairly certain that only errors that would reduce temperatures have been diligently factored out.

    I hope to see Anthony’s project using the US data come out soon. I believe that this work has great potential to open up the global record and give all of us a glimpse of what has really happened with the climate.

  35. An interesting listing of well over a dozen mostly if not totally NON-peer reviewed papers by the WWF or co-authored by the WWF is written of in this post on Bishophill at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/24/the-ipccs-favourite-source.html and expanded upon at http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

    These are cited in the IPCC AR4

    Greenpeace articles are also featured in the IPCC report as well.

    Citations are also made to articles in Leisure and Event Management.

    I wonder what happened to the rigorous peer review process?

    Thanks to Canadian blogger Donna Laframboise for tracking these down, and Bishophill for featuring her work.

  36. Bulldust (21:42:12)
    The next couple of weeks are going to be very entertaining in Australia. Kevin Rudd will be trying to avoid Lord Monckton, while at the same time having to stay silent on the issue for 13 days. He will also be trying to cover up his personal tour of Pachauri’s TERI facility, the photos of hand shakes with the carbon conman and those pledges of millions of dollars. I don’t think the petulant Penny Wrong will be having a great time either after claiming last week “It [IPCC AR4] has been intensely scrutinised with very few errors being identified, and none that challenge the central conclusions of the report,” and “The Fourth Assessment Report represents the international consensus on climate change science. All reports of the IPCC are subjected to extensive expert and government review.” She may need to brush up on some traditional political moves including “Back flipping weasel” or limber up her wrists for some truly frantic hand waving.

    I will try and get to see Lord Monckton on the 27th. Apparently Ian Plimer will be doing the intro. The events of the past few days should make it a very entertaining presentation!

  37. Perhaps I’m going out on a limb here, but even with all the scientists, engineers, and plain ole’ interested folks who have worked so hard to undo the graft of the IPCC and their ilk, there are 2 names which, IMHO, should stand out in history as being cornerstones in the downfall of people like Pachauri and Gore…

    Anthony Watts, and Steve McIntyre.

    Surely a great debt of thanks is owed to all who have participated, but these two guys, from all I’ve read in all the blogs, are the ones that Pachauri should be dreaming about.

    In his cell.

  38. I have noted that the IPCC have the temerity to request of national governments , suitable candidates to prepare AR5 !!!

    How credible will the process be? Is this IPCC business as usual and in denial of recent revelations?

    Peter from Australia.
    (Come on down- the water’s fine!!)

  39. “Perturbed (22:04:24) :

    One also wonders what will happen when the Indians realise that the West’s “profligate practices”, which Mr Pachauri calls upon to be stopped, are in the long run what is essential for India’s advancement; both when carried out by other Indians, and when carried out elsewhere by those consuming Indian-manufactured goods.”

    Indians know this very well. I worked with a lot of them and just like the Chinese they are eager to achieve the kind of economic success the west has enjoyed. They *love* to make business with us. For them, globalization is a godsend.

  40. TerryBixler (22:11:18) :

    Will Obama and Lisa Jackson notice or will their ties to
    Gore and AGW politics continue to blind them and harm us.

    Obama and the Democratic Party will do nothing until they see a clear sign that voters will be voting for the opposition in huge numbers.

  41. IPCC lead Author – 2001, 2007 said on Pachauri today, 25 Jan

    ANDY PITMAN: I would have to admit that it looks extremely bad. I don’t know what the nature of the full proposal was in Pachauri’s application. It would certainly be focused on a whole range of areas of climate change and climate science or impacts.

    The summary that you refer to would reflect the broad nature of the proposal but probably not the detail but absolutely it looks bad.

    See http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2800538.htm

  42. Steve Goddard (20:38:45) :

    “Pachauri says the “IPCC’s credibility has increased” as a result of their incompetence and malfeasance.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IPCCs-credibility-has-increased-Pachauri/articleshow/5493066.cms

    The article Steve links to above is a must-read. It is strongly critical of Pachauri, and contains a fair bit of identifying irony and humor. My favorite quotes from the article:

    “But while his credibility and that of the IPCC has taken a battering, Pachauri maintains his chutzpah in the face of growing skepticism, arguing that his acceptance that the research on glaciers had been dodgy had actually somehow enhanced the credibility of the body.”

    “The fact that IPCC’s own due diligence, verification and monitoring mechanisms may need to be questioned too was not acknowledged by the Nobel prize winning body’s chief. Instead, Pachauri described the IPCC’s processes as “robust and solid”.”

    “Facing a barrage of questions from the media about his `loss of credibility’, Pachauri maintained that all “rational people” would continue to repose their faith in IPCC and its findings.”

    There’s that “robust” word again. When are they ever going to actually look that word up?

  43. If the IPPC Chairman is found guilty as a result of the investigation for financial irregularities that are underway, he will have no choice but resign, especially if he ends up behind bars, which is where he belongs.

  44. They play on peoples feelings. They take it to the nth degree. Show me the police reports of people being killed by man-made climate change. Show me the police reports of people being killed by man-made global warming. Show me the documentation. You can’t because there are none. It’s all a mind game. In the USA we have laws against one person being damaged by another. It’s called assault and battery and they throw you in jail for it among other things that physically damage another persons well being. My father used to tell me, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Now the name calling turns into a psychosis and they try to use that to take away me rights, even though nobody has been damaged. Well, not in the USA buddy. All of us here in this country got to play by the same rules outlined in the US Constitution that guarantee to me that I don’t get stomped on by you and your psychosis. You don’t like it? Go pound sand.

  45. It will be interesting to watch various “Green” related stock issues over the next few weeks as this ponzi scheme implodes. I am not much of a stock watcher but would be interested in hearing comments from those of you who have kept up to date on the normal behavior of alternative energy stocks etc.

    Mumbai is 12.5 hours ahead of Mountain time, (5.5 ahead of GMT) so it is midday Monday there right now.

    Larry

  46. wws (20:39:04) :

    I didn’t vote; I wanted the [snip] option.

    After experience with numerous older tomcats and male dogs, I will surmise that after being an adult for that equivalently long time, he will not be noticeably better behaved after the [snip] option.

  47. I’ll probably take some heat for this comment, but here goes…

    I’m having a fundamental issue with the “green” movement. All these so called organizations out to save the planet and save the environment like WWF, Greenpeace, EPA, IPCC, etc.

    (complete list = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations)

    and science journals alike are supposed to be working from a factual base to request we accept their proposed solutions.

    They call for trillions of dollars to be spent on behalf of their cause and constantly bombard us with internet, TV, radio, magazine and alternate advertising to donate money or sacrifice modern conveniences for the sake of their movement. Whole economies and many industries have been put at risk – not to mention a generation of young minds indoctrinated.

    But a single document such as IPCC AR4 which effectively underwrites much of their perspective can’t even pass a simple fact check !

    Am I missing something or shouldn’t these groups be held DIRECTLY accountable for such lapses in the basic outline of their position ?

  48. Nobody can beat India’s ability to generate chaos from the smallest opportunity. Can we appoint a corrupt Indian to head up every effort toward global government?

  49. I recall reading somewhere that many of the IPCC physical scientists were against having Pachauri as head of the IPCC since he is an economist, not a physical scientist. Now that he is caught in so many controversies, this will give the other scientists even more ammo to dump him.

  50. With the 5th assessment report about to be cranked-up, I’d prefer “his holiness the seer of all Pachauri” to stay for a while longer yet. Once he is forced to resign later this year, a very large spanner would need to be removed from the 5th Assessment engine, delaying and tarnishing the credibility of the report.

    Watts (sic) more, those who will be involved in preparing and finalysing the 5th will feel as if thousands of people are looking over their shoulder, prrressssurrre. They just CANNOT blatantly fudge anything important like they did in the 1st 4 reports.

    I foresee a sizeable number of objections and resignations of researchers and scientists from the 5AR.

  51. Andy Pitman (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2800538.htm) runs one of the best funded climate research units in Australia. However his arrogance is breathtaking. He accuses all climate skeptics of being not having real day jobs and accuses them of being well funded. This from a man who receives millions of dollars of public money.

    From the ABC interview -

    ANDY PITMAN: Oh, my personal view is that climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organised, have nothing else to do. They kind of don’t have day jobs. They can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this actually isn’t one of them.

    All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily for no funding and no pay whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns and are doing a damn good job I think. They are doing a superb job at misinforming and miscommunicating the general public, state and federal governments.

  52. DJ Meredith says:

    there are 2 names which, IMHO, should stand out in history as being cornerstones in the downfall of people like Pachauri and Gore…

    Anthony Watts, and Steve McIntyre.

    Pachauri and Gore: you know where to forward your peace prizes!

  53. I think another sleeper in the AR4 report is the confidence intervals they have for the temperature record. See Figure SPM-3 p6 of the link below (warning: it’s 3.7MB).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

    The graph shows they have a confidence interval of +/- 0.1 degree C, at worst, for the entire global average temperature since 1850. Notwithstanding the excellent work at SuraceStations.org, if you think about how the global average temperature was calculated from 1850 data there’s no way it could be that accurate. They only measured temperature to 0.1 degree C, so there’s half the confidence interval. Then there is the averaging over the day using just the max and min temperature, then interpolating the whole globe from unevenly distributed point readings. Then there are the changes that occur over time. It would be interesting to see the “comprehensive analysis of known uncertainties” that they conducted.

  54. “But while his credibility and that of the IPCC has taken a battering, Pachauri maintains his chutzpah in the face of growing skepticism, arguing that his acceptance that the research on glaciers had been dodgy had actually somehow enhanced the credibility of the body.”

    Typical narcissistic response. “Whatever I do actually makes me larger”. Then things will shift in a different direction. Something along the lines of “If you disagree, that is evidence that you simply don’t understand because if you understood, you would agree”.

    We understand. We disagree. That is when their heads explode.

  55. I don’t understand what the melting glaciers has to do with the water supply in India.

    If the glaciers melt, then the rainfall each year will determine the amount of water they get. If the glaciers are stopped from losing ground, then the rainfall each year will determine the amount of water they get. They don’t magically produce water just by existing.

    If global warming increases humidity and rainfall (likely) then the melting glaciers should help. In any case, the water from the glaciers is a trivial amount for the agricultural heart of India. The Himalayan parts are too cold and high to be much good anyway.

    If the problem is that the glaciers release the water slowly, throughout the year, whereas without them the water all melts at once, then the solution is obvious: dams. It is what everyone else does, and provides power as a benefit. I find it hard to believe that Himalayan snow will all melt at once anyway, since it doesn’t seem to do that anywhere else.

  56. Poochie, Poochie, Poochie — the way things are going, you’ll be about the last person to find out that you’ve resigned, after you’ve read all the stories about WWF candidates vying for your job.

  57. Peter Carpenter (22:34:07) :

    Peter from Australia.
    (Come on down- the water’s fine!!)

    Sure is! Not much of a shark problem either
    (since the crocs got most of ‘em)

  58. This is an interesting development, but to me, a distraction.
    I don’t care if Pachaury resigns, is forced from office, or stays the head of the IPCC.
    I DO CARE about
    + stopping the IPCC from goading politicians into turning over national sovereignty to an un-elected UN panel.
    + resetting the integrity of “peer review” such that propaganda–like the WWF melting glacier claim–is not termed as peer reviewed and then their propaganda makes it into other scientific journal articles.
    + resetting the editorial boards at many science journals to be academically focused and not politically correct rubber stamps for folks like Michael Mann and Phil Jones.
    + getting science back to discovering natural law and not in the bu$ine$$ of fabricating models to push policy despite observations–real data–that do not support these fabricated models.

    I care about the integrity of science and our journals. The specific fate of Pachauri, Mann, or Jones is as little interest to me as the plight of OJ Simpson or Bernie Madoff.

  59. Konrad (22:29:01) :

    Yep – I hope to see Lord Monckton in Perth when he does his presentation here. I would have preferred Prof Bob Carter in the tag team, because there have been a few holes poked in “Heaven and Earth” and Prof Plimer did not handle the Monbiot & Jones encounter well.

    I would certainly like to be able to introduce myself as Bulldust whom coined Climategate to give his Lordship a giggle.

    My main worry is that the room that was booked for the presentation is too small (250 max capacity @ The Swan room).

    BTW the Monckton tour was timed to coincide with the likely reintroduction of the Aussie ETS Bill to Federal Parliament. I wonder if Labor will delay the introduction because of the tour…

  60. I think these issues raise questions about the scope of secondary effects – I’m unconvinced on the degree of sea level rises, malaria spread, deglaciation, falling african crop yields, and increased hurricane intensity. They also raise questions about the IPCC and some of the individuals invovled. But I don’t think they raise any questions at all about the underlying warming, human intervention as a likely cause, and the science in the high quality peer-reviewed journals.

    You can also look for yourself. Arctic ice retreat is clear from the last few decades data. Even the UAH satellite data shows a warming trend (look at the minima). The rapid release of fossil carbon is clearly a major challenge to any climate equilibrium and a priori could be expected to have an effect. The effects were predicted over a century ago, and so climate science looks impressive from a falsificationist perspective. And the majority views from scientists less involved with IPCC remains clear – there is AGW and the Himalayan glaciers are in poor health.

    Criticise the IPCC by all means. It is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to raise these questions, and to criticise poor practice. But it does not follow that AGW is false – if anything I agree with Pachauri that it increases confidence, because all this (deserved) criticism has only turned up issue with secondary fringe effects and it has not been able to undermine the claims about the main underlying AGW trend. For my money, to undermine AGW, you would have to show that all the global data sets post 1850 are wrong. That is what is required to rebut AGW, IMHO.

  61. abbeyroad69 (22:54:03) :

    There’s that “robust” word again. When are they ever going to actually look that word up?

    As I’ve said before, “Robust” is a word used to describe spaghetti sauce. Another suitable word is “zesty”.

    Yes, our science is zesty, our data robust.

  62. 33,333,517 hits at 17:00 Japan Standard Time, 25 Jan 2010.

    I had waited for a happy encounter with 33,333,333 hits but failed.

  63. Why is there so little coverage of this on mainstream tv?
    I seem to remember that the BBC gave plenty of coverage
    to global warming news items when there seemed to be
    evidence in it’s favour.

  64. Unless the pressure is kept on the AGW establishment will just close ranks and and protect their own. So I expect to see Pachauri given an Honorary Knighthood by the Queen. Or maybe even a Nobel Prize. Oh..Wait….

    Expect also (after a decent spell of ‘gardening leave’) to see Phil Jones similarly rewarded for his services to the religion.

    It isn’t too surprising to see the World WildLies Fund and Greenpiss sources quoted by the IPCC. No doubt Fiends of the Earth, the SiError Club and the EnvironMental Defectives Fund will be in there as well.

    Not only do these NGOs (well supported by YOUR tax pounds and dollars, as well as donations from the credulous) obviously share the same religion but also the same disregard for scientific accuracy as the IPCC.

    Many big Charities are now in the same scam. So we have Oxfam (set up as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief) now using their funds to put up big posters across the UK promoting Global Warming scares before the Copenhagen Conference. In other words promoting policies which have driven and will continue to drive up food prices especially in the Third World and which have already led to famine. And we have the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, (oblivious to the fact that no birds have been or are likely to be affected by ‘Climate Change’) actively campaigning against coal and for policies leading to the erection of thousands of bird shredders.

    Yet how often do we see (especially on the BBC) some bearded buffoon from one of these groups trotted out as an authorative source on some nonsensical eco fascist scare?

  65. Doug in Seattle (21:20:17) :

    I must say though that I too am amazed that the press, at least in Britain, are now vigorously digging into the scandalous level of hyperbole that has been dressed up as science by the IPCC and its green allies.

    Doug, I am not amazed; once the British Press can smell blood they can turn in an instant. Also, they don’t like: being “sold a pup”; preached or pontificated at; having to agree with politicians; seeing their peers (aka “environment correspondents”) get all the front page coverage and realising that they are not in tune with the general public.

    I personally find it eminently satisfying and somewhat amusing that the major initiator for this turn-about was, I believe, ClimateGate. If Dr Jones, et al, hadn’t been so precious, arrogant and unscientific over the years and had simply released information when asked then I suspect that any faults found with their work would not have attained the prominence they now, rightly, enjoy.

    That is not to denigrate or belittle any of the stirling work of WUWT/CA/… etc. I believe that these blogs were responsible for giving the push to ClimateGate that brought it within the cruel and cold spotlight of the media and they should be applauded and rewarded for this.

    This blog remains an island of sanity in the rising sea of stupidity; maybe now, however, the tide begins to turn…

    Cheers

    Mark

  66. Here’s a nice quote:

    Rajendra Pachauri: Are Humans to Blame for Global Warming?

    ‘The point is, you have a transparent, comprehensive, extremely widespread process, involving the best scientist and experts from all over the world telling you that climate change is for real, and this is not something the authors working at the ippc reports has invented, this is based on peer-reviewed literature, thats the way the ippc functions, we don’t pick up an newspaper article and based on that come up with our findings’

  67. The first paragraph of this article / thread contains a misstatement:

    … a Pachauri peer now specifically admits the 2035 date was known to be false, and used anyway to scare policymakers into action.

    I pointed out earlier today (or maybe it was before midnight — it’s all a blur) in another thread the following — that all Lal will (or could) admit to is that he knew the claim hadn’t appeared in the peer-reviewed literature and been confirmed. The subheadline makes the distinction clear: “I knew data hadn’t been verified.” That’s not the same as saying he knew it was false.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#

    Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified
    By David Rose
    Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

    Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

    Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

  68. abbeyroad69 (22:54:03) :

    You like the word ROBUST?

    This is how the IPCC defines robust…

    “As in the TAR, a robust finding for climate change is defined
    as one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models
    and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by
    uncertainties. Key uncertainties are those that, if reduced, could
    lead to new robust findings. {TAR SYR Q.9}
    Robust findings do not encompass all key findings of the AR4.
    Some key findings may be policy-relevant even though they are
    associated with large uncertainties. {WGII 20.9}”

    If you want lots more “robust” check out the AR4 Synthesis report section 6. It’s actually a very funny read

  69. Peter, because the BBC is the biased left-wing communications arm of the current socio-marxist government. It wouldn’t suit the BBC at all to run with anything which may be viewed as disparaging to the idealist dogma which currently prevails.

    This is going to be a tough, uphill battle. Whilst things appear generally to be going our way at the moment, it’s swings and roundabouts and our run of luck will dry up eventually, when the AGW/Carbon-is-a-monster crowd find something of interest and excitement (for them) to hit us with.

    Suffice it to say, those who publish such marvellous articles (and posts) here, should make every effort to keep up the momentum, as only by continually twisting the knife will we continue to make progress

    I live in hope…

  70. I gave my vote to ‘resign’, although it will probably need a quiet tap on his shoulder from the powers that be before he finally walks the gang-plank.

    It would be better for the ‘sceptical cause’ if he were to stay around. Nothing better than a lame duck leader when you need to force the truth. Without integrity, anything Pachauri says will be viewed with suspicion and the true UN agenda will be fully exposed – although it may already be too late for then to save this corrupt organisation.

  71. peter stevenson (00:30:13) :

    Why is there so little coverage of this on mainstream tv?
    I seem to remember that the BBC gave plenty of coverage
    to global warming news items when there seemed to be
    evidence in it’s favour.

    Obvioulsy, the BBC and the rest of the MSM have been and still are profiting from the global warming scare. I am not sure how, though. It could not be just because global warming attracts readers and thus advertising revenues. Most people are jaded by the incessant and boring alarmist stories by now. How many times do we want to read that every species on the planet is on the verge of extinction because of man-made CO2?

  72. I think the idea of making either Lindzen or Mockton as the next chairman of the IPCC is a really fantastic idea in more ways than one. It would for starters create a skeptical environment, which is the way true scientific research is supposed to be conducted. Given there’s no way the UN and others will allow this to happen proves they have already made up their mind and will refuse to accept the possibility of the AGW thesis being wrong. In that case, the only real solution is to scrap the IPCC and start a new organization headed by one of those two gentlemen, or someone else like them. It’s a pity a really rich person or group of people don”t come forward and create such a new group anyway in direct competition to the IPCC. They could also pay good money to good scientists to provide the research. Of course, there may be a conflict of interest whereby the popular conception is these rich people are partly behind the fraud in the first place so they can get even more rich. However, I would hope there are a few who are honest and above all that. More likely I’m just a dreamer and there’s no real hope of a philanthropist coming forward.

  73. The Indian TV caption has Richard North saying “theory” when he said “TERI” but it’s pretty good otherwise.

    (Try it a couple of times in different accents, you can see how they made the mistake).

  74. We need the disbandment of the IPCC.
    We need an esteemed international award for the CRU whistle blower.
    We need an esteemed international award to replace the now totally discredited Nobel Prize.
    We need to claw back some of the money that Tata and their many associates have relieved us of.
    We need a lot of real data – data that is not good enough to stand in its raw state should be ruthlessly rejected.
    We need the disbandment of the United Nations Organisation. That great statesman, Jan Smuts, knew not the consequences when he dreamed up the League of Nations.

  75. Making progress but I agree it may still take time. I’m seeing little to no coverage of this issue (US), and I check websites I think would be carrying something like this. At most it will be a light reference to the general nutty situation. They don’t want to get into it. There is way too much money behind this, hundreds of carbon traders were at a big convention in NYC recently, leaning on Obama to fork over US cash. Tonight I read a BBC story that “rich nations” are urged to immediately make the first $10 billion in payments to poor nations for climate injustice, They made no mention whatever that within the 24 hour news cycle was published a detailed report (by UKTimesOnline) that the billions to go from rich to poor nations in Cop. was based on the IPCC report of impending “natural disasters”. They’ve now said that was faked too, hearsay, with several scientists coming forward saying it was bunk. BBC ignored the whole thing, pretended it didn’t happen. So it’s going to take awhile. Obama is in trouble here, he does have plans to make it worse and with media like the NY Times and Washington Post in a complete rage, they want him to just quit being so “nice” and ram through a giant carbon tax.

  76. Bulldust (21:42:12) : OT, but his Lordship has arrived in Australia:

    It will be fascinating to see Monckton using this opportunity, I would like to have a report here too! I am reminded of that famous moment in the careers of Darwin (NO PUN INTENTED!) and Huxley, when Huxley and Bishop “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce are debating… oh it’s too funny, the bishop asks Huxley whether he is descended from an ape on his mother’s side or his father’s side. Huxley slaps his thigh and exclaims “The Lord has delivered him into my hands”…

  77. I agree wit hmuch if not all Doug in Seattle wrote.

    The UN IMHO started out with noble intentions when first formed, but has succumbed to activist, marxist propaganda over the years, that good intentions can be overcome by idealogy of one form or another!

    & for Peter Stevenson, I think the BBC is standing child like with fingers in ears, eyes shut tight, screaming bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla…… hoping it all stops. Either that oir they’re so shocked at all the revelations they are dumb struck. I see Professor Iain Stewart (he of “Climate Wars” infamy) has started another propaganda story on the BBC about the history of the Earth from a geology stance. Haven’t seen it but I’ll garuntee the we Scot will slip in good ol’ Climate Change somewhere along the line, just as Tony Robinson og Time Team & Blackadder fame did with his Earth Story prog on Ch 4, its “science” concluded that there may just be some hope & time for us all in the future! These are all well & good progs ut with a propaganda bias hidden under the skin, the same format follows the previously mentioned, “no one can explain exactly what effect, the POWER of the Sun has on hour climate, but whatever it is, it has already been overtaken by man mande global warming!”

  78. The Australians are complaining that “The sceptics are so well funded, so well organised. “They have nothing else to do. They don’t have day jobs so they can put all their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public, whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and [managing publicity] actually isn’t one of them.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/25/2800992.htm

    Hope you are enjoying your well paid job Anthony!!!

  79. jerry (22:53:19) above refers to an Australian ABC interview (with link) above. Below I quote another exerpt by Professor Andy Pitman from the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. He was a lead author on the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 reports.

    “ANDY PITMAN: Oh, my personal view is that climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organised, have nothing else to do. They kind of don’t have day jobs. They can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this actually isn’t one of them.

    All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily for no funding and no pay whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns and are doing a damn good job I think. They are doing a superb job at misinforming and miscommunicating the general public, state and federal governments.”

    There are enough outright lies in his statement above to cause one to question anything that the IPCC and its associated science purveyors promelgate that I am starting to question the intelligence of their so called “scientists”. Truth and good sense was obviously not part of their curriculum.

    Maybe being cloistered in institutions for all their adult life leads some to believe that they are able to say whatever they like and get away with it.

    I am disgusted with Prof Andy Pitman’s above response. He is a shame on himself, his university and his country. He is unable to address the issue and leads off in a poor bait and switch. Prof Pitman achieves an “F” for his attempt. On the bright side I think it is good advertising for skepticism.

  80. While I agree that Steve McIntyre and Alan Watts are the pivotal entities in this marvelous turnabout, McIntyre for his meticulous analysis of all that manure, and Watts for his report on the structural deficiencies of nearly 1,000 Stevenson Outhouses, I think special acknowledgment is owed to AL GORE, for inventing the internet without which their work would have remained unknown.

  81. Looks like Pachauri is now a ‘denialist.’

    Bulldust: His Lordship has arrived in Australia. He”s arrived at an opportune time. Could there be some fractures in the climate science paradigm? I’ll be attending the Melbourne lecture and will wear a yellow carnation as a reminder of the sun’s role in climate change. Perhaps other WUWT supporters might do likewise.

  82. Doug in Seattle (21:20:17),

    Only SOME of the press is digging in to the problem that is global warming. Unfortunately the BBC and the Guardian continue to bury their heads in the sand over this.

    Mailman

  83. AGW Water Shortage Researchers On Wikipedia I keep mentioning that the state of AGW science now is that the ‘scientists’ spend their time on wikipedia instead of doing research. Wikipedia is obviously very very important to them. Robin de la Motte (rd232) is one of several IPCC and realclimate linked administrators and editors on wikipedia who are controlling the climategate page as well as other pages on the topic of climate. http://www.dmoz.org/profiles/rd232.html
    He works for the Public Services International Research Unit and you’ll find his research on water in the 2007 IPCC report here.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4-ens4-references.html

  84. “Pachauri says the “IPCC’s credibility has increased”…”

    Yet another attempt to hide the decline. This time it is the diminishing credibility of the UN’s IPCC and the misnamed scientific-consensus.

  85. @ Mailman (01:39:24): ‘Unfortunately the BBC and the Guardian continue to bury their heads in the sand over this.’

    Too true. In fact, ‘Auntie’ is back banging the drum.

    The BBC Today programme (millions – literally – of regular listeners) has, a couple of hours ago, given prominence to something called the New Economics Foundation, by means of an interview with a gentleman called Andrew Simms, who is described as the Foundation’s ‘Policy Director’ and Head of their ‘Climate Change Programme’.

    http://neweconomics.org/programmes/climate-change

    Among the ‘facts’ to which the Foundation wishes to draw attention is that ‘Climate change could cause 200 million people to become refugees by 2050′. Needless to say, no evidence is provided to support this ‘fact’. Amongst its recommendations is this: ‘If we are to prevent catastrophic climate change and stay below the “safe” 2°C threshold then much of our remaining fossil fuel reserves will have to remain firmly in the ground.’

    The web site also states that ‘We may have only a matter of months before we pass a crucial climate tipping point.’ Indeed so.

  86. Mapou (22:48:01) :
    Obama and the Democratic Party will do nothing until they see a clear sign that voters will be voting for the opposition in huge numbers.

    That’s already happened. The Democrat Governors of New Jersey and Virginia got voted out of office and Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley for the open Senate seat in the most DNC controlled State, Massachusetts.

    That State (‘scuse me, Commonwealth) had not sent a Republican to the Senate since 1972. The GOP did manage to send a couple of Republicans to the House of Representatives in the early 1990′s, and they temporarily broke the Democrats’ supermajority in the State Congress, but it had been a long dry spell before, and Clinton’s election to the Presidency severely hurt the GOP there.

    The Democrat’s started pushing really hard for “universal health care” after losing those two Governor’s seats. Losing the Senate seat warmed by Ted Kennedy for 42 years was an even bigger blow.

    The GOP *is* paying attention to climategate and all that goes with it, but aside from FOX News Channel and some independent newspapers, it’s all but invisible to our media.

  87. Disappointed to see Viscount Monkton use the King Canute story the wrong way round.

    In his letter to Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, he wrote: “...I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in. …

    The story, or legend, is that King Canute had his throne taken to the shore to demonstrate to his (foolish) subjects that even a king could not stem the tide.

    This is a powerful statement, and worthy of accurate usage.

  88. Many have suggested that the media is still too silent on all the recent revelations of mistakes, lies and data corruption. It’s hard to know if this unwillingness of the media will last much longer. In any case I see no other alternative but to go down another road. That of charging the AGW fraudsters and taking them to court. This I believe will be the only way we can end all this nonsense definitively. It will take time and money but I believe it will be worth it in the end as it will reveal the end result honest scientists really want – the truth. Of course we could get lucky and public opinion will force the media to wake up to themselves before they become entangled in the mess too far and be smeared with the same stench. In some ways that wouldn’t be such a bad outcome as that way the media will be shocked into their senses and stop playing dumb. They need to be more vigilant in the reporting of the facts, and not be so one sided and blind. Otherwise, they will stay on the current path of becoming less and less relevant with the Internet taking over as the source of real news. Perhaps that’s the ultimate destiny of the media anyway, especially newspapers and TV news shows (which in most cases are just reporting trivia and rubbish anyway). I won’t miss the demise of them as I stopped reading newspapers and watching the main TV news a long time ago. I prefer to listen to certain radio shows, in particular 2GB in Sydney, which has a wealth of news and information. For example, the discussion between Monckton and Alan Jones on 2GB was really good. A transcript is on their web site: 2gb.com

  89. Poor Poochie — don’t be looking for any $45 mil severance package such as the one Coco got to leave NBC. Count yourself lucky if they give you your hat and coat when they show you the door.

    But here’s a friendly bit of advice — stay well clear of any approaching buses.

  90. “Pachauri says the “IPCC’s credibility has increased”

    Who’ll do that Voodoo like you do?
    The WooWoo is doo-doo as we now know
    Time to go – Gore is hiding – in the snow plough
    Don’t let the door hit, your a*se, on your way now

  91. “He’ll stay on and the U.N. will look the other way.”
    This one has the most votes.
    This means that a majority of the public is saying the UN and IPCC are too corrupt to fix themselves.

  92. I have no idea why so many here are proposing x or y as the “new IPCC Chairman”. We may as well be proposing someone as the chairman of the IPSSS, otherwise known as the “Intergovernmental Panel on the Sun Still Shining”.

    We know the climate changes in the same way that we know the sun is still at the center of our little bit of space. Why do we need an expensive panel to tell us these self-evident truths?

    While we are on the subject of changes, why not give the United Nations the opportunity to have a brand new headquarters in Addis Ababa or similar hellhole. It may concentrate their minds somewhat, and have the added advantage of eventually dwindling away to nothing. Then nations will actively talk to each other, rather than trying to score points, dollars, euros, or pounds off of each other.

    Just my humble opinion…..

  93. China has ‘open mind’ about cause of climate change,

    But Mr Xie, China’s vice-chairman of national development and reforms commission, later said although mainstream scientific opinion blames emissions from industrial development for climate change, China is not convinced.

    “There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude,” he said.

    “It is already a solid fact that climate is warming. The major reasons for this climate change is the unconstrained emissions produced by the developed countries in the process of industrialisation. That’s the mainstream view [but] there are other views. Our attitude is an open attitude”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html

  94. It’s astonishing that the BBC Environment correspondent won’t pick up on this story and won’t mention the change in “weather” caused by Climategate. In Richard Black’s latest offering, they hardly feature, so much so that it looks fishy.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/reflections_in_a_confusing_cli.html#comments

    In Comment #20 to the blog entry I referenced above, it looks like somebody has tried to paste in a reference to surfacestations.org, and the comment now reads:

    ‘I have to give Anthony Watts some credit for his involvement in the now published study On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record:

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    The authors graciously acknowledge his contribution:

    “The authors wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at
    surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations.”‘

    So what do you think? Is the URL unsuitable, or broken?

  95. vibenna (23:54:43) : malaria spread,

    Like much of the rest of your list, this is just wrong. Malaria has nothing to do with warmth. Malaria has a great deal to do with mosquito abatement programs.

    For example, Malaria was endemic to California in the times of the ’49′ers gold miners up in the Sierra Nevada mountains due to the Anopheles Freeborni that thrives up to 7000 ft in those “Snowy Mountains” – yes, that’s what the name means in translation. And if you go to 7000 ft right now, you will be about 1/3 of the way from the lower lodge end of the ski run toward High Camp at Squaw Valley… so take your snow gear.

    http://www.squaw.com/winter/snoreport.html

    right now has “skies: snow” and “storm total 61 inches” (or over 1.5 M) on a 100 inch base… Here are the web cams so you can see for yourself what it’s like at the altitude where these bugs can survive:

    http://www.squaw.com/squaw-web-cams

    From:

    http://www.napamosquito.org/Mosquitos/WesternMalariaMosquito.htm

    Talking about said Freebornii:

    This species occurs in the Western United States north to Southwestern Canada and south into Mexico. It extends to the southeast as far as El Paso, Texas, but is probably most abundant in the great Central Valley of California. It has been found from elevations below sea level and as high as 7,000 feet.

    Note the locations includes Canada. Not exactly the tropics…


    Four species of Anopheles are found in California, but only two are considered effective carriers of malaria, they are Anopheles freeborni and Anopheles punctipennis. Anopheles freeborni is currently considered to be the most important vector species. California has been virtually free of malaria due to intensive mosquito control activities and modern drugs which have suppressed this disease. However, malaria could be re-introduced into a local community by an individual returning from overseas with the malaria parasites in their bloodstream. In such an event, mosquito abatement and public health officials would take rapid action to prevent an epidemic. California does have a few dozen introduced cases of malaria each year (see California Department of Health Services,

    Notice it says NOTHING about ridding California of malaria by making it colder… It just doesn’t work that way (as snow is already pretty darned cold…)

    So please, take just a minute for each of the claims you are parroting and look into the reality. You will find a lot of hype and not much reality. Just like with Malaria. It’s a “sounds good sound bite”, nothing more.

    Similarly, African crop yields have nothing to do with more CO2 (which increases yields) and there is NO increased hurricane intensity (it is dropping, not rising. Notice how many Cat 4+ hurricanes made landfall this season in the USA?… Yeah, can’t get much lower than that.)

    Same kind of things for the rest of your panic list.

    and the science in the high quality peer-reviewed journals.

    Um, don’t know how to break this to you, but “peer-reviewed” is presently about as valuable as “Act Now!” and “Limited Time Only!!” and “I did not have sexual relations with… ” as the CRU crew showed in their emails that they were indulging in subornation of the peer review process, suppression of dissenting evidence and reports, influence peddling with and pressuring of the editors, etc. etc. So please keep it in mind that as of now when you say “peer reviewed” most of us hear “Pal Reviewed” and some of us hear “crooks and manipulators selected propaganda”… Due entirely to what the CRU crew said they did in their own words.

    You can also look for yourself. Arctic ice retreat is clear from the last few decades data.

    Which has far more to do with wind patterns and current shifts with the PDO than anything to do with “warming”. There is no less ice than at MANY other times in the past in the Arctic and more than many. There is nothing unusual at all there.

    For my money, to undermine AGW, you would have to show that all the global data sets post 1850 are wrong.

    Well, no. Since CRU have said their data is 90%+ the same as GHCN, and since GHCN is used by NCDC to make their alarmist adjustments, and since GHCN is also the basis for 98% of the surface of the earth temperatures as fed into GIStemp: And since I’ve shown that GHCN is broken and corrupted by thermometer bias with cold thermometers being removed from the recent data and warmer ones left in. All that is needed to to show that GHCN is hosed, and it is.

    The “cookage” is done by rewriting the past colder (prior to satellite data). The Satellite data are from far too short an interval to say anything about climate (PDO, for example, is a 60 year cycle. You need more than that history to avoid being fooled by a partial cycle of natural systems of that duration). And, a bit of research showed that the key frequencies used by the satellites are being increasingly polluted with various radars and TV re-broadcasters, are strongly influenced by water and ice in the air, and it is very unclear how they deal with that…

    So given that we know 3 of these “clocks are wrong”, anything that agrees with them is showing it has a problem… (Lucky for us the Satellites are diverging from them…)

    Oh, and that 1850 is a blatant “cherry pick” of a cold local bottom to the temperature curve. It is presently just about the same temperature as it was back in about 1720, but not quite as warm as during the Roman Optimum, and way colder than it was in about 3300 BC just before a major cold snap dumped Ice on top of Otzy the Ice Man (and, incidentally, put an ice cap on top of green plants in the Andes of Peru that has not seen the light of day until now. Where, at the glacier margin, we’ve found the carbon dated plants being exposed for the first time in 5200 years…. so we KNOW it was warmer then since those plants can not grow there now due to the cold and glacier on top of them.)

    Now, for bonus points: Go to the window. Look outside. If you are just about anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere north of about 40 N you will likely be looking at snow, or cold rain. Even Australia has had summer snow in the mountains. Pull your head out of theoreticals and computer models and just look at the reality. It’s cold, and getting colder. Reminds me a lot of the 1970′s (just about the last time the PDO was in this cold phase that we’ve just entered, again…)

    It is a natural cyclicality, nothing more. It’s just one with a cycle time longer than many folks lives, so only the old folks remember it.

    So make some warm cocoa, put on your snow boots and coat, and go shopping for winter preparedness equipment. You’re going to need it… for about the next 30 years… And, to quote a very wise book: “DON’T PANIC!”
    ;-)

  96. Quote: Veronica (England) (03:54:34) : It’s astonishing that the BBC Environment correspondent won’t pick up on this story and won’t mention the change in “weather” caused by Climategate.”

    Veronica, the international alliance of politicians, scientists and PUBLISHERS now includes, unfortunately, many of our most prestigious publications and institutions.

    Influential publications that have been suckered into this fraud now appear to include Nature, Science, BBC, CBS and NBC.

    That’s how it appears from here,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Studies
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  97. Finally, finally, finally. Channel 10 Late News here in Australia featured Lord Monkton’s speaches/debates around the country starting on the 27th (I think. The 27th has another significace for me). There was almost no spin in favour of AGW. I think the worm has stopped and paused for thought.

  98. Re: World Climate Widget on the sidebar.

    I looked at the page where you provide the html and for the life of me I can’t find the baseline for the anomaly. And you know several people asked about it in the comments.

    This is not up to your usual standards. And don’t just tell me here in a moderator comment. Add it to the page. I understand there may not be room in the widget. But please. Not on the linked page?

    [The linked page says:"This experimental widget uses the UAH lower troposphere temperature data as well as the Mauna Loa CO2 data combined with NOAA SWPC solar information." It is pretty commonly known that the standard UAH baseline is 1979-2000.. -the mods]

  99. “E.M.Smith (04:10:30) :”

    Hi there Mr. Smith. I mentioned in another blog your findings about thermometer reading inputs to the NCDC database dropping 75% from ~6000 devices and the Surface Stations project and the reply was (The concept of using warm biased devices and the project) was “Silly”.

    Some people are not prepared to look outside the AGW box.

  100. Patrik (03:51:33) :

    OT: Wow, the sun looks weird today! :D

    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

    Maybe Pachauri has already left the IPCC and is working at SOHO, getting of to a bad start… ;)

    When I noted it 30 minutes before you at the “Tips and Notes” section, I also had noticed other problems with the SOHO Real-time images. Using the “SOHO Movie Theater” for the last 5 images, I can see data dropouts on the two latest images for multiple channels.

    Is SOHO going down, is this a glitch, or something that’s expected to happen?

  101. Apologies if this link has already been posted:

    Glaciergate: Hitlers last straw (another spoof on Downfall )

    enjoy.

  102. The extract below helps explain everything – this is the guy quoted by IPCC etc; he believes their comments/interpretation are ‘astrology’; it is difficult to disagree.

    Speaking to Al Jazeera on Saturday, Hasnain said that he had been misquoted.

    “It is a journalistic substitution. It has nothing to do with my research because it’s not reflected in my research papers, it’s not reflected in my reports,” he told Al Jazeera.

    “So how can it be an authentic thing? It can’t be. I’m not an astrologer to predict the demise of the glaciers and it’s not possible.”

    The UN panel says a team of climate change sceptics uncovered the error, which could cast a shadow over the panel’s climate change research.

  103. Most certainly Pachauri should resign without delay and the IPCC wound up immediately in favour of a panel of scientists and experts who do not have any finincial interests on the result of their findings. Furthermore, the Seretary General of The United Nations Ban Ki Moon should also resign. He, together with Pachauri and supported by Al Gore has done so much to force world governments into spending billions of dollars in the name of corrupted science. And when are we going to get a statement from Gordon Brown and David Cameron pointing out that their proposed multi £billion taxes will not go ahead until the science is proved one way or the other by a new panel?

  104. Patrick Davis (04:29:58) : Hi there Mr. Smith. I mentioned in another blog your findings about thermometer reading inputs to the NCDC database dropping 75% from ~6000 devices and the Surface Stations project and the reply was (The concept of using warm biased devices and the project) was “Silly”.

    Well, I posted a link to the (admittedly crude) benchmark I ran on GIStemp. (See: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/gistemp-witness-this-fully-armed-and-operational-anomaly-station/ ) The error band will be large (due to the need to adjust for the 2% area of the USA being the only changed data and the 50% of the N.Hemisphere being the report basis), but you get 2/100 to 4/100 C changes with taking out / putting in the USHCN data (i.e. modulating the GHCN set with a more complete set). Adjusting for that 1/25 area ratio, that gives 1/2 C to 1 C of sensitivity to the thermometers. (Yeah, the area has some error bar to add and yeah, the annual number didn’t change as much as the monthly; but it DOES change. Even if it’s only 1/4 C and 1/2 C after error bar, it’s still there are still large.

    So they can take their “silly” and I’ll take an actual run of GIStemp on real data showing that the anomaly DOES change… “Silly”, meet “benchmark”. And benchmark wins…

    Some people are not prepared to look outside the AGW box.

    Well, when you are stuck in a box it’s sometimes hard to see what’s on the other side of that wall…

  105. The Australian ABC (like the BBC) ran a story in the main national news tonight. It was a rambling thread mixing up the Himalayan Glaciers (although they got the facts wrong), Monckton’s visit to Australia and some other talking head scientist who was good for a couple of ‘the scientific consensus is…’

    They actually gave Monckton a couple of undedited sentences, where he got his point across about no stastically significant warming for 15 years, although the voice-over was quick to throw in the bit about 2009 being Australia’s hottest year since 1910. The roped-in scientist to present the view was trying to debunk the ‘scientists on the gravy train’ meme by comparing them to cancer researchers, implying that cancer researchers would never wish for more cancer to research, and thus climate scientists wouldnt’ overstate climate for more research money. He must have missed the endless reports that state you get cancer from everything from mobile phones to drinking bottles.

    Anyway, my point is this : the ABC actually ran a story on global warming and gave two sides to the story, and allowed both sides to say their piece. This, in itself, is a massive shift in position. If the government broadcaster is doing this, when the commercial stations start running with it, you’ll see a lot more people starting to rethink what they have been told.

  106. I was a science teacher and am shamed by the seemingly obvious betrayal of scientific method in the chase for glory and wealth by some of the scientific community. I doubt very much that Pachauri will even concede that he has abandoned the scientific protocols which are common to all disciplines of science and I can see that it is very probable that the seemingly corrupt IPCC will rally to his defence in a covert manner.
    The saying is:-

    “POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY”

    Never was this more true!

  107. Your [snip] survey “What will happen to Pachauri?” reveals how this site choses to push one-sided opinions. When the only option which involves Pachauri keeping his position is listed as “He’ll stay on and the U.N. will look the other way,” it doesn’t give the voter an opportunity to vote “not guilty.”

    Before you guys get too excited about your efforts to see Pachauri removed from his position as chairman of the IPCC, you should recall how he was selected for the position to begin with. Back in 2002, the Bush Administration objected to the renomination of Robert Watson, who had held the position for six years and was publicly critical of the Bush administration’s climate policies. That effort succeeded, and Pachauri got the job with Bush administration backing. What sort of person do you think the Obama administration will back as chairman of the IPCC? Don’t you think that person will push AGW stronger than Pachauri does?

  108. Oh, I forgot to say. You should all be wishing for Pachauri to stay on. The longer he stays, the more damage done to the IPCC. The only improvement would be if he left and Al Gore took up the spot, because then we would really start to see some tall tales being told.

  109. “E.M.Smith (04:56:59) :

    So they can take their “silly” and I’ll take an actual run of GIStemp on real data showing that the anomaly DOES change… “Silly”, meet “benchmark”. And benchmark wins…”

    Far too many people just don’t get it.

  110. abbeyroad69 (22:54:03) : “There’s that “robust” word again”

    Perhaps the word is simply mistyped. It should read “rob us”.

  111. Wayne R (01:34:59) : “While I agree that Steve McIntyre and Alan Watts”

    Is Alan any relation to Anthony who runs this blog?

  112. “Herman L (05:14:10) :

    Your [snip] survey “What will happen to Pachauri?” reveals how this site choses to push one-sided opinions. When the only option which involves Pachauri keeping his position is listed as “He’ll stay on and the U.N. will look the other way,” it doesn’t give the voter an opportunity to vote “not guilty.””

    Not guilty for perpetuating a lie and receiving funding too? As Bender would say, “Kiss my shiny metal adz.”

  113. Herman L (05:14:10) :

    I agree. He can stay there until climate change hell freezes over.
    Pay him out all the rope he needs to hang himself and the IPCC with it, which he is in the process of doing quite nicely.
    I got an even better idea: Gore can jet on over there to give him a warm ‘atta boy’.

  114. E.M.Smith (04:10:30) :

    vibenna (23:54:43) : malaria spread,

    Brilliant writing. Although it’s wasted on vibenna, there are thousands (tens of thousands?), of others reading it who need to read very, very carefully and think long and hard, especially if they have any doubt about whether AGW is to be believed.

  115. They’ll just proceed on another tack.
    The direction will end-up the same, with the same proclamations and the same falsehoods.
    The propaganda as never about global warming, but about global control.
    Some may find their IPCC “career” blighted, but they’ll be offered another “position” as reward for their “dedication”.

  116. Andy Pitman, in his much reviled comments, said one thing which I believe is both true and also *very* significant coming from a leading AGW proponent:

    “Oh, my personal view is that “climate scientists” are losing the fight with the sceptics.”

    Bingo! Give the man a cee-gar.

    (scare quotes are mine)

  117. I think he should stay on so idiots like my Democratic legislatures here in Oregon will be tarred and feathered in the next election. It seems to me to be the shortest route to getting our country back. The IPCC is best left to self-destruct, not gain new leadership. Don’t know how it will play for our friends across the ponds but this scenario (leave it like it is) will bring about the fall of the Democratic party in the next election cycle and maybe for many cycles to come.

  118. BTW The Nature climate blog

    http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/

    is much much more restrictive than RC who now look like angels compared to NATURE. Ive tried posting quite a few statements with absolute 0 reply. Note there are 0 comments on most of there threads so it seems they don’t take ANY criticism/ or ALL the comments are negative (ie defending the IPCC position)… Maybe its time to start writing to their bosses on top ie Editor in Chief, funding bodies etc to get these guys removed/modify behavious Olive Hefernan and Quintin etc…, before they ruin the Journal completely.

  119. A new IPCC chairman is purely academic.

    The IPCC was not set up with an open mind to find out whether AGW existed, never mind whether it was/might be problem – it was set up to PROVE it and to justify government action (ie taxes).

    The IPCC will always find in favour of MMCC/AGW/(whatever the latest name is) because turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

    An end to the climate scam = a life on welfare for the proponents. ENRON is gone, who wants to employ a data fiddler or a failed scientist?

  120. Herman L (05:14:10) :

    That effort succeeded, and Pachauri got the job with Bush administration backing. What sort of person do you think the Obama administration will back as chairman of the IPCC? Don’t you think that person will push AGW stronger than Pachauri does?

    The chairman of the IPCC shouldn’t be pushing anything. The IPCC shouldn’t even exist. It’s built on the false premise of AGW.

  121. Somewhat OT except about the environmental movement.

    What was promised by the Atoms for Peace process of U.S. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy—access to the virtually unlimited power potential of nuclear energy, to escape from the colonial legacy of backwardness and poverty—was abruptly sabotaged in the 1970s. This was done under the cover of the anti-nuclear hysteria fostered by Prince Philip’s environmentalist movement, and the fraudulent argument that non-proliferation of nuclear weapons required a halt to peaceful uses of nuclear power. Now, the nations of Asia have definitively rejected British imperial dictates, asserting their long-term development to be centered, necessarily, upon expanded nuclear power capacities.

    http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2010/01/east-goes-nuclearwhile-west-heads-for.html

  122. Some warmists are trying to deflect criticism by citing the fact GW Bush chose Pachauri (meaning he is our man).

    Well, yes he did (thinking thinking thinking) (eureka)

    Oh man, doesn’t that make Dubya a very astute prescient skeptic. He knew this man Pacha was crooked and would eventually bring the IPCC down with his hannanigins :)

  123. WUWT and McIntyre are fantastic. Their discussions laid the groundwork for Climate gate which transpired just 60 days ago. It would have been more of a non event had their not been a stage set. 60 days is a short time considering it included several Holidays.
    Firings and court cases do not usually commence very quickly.

    The 2 context problems I see is the IPCC chair at the U.N. is pursued by a corrupt person for personal gain. Some other wacko ec0 terrorist carbon con Mann is elbowing his way to get the job and make a killing.
    The IPCC was fed cooked data from the CRU so they got what they desired just like the glacier gate was a story written to please the con Mann department.
    Sock puppets like Joe Romm are talking up the ocean level issues because that is what the carbon con-Mann market is buying today.
    60+ days and a lot is changing. Talk about a storm.

  124. Pamela Gray (05:52:52) :

    When you’re done with those feathers, send some to Sacramento. Don’t bother with the tar, though, as they seem to be quite stuck in plenty of it already.

  125. “While I agree that Steve McIntyre and Alan Watts”

    Is Alan any relation to Anthony who runs this blog?

    Alan was the dude who hung out with D.T. Suzuki.

  126. I seem to recall the smirk on Bush’s face as he made a half-hearted gesture towards Global Warming as McCain was campaigning.

  127. Once the whole AGW theory is poked full of holes will Al Gore have to go back to making money with Occidental Petroleum? I think they should reclaim his Nobel prize and make him pay back the money as well as taking back the Oscar he got. I can’t believe how quickly this is all unraveling. It will be extraordinarily nice to see some coverage in the MSM. I can’t believe they will sit on the sidelines much longer, this is much to big of a story. The only downside for MSM is that they will have to put their collective tails between their legs after trumpeting the “Warmest Year on Record!” year after year…

  128. Say, does this tone sound familiar?

    WHO slams swine flu critics as ‘irresponsible’
    (…)
    GENEVA (AP) — The World Health Organization on Monday slammed as “irresponsible” critics who claim swine flu is a fake pandemic created for the benefit of drug companies.

    The U.N. health agency said the outbreak of a new strain of H1N1 influenza in North America last year had all the scientific characteristics of a pandemic, adding the WHO was never improperly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry that has benefited from huge government orders for vaccines and anti-viral drugs.
    (…)
    A WHO spokesman declined to spell out who the World Health Organization was responding to in its statement, saying only that “this applies to anyone who believes it is not a real pandemic.”

    The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog based in Strasbourg, France, recently recommended that the EU investigate WHO’s swine flu pandemic declaration to see if the health agency acted under undue influence. WHO officials are due to meet Tuesday with the Council of Europe, which is not an official European Union body and has no power to act against WHO.
    (…)
    In its statement, WHO said it had put in place numerous safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest among its advisers, including requiring them to provide a signed declaration detailing any professional or financial interest that could affect their impartiality.

    “WHO takes allegations of conflict of interest seriously and is confident of its decision-making independence regarding the pandemic influenza,” it said.

    Yes, H1N1 was a real flu. It was a real pandemic, which is a technical term relating to the spread of the disease. Herpes, chicken pox, and the common cold are also pandemics, far as I know.

    How many of those 250 million doses of vaccine the Obama administration purchased for the US are left over? Did all those huge emergency stockpiles of Tamiflu get used up?

    How are those programs at the pharmaceutical companies that distribute free and low-cost drugs to impoverished nations doing these days?

  129. Newt Love (23:41:15) :

    [...]
    “+ resetting the integrity of “peer review” such that propaganda–like the WWF melting glacier claim–is not termed as peer reviewed and then their propaganda makes it into other scientific journal articles.
    + resetting the editorial boards at many science journals to be academically focused and not politically correct rubber stamps for folks like Michael Mann and Phil Jones.
    [...] “

    It serves no useful purpose to perpetuate the myth of the “integrity” of peer review. While some editors and some reviewers maintain(ed) professional diligence in these processes, peer review is and was never about integrity (at least not integrity of the science).

    I still vividly remember a supervisor (a well known government scientist) mentoring me on the merits and purpose of frequent “dollar papers” (his words) – a short multi-authored (great for grad students, especially) peer-reviewed paper written on a few snippets of a research line, expressly for the purpose of maintaining granting interest in the larger project.

    The internet now provides a communication backbone for serious review unlike anything that has existed prior. The scientific community would be well advised to develop this resource for appropriate and rigorous scientific review and toss the canard of “peer-review” into the recyce bin where it belongs.

  130. And here is the reaction of China’s lead climate change negotiator:
    ” He said: “It is already a solid fact that the climate is warming.
    “There is one starkly different view, that the climate change or climate warming issue is caused by the cyclical element of nature itself.
    “I think we need to adopt an open attitude to the scientific research.”
    He said that it was important to include as many views as possible “to be more scientific and to be more consistent”.
    He was responding to a reporter’s question about a controversy over the UN’s climate science panel’s 2007 assertion that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8478643.stm

  131. New chairman for IPCC? Really?

    A useless institution better disappears, not wasting any resources anymore, specifically not the capacity of great persons as McIntyre or Lord Monckton.

  132. What has really happened, we all know here in WUWT, is that there has been a continuous feedback for many years, beginning in the 20th. century until now, between externally funded science and politicians, I would say that it happened almost automatically, one side feeding the other back and creating a situation of mutual dependency and self defense of their common interests, which have gradually grown exponentially, making it harder and harder the possibility of a way back to normality and, surprisingly, to factual reality.
    It is not unbelievable now that such fantasies, so far from any healthy reasoning, like “anthropogenic global warming” and its 2.35% efficiency windmills, “black holes”, “dark matter”, to armageddonian theories of viruses pandemias, have reached such momentum, as we would be witnessing a nova explosion of consensual madness.
    So there is an urgent necessity of revisiting all those supposed “holy dogmas” held and tought or rather preached as such by contemporary “scientist-politicians-friars”.

  133. I’ve been doing some research and can show that the UN knew the 2035 claim to be bogus as far back as 2004. There can be no doubt that the authors of the WWF report and AR4 knew that it was bogus. What’s more they were well aware that Fred Pearce was a propagandist making wholly exaggerated claims.

    I will hopefully be publishing the evidence later this week.

  134. Time for me to post this again …

    Pachauri in jail ☺ ☺

    I was flattered the first time it was posted because Richard North used it on his EU blog. Naturally I “stole” both images off the internet and married them in Photoshop. So sue me. ☺

    Cheers!

    Clive

  135. The silence from the BBC speaks volumes. Nothing about the conflicts of interest or money made by Pachauri and Co. Harrabin however has publish a ‘cash for influence’ article here-

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8475293.stm

    Shame he’s not turned his eye towards how much cash for influence groups like TERI or the WWF are contributing towards lobbying for climate change.

  136. Maybe the headlines in the MSM should read: “AND ON THE “What goes around, comes around” FRONT -

    In 2008 NASA’s James Hansen called for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.”
    In 2007 environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”
    In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”
    In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics.
    In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.”
    In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
    In 2007, an internal EPA E-mail threatens to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth)
    In 2007 a UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” .
    In 2007 a Virginia State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ‘I was told that I could not speak in public’ Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.” (LINK)
    In 2007 a skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor Excerpt: “State Climatologist George Taylor, does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
    AND – October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun – Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options……..

    I do not know…. some how the SIMPLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF, “What goes around, comes around” doesn’t seem to be enough……

  137. I hope he stays. They might replace him with someone who is not nearly as corrupt and they might regain some of their ill-deserved “credibility”. Some times you need to leave the rotten apple in place and let the whole lot go bad. Instead of taking them out one by one, you let the whole lot go. Patience.

  138. Actually, M.Simon, that article is behind a paywall and most of us won’t see it. So I searched for something else, and found this:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,480766,00.html

    This article from May, 2007 is actually a fascinating look into the “we’re right, skeptics are weird” mindset that we’re up against. Amazingly, this one actually seeks to give some credit to Lindzen (ie, one of his points is correct), but the description of how “Science” works in the IPCC is enough to make anyone who knows Science shudder. Science by consensus is the goal. You know, that’s a travesty!

  139. At 2 minutes and 16 seconds into the video


    (see “Just The Facts 21:08:31″)

    Dr. Pachauri makes the comment that non-democratic governments might “keep the lid” on dissent. Coming from the mouth of one of the most vocal CAGW advocates, this statement is both ironic and laughable.

  140. E.M.Smith (04:10:30)

    I was looking for some “bonus points”, so I decided to look out my window in Montreal, Canada ( 45° 30′ N) where right now it is 8 degrees celsius. This makes it 14 degrees celsius above average. But that is an unscientific observation of weather not climate, right?

    “Just look at the reality.” It’s [warm], and getting [warmer]“.

  141. I guess you know you are losing the argument when you invoke George W. Bush… it’s the new Goodwin’s Law. The longer an argument goes on the increasing chance that GWB will be invoked and the side that iinvokes it is deemed loser of the argument.

  142. “He’ll stay on and the U.N. will look the other way ”

    Of course he will.
    He’s doing the job they hired him to do.

    The UN/IPCC was never a neutral body of science, is always biased.

    “”The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with
    an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does
    it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis
    the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant
    to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change”

  143. wayne ward (09:22:38) :

    What argument? The IPCC is daily purging the books they cooked while the world watches them do it.

  144. All the calls for Pachauri to resign are a distraction. He’ll be thrown under the bus and everyone will think ok UN is back on track as the bad apple is gone. He’s just the fall guy being set up so the UN can go and the usual “move along nothing to see anymore” brainwashing can begin.

  145. The north magnetic pole (correlation does not mean causation), science, intelligence and industry and many other things are migrating westward…
    is it a coincidence?
    BTW Science last stop was at Hollywood Boulevard!!

  146. From the Times of India;

    The acceptance of the error “only strengthened the credibility” of the global body, he insisted baldly.

    He might take offence at that, given his reasonable head of hair.)

  147. E.M. Smith – that’s my point. I don’t accept the IPCC’s previous claims on those secondary affects. But to me that doesn’t undermine the core AGW proposition.

  148. BBc news 24 just did a report on the himalayan glacier farce and described pachauri as the “worlds top scientist”….

    Complaint sent, choo choo charlie does not count as a scientist.

  149. vibenna (14:34:36) :
    I don’t accept the IPCC’s previous claims on those secondary affects. But to me that doesn’t undermine the core AGW proposition.

    A house of cards doesn’t take much undermining. I think Miscolczi did it pretty effectively.

  150. Pachauri was on the tv [BBC NEWS] this evening totally denying any sort of wrong doing and vowing to serve the rest of his term at the head of the IPCC CLIMATE SCANDAL.
    He still maintains without a shred of any doubt that CLIMATE CHANGE is real.
    In that assertion he is of course correct climate has always changed and always will. I am of the belief that we are heading for cooler times. He is convinced we are heading for warmer times. He seems arrogant to assert that he knows what the future will bring and not that he believes such.

    ABSOLUTE POWER……….

  151. Mapou (22:48:01) :

    TerryBixler (22:11:18) :

    Will Obama and Lisa Jackson notice or will their ties to
    Gore and AGW politics continue to blind them and harm us.

    Obama and the Democratic Party will do nothing until they see a clear sign that voters will be voting for the opposition in huge numbers.

    =================================================

    I think they will continue doing the same as they’ve always done and the only way they will stop is when are out of power.

    Just vote for someone else.

  152. Rob (03:52:26) :

    “China has ‘open mind’ about cause of climate change,

    But Mr Xie, China’s vice-chairman of national development and reforms commission, later said although mainstream scientific opinion blames emissions from industrial development for climate change, China is not convinced.”

    THIS IS A DISTINCT AND IMPORTANT CHANGE!

    I remember when the extreme cold weather hit Biejing seeing Mr Xie quoted as saying ‘This does not invalidate AGW’, or words to that effect.

    China being what it is he will not be saying this without government backing! This could signal a shift in China towards a non-AGW natural cycle policy. The recent revelations are bound to help them in the right direction.

    That would really put the cat amongst the pigeons!

  153. This link is well worth a look [posted on this thread previously]

    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/12-more-glaciers-that-havent-heard-the-news-about-global-warming

    Basically they are reports from around the world that glaciers are growing. Many seem to think that they are an exception as we all ‘know’ glaciers are on their way out!

    Can we have a universal ‘truth’ that all glaciers are retreating, with the exception of 90% of them!?

    Does anyone collate this information? I would like to see a nice graphic by percentage of glaciers advancing and retreating, broken down in to bands by cubic metres of ice gained and lost [Simply breaking in to bands by metres gained and lost does not discriminate between glaciers 50 metres high and 500 metres high!]

    Errm! Not quite sure if that idea fully makes sense, but hopefully you get the idea.

  154. Andrew (23:27:00) : Thanks for the link Andrew. I went and read it before reading your post and was struck how he resorted to Ad Hom, Off Subject (Smoking) but it was his…

    “It is clear that increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing climate change”. That gets me ever so slightly wound up! (My latest line to prevent the snip ;) .

    Notice the use of “and other greenhouse gases”? Thats the 4th time this week I have seen/heard AGW people sneak it into the debate.

    We all know, after all our efforts, the figures for natural C02 and the “man made” portion. After all, that is what we want to debate. We have never said that other parts of the atmosphere do not have a “greenhouse” effect! So we are now supposed to do something about purely natural occurrences?

    Maybe he will run into the “Good Lord M” during his lecture tour and Lord M will give him a little real science.

  155. Pachauri will be replaced by another UN liar who will continue to do exactly what Pachauri was doing…. The media will cover for them with grand words portraying rebirth and virtue, while whipping Pachauri often.

    But the UN will not have changed… It will just be sneakier and better prepared. Our Governments will take more of our money and more of that money will find it’s way into the UN.

    Forgive my pessimism. But I find that Big Government is obscenely efficient at duplicity.

  156. Monckton told us today in his lecture in Sydney that he has shopped Pachauri for making more than declared for a UK charity.

    ‘Twas a fine lecture, and I understand ABC were there, so it may get some air time.

  157. John A (21:48:39) :

    I vote for Steve McIntyre for the next IPCC Chairman. He’d ensure that only science was published and not Hockey Sticks.

    I second the motion!

Comments are closed.