See UPDATE below the read more line.
Looks like Pachy is having a crisis of confidence in his home country. Is anyone surprised?
Excerpts from the Telegraph:
India has threatened to pull out of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and set up its on climate change body because it “cannot rely” on the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.
The Indian government’s move is a snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.
The body and its chairman have faced growing criticism ever since as questions have been raised on the credibility of their work and the rigour with which climate change claims are assessed.
More at the Telegraph
UPDATE:
Concern was raised about the original title, which was verbatim from the Telegraph’s headline.
Telegraph: India to ‘pull out of IPCC’
Some said that the Telegraph got the story wrong. I wrote in reply:
<blockquote>Well if the Telegraph will change their title, I’ll gladly follow.</blockquote>
This seems to have happened. Now if you go to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html
It redirects to
Now it is a different headline, and there is nothing about “pulling out”. So it seems this was a mistake on The Telegraph’s part. Thanks to Zeke and others who commented on it. Had it been my headline, I’d have changed it immediately once such issues were raised with support to back it up. But It was the Telegraph’s headline, and it was my expectation they would either follow up with more support for why they said this, or change it if it was wrong. It took them longer than expected, but they’ve now changed it without conceding an error.
Since this thread also went way off topic into discussion on aids, I’ve closed comments – Anthony
The Indian government’s move is a snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.
The body and its chairman have faced growing criticism ever since as questions have been raised on the credibility of their work and the rigour with which climate change claims are assessed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unbelievable. Hands up all those who awarded the IPCC the Nobel prize. Aren’t you a tiny bit embarrassed?
—
Hm? What’s the reasoning behind that surmise, and on the basis of what evidence? Is it predicted that snow will cease entirely to fall upon the Himalayas for the next three hundred years and more?
Wow… India must be alot smarter than the good ol’ USA.
Pachauri, The Caveman Love Guru with a Nobel prize, a man abandoned by …
a) GreenPeace
b) Team MSM
c) India
D) Everyone but his UN Staff
E) all of the above
Bernie, the Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
Its five members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament and roughly represent the political makeup of that body.
So don’t blame anyone else but them for the travesty!
Whatever else I suspect that the Indian version of IPCC will be more objective than the UN IPCC. They may not be 100% so but I would venture to suggest that they will be less politically driven even although they will probably rely on Indian Government financial assistance. I just have the feeling that the Indian Government has got fed up with the UN IPCC and are “thirsting” for real information.
@ur momisugly Bernie,
This is the same Nobel Committee that awarded Obama the peace prize (and $1M) after he’d been in office for a whole two weeks.
They’ve hardly covered themselves in glory the last couple of years…
The guy is a railway engineer – why do they call him a scientist?
Bernie
“Yes Pachauri was bit dodgy – but after careful review of the Nobel Prize award we don’t see that anything has changed here”. – That is how it will be portrayed you can see it coming.
Excuse me??
If one reads the article – – the Indian government did not even “threaten” to withdraw. They simply expressed their extreme displeasure and stated that India would operate an autonomous agency – INCCA.
I believe that India’s actions are reasonable and prudent – – but it is always better to be accurate in reporting information than to use hyperbole – – that’s what got Dr. Jones into trouble – – remember?
Quote –
“I respect the IPCC but India is a very large country and cannot depend only on [the] IPCC and so we have launched the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment (INCCA),” he said.
It will bring together 125 research institutions throughout India, work with international bodies and operate as a “sort of Indian IPCC,” he added.
The body, which he said will not rival the UN’s panel, will publish its own climate assessment in November this year, with reports on the Himalayas, India’s long coastline, the Western Ghat highlands and the north-eastern region close to the borders with Bangladesh, Burma, China and Nepal.
Can China be far behind? (Chinagate) Or Brazil? (Amazongate)
Quite a change from the glory of the world stage to prospects of living out his remaining life in relative obscurity, pumping out smutty romance novels.
Maybe they can take it one step further and they, and/or Russia and/or China, could also start making more satellite observations to support their “own climate change body” (e.g. sea levels, Antarctic ice thickness, etc etc)
Certainly ironic, but does anyone trust NASA any more ??
Why would any new organisation not consider that it is in climate RESEARCH – not automatically climate ‘change’..?
Having seen elsewhere the link to the IPCC and the procedure it adopts in order to produce its reports, with all its opportunities to ‘appoint’ scientists and ‘review’ their work, I have to say the whole process is simply political in the extreme. Any relationship with investigative science is purely accidental.
Anyway – good luck to the Indian government – it will be interesting to see what they come up with – not a hockey stick in sight, I bet….!
Hate to say “I told you so”, but….
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lt4vOp8QhY&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Well, actually, I love saying “I told you so”. 🙂
This interview by The Economist destroys Pachauri’s credability.
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15473066
You should not need a FOI request to get the data, models and methods that support a REAL scientific research paper.
But then again, the CRU has not been practicing the scientific method for more than two decades. The scientific method requires that the researcher publish all the original data, models and procedures needed for a skeptical analysis of any of their work. Since they are not using the scientific method then they simply are not doing science, they are (still) working in secret, they are writing fiction.
Anything output from the CRU after about 1988 is not the result of the scientific method. Any papers that used any of the outputs from the CRU for support (directly or indirectly) are tainted by inheritance. Thus they are also not a product of science.
Any paper that used any of the three global temperature surface data sets provided after 1992 have been based on data that has been demonstrated to have been intentionally corrupted. Thus they are also not a product of science.
There is no scientific research that supports the hypothesis of human induced global warming.
None.
UN expectedly pull out?
Is this like Algore running for President and not winning his own state??
Shocking
“People should know when they’re conquered.”
– Quintus from the movie Gladiator
“The guy is a railway engineer – why do they call him a scientist?”
Because anyone can call themselves a scientist.
300 years: I think the idea being expressed is that there is so much ice there that at a rate of melting Y, it would take 300 years for it all to melt in a strictly arithmetic sense – not that it is doing so. The current Y may not be accurate. I think one can disregard this notion and focus on what the IPPC claimed and what that would imply. At the elevations and temperatures involved it can’t possibly melt as fast as the IPPC claimed. Given the proper numbers an eight-grader could figure this out.
Re: John Egan (09:54:31) :
Er, excuse me, Anthony is reporting on a news story in Telegraph. He isn’t claiming anything about the Indian government withdrawing from the IPCC. Anthony’s only comment is that his own country (Pachauri’s) doesn’t have confidence in him, which can be inferred from the article.
Have you fired off a letter to the editor of the Telegraph?
Anyone caught this one in the guardian
Climate emails: were they really hacked or just sitting in cyberspace?Slack security or subversion at the university may have led to ‘unintentional sharing’, making the police investigation pointless
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacker-police-investigation
Fast Food, Fast Science, Fast Nobel Price… all bad for humanity.
The world will be better off.
The IPCC focus on CO2 which is only one of the Greenhouse gases at the expense of not addressing other GHG’s and Aerosols always created a lose-lose scenario for many.
Even if one fully accepts the evils of Global Warming, China and India can make a positive impact by installing precipitators and scrubbers on their smokestack industries and reduce the ‘Global Warming’ impact as well as the various pollutants that create localized health and environmental problems.
A big part of the rest of the world can justify cutting their CO2 output on ‘Energy Independence’ grounds.
Any paper that used any of the three global temperature surface data sets provided after 1992 have been based on data that has been demonstrated to have been intentionally corrupted. Thus they are also not a product of science.
Just checking surface and satellite trends since 1992 and there isn’t more than a couple of hundredths of a degree between the 4 main datasets. Hadley actually has the smallest trend. RSS and UAH are almost identical in the middle and GISS has the largest trend. But there’s not much in it.
Yet another “failure” of the UN mechanism. To fend off criticism about human rights, the worst offenders with the worst records were allowed to take over first the Commission on Human Rights and then its successor the Human Rights Council.
This time though, for “combating climate change,” with too much money at stake, the big boys won’t let them play the “blame someone else” game and want China and India to owe up to being primary “polluters” and for them to take their share of the responsibility. And all those little countries at the UN are slavering, waiting for the feast where they will suck dry the “evil rich (and carbon polluting)” nations, and are willing to toss in China and India if that’s what it’ll take.
Therefore India has no choice but to abandon a UN process for “carbon reductions,” and they have now been provided with excellent cover. Expect China to soon follow. “The science ain’t settled ’til we say it’s settled! Now back off while we check it out!”
Pachauri may be serving his home country better than he knows.