Quote of the week #28

There’s so much climate news going on I’ve been derelict in keeping this feature up.

qotw_cropped

This QOTW is from our friend and WUWT contributor Willis Eschenbach who writes:

I just got my 29 January 2010 copy of Science Magazine, which contains an interview with Rajendra K. Pachauri, the future ex-Chairman of the IPCC. In it, he gives the following astounding answer:

Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?
R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?
Why indeed? …
About these ads
This entry was posted in Quote of the Week. Bookmark the permalink.

127 Responses to Quote of the week #28

  1. PaulH says:

    Isn’t that what we’ve been asking all along? :-)

  2. David Ball says:

    There is nothing I can add to make this any funnier than it is. At the same time it is very, very, sad. Probably a quantum mechanics thing.

  3. Bill Marsh says:

    umm, what?

  4. Global Warming Borg says:

    I know I can’t think of anything…

  5. Lazarus Long says:

    Here’s a quote of the same high intellectual level:

    “Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?”
    “I think so, Brain, but this time you put the trousers on the chimp.”

  6. rbateman says:

    “R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?”

    Didn’t think, didn’t look and didn’t ask.
    Has the world (or any civilization) ever been worried about climate change?
    Yes, and for longer than records were kept, like Joseph warning Pharoah about a coming famine.
    If the IPCC wasn’t there, a lot more people would be thinking about preparing for the changing climate, instead of cooking up hideous doom & gloom stories to help them cash in on fear.

  7. Junican says:

    It is a very sad state of affairs where the people who dispense Nobel Prizes are the same people who garner Nobel Prizes. In my opinion, Nobel Prizes are now corrupt and meaningless. It is a sad reflection upon the world of science that the heritage of the great physicists, biologists, etc of the past has been demeaned.

  8. Andy Scrase says:

    And Al Gore steps up too:
    “Worse than we thought”

    http://blog.algore.com/2010/02/worse_than_we_thought.html

    Maybe he has left the country and the record has got stuck.

  9. John from MN says:

    OT But this looks Interesting
    Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine

    http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Former-NASA-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine

    John

  10. Smokey says:

    Yes, that’s a very good question.

    But it’s that long green from the taxpayers that will keep them in business, and lots of other folks on a leash. Here’s another good quote about that:

    Scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits.

    ~Oliver K. Manuel/WUWT

  11. Tom in Florida says:

    R.K.P.:”If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?”

    Open mouth, insert foot. Or in Pachauri’s case: insert feet, many many feet.

  12. Richard M says:

    I think you have named this one … The laugh of the week.

  13. Jean Parisot says:

    Do the Cart/Horse, Egg/Chicken idioms translate to Indian English syntax?

  14. Andrew says:

    Valentines Day Edition:

    If my bosomy ex-girlfriend wasn’t around, why would my wife worry about me cheating?

    Andrew

  15. David Ball says:

    Excellent quote Smokey. Hat tip to O.K.Manuel.

  16. Andrew30 says:

    OT:
    But it looks like realclimate has managed to weave/spin together a ‘response’ to last months ‘problems’. At this rate they may catch up to the Phil Jones revelations even before the snow melts in Washington!

    “IPCC errors: facts and spin”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/

    Love the title, actual facts and realclimate spin.

  17. David44 says:

    It seems clear that the chairman is as impervious to irony as he is to objectivity and ethics.

  18. Andy Scrase says:

    I think this is the positive feedback loop they have been looking for all along.

  19. Dennis P. Barlow says:

    The only reason their credibility can’t be dented is because they don’t have any! His arrogance and snobbery is just another example of a politician’s dismissal of anyone, especially those who point out his/her failure to tell the truth, who disagrees with their position.

  20. Douglas DC says:

    Good one Mr. Manuel, thanks for keeping it going, Smokey..
    (I have been there in my undergrad days..)
    -no market for Porcupine Entrails, however-…

  21. keith says:

    Blimey – anyone look at the picture top left on Al Gore’s blog – with that wall of monitors all he needs is a white cat and a monocle and he would be giving Blofeld a run for his money…

    Mind you given his blog is written on what looks like school A4 paper – I want to put a fat red ‘F’ in the corner..

  22. rbateman says:

    Tom in Florida (18:38:37) :

    Open wallet, empty contents in my tent.
    Take small vial of Green Water for your donation.
    Repeat steps above until the true meaning of IPCC Green is fully understood.

  23. johnnythelowery says:

    Jean: You ask the following……..

    Jean Parisot (18:40:18) :

    Do the Cart/Horse, Egg/Chicken idioms translate to Indian English syntax

    Answer: Gas/Curry

  24. James F. Evans says:

    Pachauri: Open wide, stick foot in mouth.

  25. Question for Rajendra K. Pachauri:

    How dare you and Al Gore peddle that crap as science? Have you no shame?

    You made fools of the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, too.

    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  26. Mike McMillan says:

    Complete agreement with Pachauri. Why indeed.

  27. jack morrow says:

    rbateman 16:32:47-…doom and gloom stories to help them cash in on fear.

    Yes sir! And, the Obama administration planning to put into effect this cap and trade tax bill to pay for their schemes and wasteful spending.
    Thank goodness all this bs is being exposed.

  28. Andrew30 says:

    Oliver K. Manuel (19:01:15) :
    “You made fools of the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, too.”

    No one can be made a fool, they can only be exposed for what they are.

  29. Steve Oregon says:

    “R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?”

    Translation:
    “I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC matters. What matters is that everyone be worried about climate change”

  30. Max says:

    Nitwit. It seems Mr. Pachauri spends altogether too much time thinking about sex. It has been known to scramble the brain.

  31. Gary says:

    That makes it simple. Eliminate the IPCC and everybody can stop worrying. The man’s a genius.

  32. FergalR says:

    Former IPCC chairman Bob Watson: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying.”

    Solution: Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece

  33. JAE says:

    READ THIS BLOG AND OFFER COMMENTS IF YOU GIVE A [SNIP] ABOUT THE CLIMATE SCIENCE SCAM:

    http://www.carlineconomics.com/

  34. michael e forster says:

    Could Pachauri actually be a “denialist” mole? It would be rather difficult to even conjure up buffoonery of this extreme. Perhaps there is some problem with English as a Second Language, or Science as an imaginary major.

    I really loved the”future ex-Chairman” phraseology, but would it not be wiser to simply leave him there intact. Who could possibly do more to undermine whatever remains of the I.P.C.C.’s alleged “credibility? Hmmm….well, there is Al of course…

  35. Craig Moore says:

    After that quote, I feel like that Aflac duck after hearing Yogi offer up his wisdom.

  36. Craig Moore says:

    Here’s the AFLAC duck with Yogi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-EZf56AfYc

  37. Keith Minto says:

    The SMH reported today that Pachauri, as a high caste Hindu Brahmin, is favoured by the Indian Government to keep his post and opposition to him can be linked to Britain and old anti-Colonial feelings.

    The attacks on Dr Pachauri, led by London newspapers and activists such as Lord Christopher Monckton, have stirred post-colonial sensitivities in India. The Renewable Energy Minister, Farooq Abdullah, compared Dr Pachauri to Mahatma Gandhi because, like India’s independence leader, he was being ”targeted for his good work”.

    And like Dr Pachauri, Gandhi’s chief opponents were British, Mr Abdullah said.

    Dr Pachauri told an Indian newspaper he was an easy target because he represented ”the poor and the most vulnerable” and alleged the money available to climate sceptics was far more than that available for ”saving the planet from climate change”.
    This argument is way, way, beyond science.

  38. Leslie says:

    The quote is funny except to the IPCC, and that is quite scary. They really believe in this stuff and consider themselves the leaders of this modern-day crusade. Fortunately most mass delusions begin to unravel at some point and we may be witnessing exactly that phase of this global warming hysteria.

  39. JAE says:

    OT, but WTF: Please look at the whistleblower at EPA and HELP HIM WITH COMMENTS: http://www.carlineconomics.com/

  40. jryan says:

    I’m with Pachauri. How can you dent the credibility of the organization that invented global warming!? :P

  41. JAE says:

    Sorry, but it is so disheartening to see all the people interested in this topic, but apparently completly unaware of what is going on WITHIN the EPA. Carlin needs support here!

  42. Curiousgeorge says:

    The IPCC is a many headed hydra. For example, the US Federal budget for 2011 proposes $2.6 billion for the Global Change Research Program, a 21 percent boost over 2010. It will bring funding to a level higher than under any administration dating back to 1989 — when global warming first attracted federal budget funds. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/11/obama-spending-increase-global-warming-research/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529

    Check out what is on the website: http://www.globalchange.gov/

  43. Ira says:

    The IPCC and Pachauri wouldn’t have had any credibility absent the “cooking the books” by UEA CRU and NASA GISS. Here’s a different way to look at NASA GISS data that makes it look less scary.

  44. NickB. says:

    @ Andrew30
    Did you catch their comments on “gray research”? I guess for the next go around we’ll see non-peer reviewed research from Cato and the Heartland Institutes included, right?

  45. pat says:

    Professor (Robert)Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

    which is from:

    UK Times: UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief
    ‘Every error exaggerated the impact of change’
    by Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
    Dr Pachauri has not responded to questions put to him by The Times, despite sending a text message saying that he would do so….
    Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.
    He said that the scheme to create what he called a “Wikipedia for climate change” was at an early stage but the intention was to establish an online network of climate science research available to anyone with access to the internet and subject to permanent peer review by other scientists.
    He said that the project would allow scientists to “synthesise all of the observational record in real-time, not every 5-7 years like the IPCC”.
    He rejected concerns that the project would undermine the IPCC’s authority. “It would have to be done so it was complimentary and not a challenge to the IPCC,” he said.
    A spokesman for Mr Gore’s office in Nashville, Tennessee, declined to comment on the project…

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece

  46. tokyoboy says:

    Was He sane when He was answering??

  47. Andrew30 says:

    Hello;

    Re: John from MN (18:37:24) :

    Has what Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi presented alredy been covered here?

  48. savethesharks says:

    And you have to think to yourself: This…..THIS is what is running the world today?????

    No wonder the world is in trouble.

    The world is begin run by idiots….morons….and bureaucrats.

    They are like the stormtroopers in Star Wars. Completely clueless.

    The good thing is…beyond all of the spin of this goofball and past all of the sophistry of people like Al Gore….after the dust settles…the reliable and stalwart ally remains: the TRUTH!

    And the Scientific Method is its close cousin, tried and true.

    So….beware all you spin doctors, snake oil salesmen, and charlatans…

    Your days are numbered.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  49. Darrell says:

    [snip - vulgar language]

  50. old44 says:

    The man’s a LEGEND.

  51. Jerry Lee Davis says:

    Anthony: Maybe you need to consider a new Category called “Jerk of the Week.” Mr. Pachauri could be #1, with Al Gore to follow at the right time.

  52. Max Hugoson says:

    “It seems clear that the chairman is as impervious to irony as he is to objectivity and ethics.”

    Right thought, wrong term. Try OBLIVIOUS!

    Max

  53. Jimmy Haigh says:

    The thing is, Pauchauri thinks that he is cleverer than us plebs. Politicians suffer from the same delusion. Examples? Obama. Brown. Boxer. Pelosi….

  54. Steve Keohane says:

    If it were not for the IPCC, I’d need a new hobby to fill all that free time. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

  55. a jones says:

    Derelict? I doubt you are that, distracted maybe with this much coming out which of us is not running from pillar to post?

    I know I am: it is difficult to keep up.

    And it used to be so quiet, amiable and gentle around here when we were the despised, vilified and so called holocaust deniers. And what excellent trolls we had too.

    But all has changed and I for one am run off my feet. Which is why I have not posted here much of late.

    Because of Parliamentary privilege I cannot quote my submission to the Select Committee but I did make the point that Natural Philosophy has a long and honourable tradition of welcoming contributions from well informed amateurs whether formally qualified or self taught.

    Where indeed would our Astronomical colleagues be without them?

    AT the moment of course I am having to do the CRU submission but that is fast generating into farce: at least a Select Committee knows exactly how to phrase it’s questions. Yet as before I am having to update the submission day by day as more and more spills out.

    And all the rest.

    So do not consider yourself a derelict, you are far from that, highly active I would say. Quite volcanic really.

    And one day our grandchildren will wonder what it was all about.

    Kindest Regards

  56. O/t Over on RC Gavin S has just endorsed Jones’ comments – see paste below from current topic responding to AR4 errors.

    Gavin agrees that the planet hasn’t warmed since 1995 and that the MWP is at least open to debate. He also agrees that the vast majority of scientists do not say that the science is settled, that recent warming is not unprecedented etc etc etc. Astounding stuff.

    ***********

    12Global Skeptic says:
    14 February 2010 at 5:09 PM
    Can we just evaluate Jones’s recent words since he is at the epicenter of the disagreement?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    [Response: You have to get past the appalling spin put on them by the Mail first. The actual statements are online at the BBC. There is absolutely nothing new here unless you've actually fallen for the strawman caricature of what climate scientists are supposed to have been saying. - gavin]
    ***********

  57. Pete B says:

    Perhaps RK Pachauri should spend more time on writing smutty novels. He may need a more respectable career path!

  58. toyotawhizguy says:

    “For example, the US Federal budget for 2011 proposes $2.6 billion for the Global Change Research Program, a 21 percent boost over 2010. It will bring funding to a level higher than under any administration dating back to 1989 — when global warming first attracted federal budget funds.”

    Our tax dollars hard at work … getting spent, but doing nothing useful.
    This belongs in the category of “Waste, fraud and abuse”.

  59. pat says:

    Must be a translation problem. Does he speak science?

  60. DJ Meredith says:

    To listen to Gavin, Jones, and Pachauri, it’s like we’re hearing you know who saying:

    “Poland? I didn’t invade Poland.”

  61. RonPE says:

    There is no there there! g stein

  62. Beth Cooper says:

    The Austalian Newspaper,Feb13/14, has a 5 column article by Chrisopher Pearson, ‘World wide web of doubt’,in which he argues ‘that public confidence in the supposedly settled science of global warming is in freefall.’ Through key participants in the internet debate such as Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, and academic climatologists such as Roy Spencer, supported by distinguished retired scientists and academics who are able to speak out without censure, Pearson states:
    “What we are seeing in defiance of officialdom, government propoganda and the bulk of funded researchers in the field, is the collapse of a scientific paradigm.’

  63. Beth Cooper says:

    I The same article cites a 10% drop in support in Australia for P.M.Rudd’s emissions trading scheme since November, fell from from 66% to 56% in favour.
    Keep on keeping on!

  64. Daniel H says:

    Patchy et al need to Return to Almora and slam the AlDoora so the rest of us can Escape from AlGora.

    Seriously, it’s like I’ve got no reset for this game.

  65. Michele says:

    D’oh!

    Our world is being manipulated by the most amazing fools. Question is: How’d they get this far?

  66. Erik The Viking says:

    @Andy Scrase (18:35:35) :

    “Worse than we thought”

    http://blog.algore.com/2010/02/worse_than_we_thought.html

    (“full of holes, like Swiss cheese. We haven’t seen this sort of thing before.”)
    ————————————————————Yup, that’s rotten ice for ya!, not evil, just rotten!

  67. Willis Eschenbach says:

    TheSkyIsFalling (21:08:26), you raise an interesting issue. So following Gavin’s suggestion, let’s compare and contrast what climate scientists actually have said, with what Phil Jones is saying now:

    Phil Jones, CRU email,

    It is important to learn about past climate change, especially over the past 1000 years, but it is even important to use new and improved evidence from proxy sources (i.e. not to cling to outdated concepts of the past such as the MWP and LIA). How can we ever hope to progress if we have conform to incorrect concepts?

    Martin Juckes, CRU emails:

    With regard to the temperatures of the last millennium, the primary conclusion of JBB1998 is that the twentieth century was the warmest of the millennium. There is clear evidence of a cool period from 1500 to 1900, but no strong “Medieval Warm Period” [MWP] …

    However, the question of practical importance is not whether [the MwP] was warmer than the 12th to 19th centuries, which is generally accepted, but whether it was a period of comparable warmth to the late 20th century. MBH1999 concluded, with 95% confidence, that this was not so.

    Tim Osborne, CRU emails:

    Dahl-Jensen showed the temperatures obtained by inverting the borehole temperature profiles. This has a colder MWP relative to the recent period, which shows strong recent warming.

    Phil Jones, CRU emails:

    My response would have been what is the point of doing any more paleo work, if we are constrained by the answer we are allowed to get. If we don’t have the MWP and LIA then we are wrong. We have orders of magnitude more data than when these came into vogue in the 1960s, but we still are expected to find them.

    Tom Crowley, CRU emails:

    … with respect to the MWP all you have to do is plot the data up and compile them – the numbers don’t work out as being warmer than the present – at best approaching or slightly exceeding mid-20th c.

    Michael Mann, CRU emails:

    The statement by S03 that the Mann and Jones [2003] reconstruction “clearly shows temperatures in the MWP that are as high as those in the 20th century” is misleading if not false. M03 emphasize that it is the late, and not the early or mid 20th century warmth, that is outside the range of past variability.

    Michael Mann, CRU emails:

    … it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.

    MIchael Mann, CRU emails:

    But to then turn around and present a fundamentally ill-posed, supposed “analysis” which doesn’t even attempt to provide a quantitative “alternative” to past studies, to claim to have disproven those past studies, and to supposedly support the non-sequitor conclusion that the “MWP was warmer than the 20th century” is irresponsible, deceptive, dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach in my view.

    Edward Cook, CRU emails:

    As you know, I have publicly stated that I never intended to imply that the MWP was as warm as the late 20th century (e.g., my New York Times interview).

    Phil Jones, CRU emails:

    I need to wait to se what he says. Our paper (me, Tim and Keith) clearly says that the MWP couldn’t have been warmer (for the NH average) than the late 20th century.

    OK, that’s what they said then. The MWP wasn’t and “couldn’t have been” warmer than the late 20th century. They were all in agreement.

    On the other hand, here’s Phil Jones now, from the BBC interview:

    Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

    And here’s Gavin Schmidt’s comment from RC:

    [Response: You have to get past the appalling spin put on them by the Mail first. The actual statements are online at the BBC. There is absolutely nothing new here unless you've actually fallen for the strawman caricature of what climate scientists are supposed to have been saying. - gavin]

    For decades the CRU un-indicted co-conspirators have been publicly saying that the MWP was cooler than the late 20th century. MBH99 said it was 99% certain that the MWP was cooler. In private they have been saying that they need to “contain the ‘putative’ MWP”.

    Now Phil Jones is saying well, actually, we don’t know whether it was warmer or not …

    You can tell when Gavin is lying because his lips are moving. Of all of the players in this game, I consider him the most dishonest. He will say anything that he thinks will support his previous lies …

  68. Andrew30 says:

    “A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more money than hundred men with guns”
    Mario Puzzo

    “A climate scientologist with his chart can steal more money than hundred lawyers with briefcases”
    Andrew30

  69. Mike D. says:

    If there was no global warming, it would be necessary to invent it. — Voltaire Pachauri

  70. Gerard says:

    Was this a comment peer reviewed? We need Jim Hansen and Phil Jones to give us the adjusted comment.

  71. Bulldust says:

    Amen to that Willis… I only read RC for Gavin’s responses anymore. It provides much needed comedy relief.

  72. Staffan says:

    ??? Has Raj not all the ice in his glaciers? Not all the cars in his train? Not all the paragraphs in his report? Really, is the man stupid? Arrogant we know he is.

  73. jazznick says:

    The only problem the climate has is the one made up by the IPCC.

    Phut-Phut for Dr Pachauri.

  74. Pete H says:

    Can anyone else smell toast?

  75. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    Andy Scrase ((18:35:35) :

    “Worse than we thought”

    http://blog.algore.com/2010/02/worse_than_we_thought.html

    Obviously the ice makes a strategic retreat, whilst the rest of winter advances chaotically.

  76. Pete H says:

    Willis Eschenbach (22:54:43) :
    “You can tell when Gavin is lying because his lips are moving.”
    Love the old ones….Coffee a over the keyboard again! BTW…Nice post.

  77. Peter Miller says:

    Everyone should look at John from MN’s link here.

    I don’t have sufficient science to know if this guy is correct, but if he is, then the whole IPCC mesh of untruths and half truths falls apart.

    You will know when Pachauri is about to get pushed, he will play the race card – bet on it.

  78. tallbloke says:

    Hah! Pauchauri switches to reverse Polish logic. Neat!

    “Here’s the outcome, now what’s the question?

    “Who needs an intricate web to weave
    When suckers are ready to believe?”

  79. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

    Euripides

  80. tallbloke says:

    Lucy Skywalker (01:33:50) :

    Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

    Euripides

    “Euripedes?”

    “No, I justa pulla dem apart.”

  81. tallbloke says:

    Tom Crowley, CRU emails:

    … with respect to the MWP all you have to do is plot the data up and compile them – the numbers don’t work out as being warmer than the present – at best approaching or slightly exceeding mid-20th c.

    Good post Willis. Given the overhyped global temperature rise ‘adjustments’ compared to individual stations and many ‘adjusted’ countries, as warm as mid century (before co2 rise accelerated) is just fine. Loehle comes in a bit above, Crowley comes in a bit below.

    What’s not to like? :-)

    Schmidt can’t look straight at the camera when he’s lying, check the footage. It shows there’s a conscience in there… somewhere.

  82. Stefan says:

    R.K.P.: “I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?”

    Brilliant. But the same ‘logic’ has been used by AGW alarmists for years.

    we have to do something about global warming!

    why?

    because we risk disaster!

    how do we know we risk disaster?

    because all scientists agree!

    what about sceptics?

    they’re crackpots!

    but look at this sceptic who is qualified, in the field, and has a valid point, so maybe we’re not facing disaster?

    he’s just being irresponsible!

    why?

    because he’s trying to raise doubts which would only lead us to fail to act in the face of disaster!

    but if he’s right, then we’re not facing disaster?

    i don’t think someone so irresponsible is worth listening to!

    erm….??

  83. RayB says:

    That is hilarious. We should clearly abolish the IPCC so’s we don’t have to worry about it any more. Likewise, since the science is settled, our govt won’t have to form a new multi-trillion department or tax us out of prosperity.

    Laz, you almost caused a liquid meets keyboard and screen error buddy… I was thinking of him as Larry, Hansen as Curly, and Algore as Moe, but Pinky & the Brain will do..

    Lazarus Long (18:32:22) :

    Here’s a quote of the same high intellectual level:

    “Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?”
    “I think so, Brain, but this time you put the trousers on the chimp.”

  84. Roger Knights says:

    The fit hits the Shan.

  85. John Carter says:

    Martin Parry, the scientist behind the IPCC report that falsely claimed the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, has dismissed the furore over the errors as “a clamour without substance”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7241093/IPCC-scientist-dismisses-furore-over-climate-change-report.html

    Have they no shame?

  86. Dave says:

    this is a comment from Pachuari’ own blog.
    sunil clearly loves him at least, but i’m not sure he’s in the same leaque personally, what with the comb over and all:

    Jesus Christ – crucified

    Socrates – poisoned

    Mahatma Gandhi – shot

    Archimedes- killed by a Roman soldier who did not know who Archimedes was.

    Copernicus – criticized

    Galileo -convicted

    Edgar Allan Poe – found dead in a street – buried unceremoniously in an unmarked grave- HONORED 100YRS LATER.

    Vincent van Gogh – shot himself. COULD NOT SELL EVEN A SINGLE PAINTING WHILE ALIVE.

    Abraham Lincoln – Shot

    R K Pachauri – being grilled FOR MAKING EFFORTS TO SAVE EARTH.

    This is KALYUG.

    When shall we learn. Wake up before it is too late.

    Have courage & conviction to support a good cause.

    – sunil

  87. rbateman says:

    Pachauri / IPCC / Credibility / Dent ??
    Incredible stories of amazing science turned out to be he said/she said conversations.
    Credibility of zero cannot be dented.
    Or, in other words, you cannot sink a ship that already lies on the bottom.

  88. Stefan says:

    If there is enough room to include a few imperfections about Himalayan glaciers, then there is enough room to include alternative hypothesis like the cosmic ray connection.

    Who are the denialists now?

  89. Peter of Sydney says:

    What a stupid question to ask if the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change. Of course we would. Man has been concerned with climate change ever since the Great Flood. I suppose AGW alarmists are still making the wrong assumption that climate change only started since the industrial age. Are they idiots or something?

  90. Ryan C says:

    It’s worse than we thought.

  91. RockyRoad says:

    Here’s what I posted at RealClimate: (I don’t expect it to survive Gavin’s knife, but it’s totally accurate):

    “Yo, Gavin.

    I certainly don’t expect a public display of this post but let me make one point absolutley clear:

    The position you and other charlatans have taken on the Mideval Warming Period is your undoing, especially in light of recent revelations by your pal and co-conspiritor Phil Jones.

    The tide is turning and you’re going to be washed up in science.

    You, sir, are a dishonest scientist.

    But have a good day!”

  92. Pete H says:

    Dave (03:25:46) :this is a comment from Pachuari’ own blog

    Dave….Ebay has the same sort of problem with selling orginal Gibson Les Paul Guitars and some big name golf clubs sets…Imagine, it must be the same as Wiki/RC being a reliable source!

  93. Tenuc says:

    Oh dear, I think that Pachauri has a few cogs loose. However, perhaps you need someone like him in charge of the IPCC lunatic asylum?

    Quote of next week?

    “Knowledge is power, so the IPCC has none.”

  94. 1DandyTroll says:

    That seem to be the same “rational” reasoning Joss Garman uses in the guardian today.

    He start with,

    “There’s an incredibly powerful movement opposed to action on climate change.”

    And pretty much end with,

    “The most zealous deniers, a subculture of outlandish paranoid conspiracy theorists,”

    I don’t know which is worst though the zealot who is a paranoid conspiracy theorist but knows (s)he is paranoid and a conspiracy theorist, or the zealot that obviously lack self awareness of being equally mental.

  95. Rhys Jaggar says:

    This man should be a comedian.

    He made me laugh more than I did all last year.

    Such delusions of grandeur, such a lack of understanding in how his comments would be interpreted, such arrogance not think about that either……

    Shame………

  96. Richard Briscoe says:

    This isn’t the quote of the week.
    This has to be the quote of the year – if not the decade.

  97. Out of the mouths of babes!

  98. Tom in Florida says:

    tokyoboy (19:54:38) : “Was He sane when He was answering??”

    You may have something here. Perhaps he was setting up his insanity defense.
    No one in their right mind ………

  99. Pete of Perth says:

    And yet despite all the skeltons coming out of the closet, CSIRO still believes in the CAGW mantr.

  100. Pete of Perth says:

    Appologies for spelling mistakes

  101. Vern says:

    To Junican

    It is a very sad state of affairs where the people who dispense Nobel Prizes are the same people who garner Nobel Prizes. In my opinion, Nobel Prizes are now corrupt and meaningless. It is a sad reflection upon the world of science that the heritage of the great physicists, biologists, etc of the past has been demeaned.

    Well, I don’t agree with the sentiment that the Al Gore and IPCC Nobel prizes have solely been responsible for precipitating the corruption of the value of this ‘presigious prize’…the committee itself started that process of making them meaningless long ago. However, having said that, there is nothing that I would like to see more than a movement started that applies unstoppable pressure on the committee to revoke these particular prizes.

  102. Vern says:

    To Junican

    It is a very sad state of affairs where the people who dispense Nobel Prizes are the same people who garner Nobel Prizes. In my opinion, Nobel Prizes are now corrupt and meaningless. It is a sad reflection upon the world of science that the heritage of the great physicists, biologists, etc of the past has been demeaned.

    Well, I don’t agree with the sentiment that the Al Gore and IPCC Nobel prizes have solely been responsible for precipitating the corruption of the value of this ‘presigious prize’…the committee itself started that process of making them meaningless long ago. However, having said that, there is nothing that I would like to see more than a movement started that applies unstoppable pressure on the committee to revoke these particular prizes.

  103. Ed Scott says:

    A Pachauri interview chock full of quotes. To paraphrase Allstate: We’re in good hands with the IPCC.

    Dec 08, 09: Climategate – “IPCC chairman talks to CNN”

    CNN: You do, though, admit Pachauri, that we can only rely on what is likely. There is no definitive evidence, is there, for global warming?

    Pachauri: By the time we get definitive evidence, I think it will be much to late.

  104. Bruce Cobb says:

    Thank you Mr. Pachauri, for finally coming clean as to the true nature and purpose of the IPCC – that of creating worry and alarm, regardless of the actual science behind it.
    Since indeed, that is its one and only purpose, and it has certainly done its job well, then its credibility can’t be dented by anything happening in the real world, or indeed, in science.
    Good to see you are finally coming around.

  105. David A. Reyes says:

    IPCC – The ultimate self-licking icecream cone!

  106. kcom says:

    the committee itself started that process of making them meaningless long ago. However, having said that, there is nothing that I would like to see more than a movement started that applies unstoppable pressure on the committee to revoke these particular prizes

    I have an easy solution. Why doesn’t the committee go back to handing out the Nobel Peace Prize only to people who made a contribution to establishing or promoting peace or to negotiating a settlement that ends a war. Wouldn’t that be a remarkable set of criteria for handing out a peace prize. Where did the idea come from that the Peace prize should be an award bestowed to the most fanatical adherent of the left-wing intellectual fad of the moment? Check out these recent Peace Prize winners and tell me what they have to do with advancing the cause of Peace in a sometimes violent world:

    Muhammad Yunus – “for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work”

    IPCC, Al Gore – “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change

    Although it might be admirable, what does microcredit have to do with peace? Sure, you can make some convluted, stupid argument to tie the two together but that’s exactly the point where the devaluing of the prize begins.

    And since when does “disseminat[ing] knowledge” about an ecological situation and “promoting measures…to counteract [it]” become the equivalent of bringing a war to an end?

    Really, do the words Peace Prize have any meaning left?

  107. Vern says:

    Really, do the words Peace Prize have any meaning left?

    Kcom… I agree with your thoughts completely and in a word, the answer to your question is a resounding NO. One only has to look at the awarding of a prize to Barack Obama after 11 days in office to confirm that what the committee is really all about is to apply their own particular version of politics and political persuasion. it’s a total joke but that doesn’t mean that it still wouldn’t be wonderful to see them compelled to revoke the Gore and IPCC prizes.

  108. vigilantfish says:

    Willis:

    If you ever decide to pull together a selection of your science journalism and publish it as a book, I’ll be among the first to place an order.

  109. DougS says:

    You couldn’t make it up!

    Well, not the way the IPCC does – they’re leading experts at it.

  110. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    As they say in Mumbai:

    Chootya Pachauri – Hindustan ka shaitan

  111. MikeO says:

    I live in Canberra the capital of Australia. A few years ago we had a large number of homes destroyed due to a large fire. I was in the Brindabella range for over a week before it swept into the city. The management of our emergency services were deficient in that we were ill prepared for such an event. The conditions changed and the fire took 20 minutes to get to the city. This totally amazed the emergency services. In the subsequent enquiry the person who bore a major responsibility said “We really had no idea this could happen”. Oblivious to fact he had just put his foot firmly into his mouth. He was an incompetent appointed to a job he could not do. What I always wanted to know was who put him there? So maybe Pachauri could come and run our emergency services seems he has the right qualifications he has no idea either.

  112. Predicador says:

    not easy being green these days…

  113. pwl says:

    FergalR (19:21:54) wrote: “[Bob] Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece

    Al Gore , Mr Extreme Exaggerator and It’s Ok To Lie To Get People Motivated himself, is the very last person that should be involved in such an endeavor.

  114. R. Craigen says:

    How about

    “I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented …

    … any further than it already is”

  115. Mike Post says:

    Slightly O/T but you have to adjust for a peculiar Indian way of looking at the world. I have long cherished an interview in India Today (a sort of Indian version of Time magazine) with a retiring Indian chief justice. The interview is the Interview of the Fortnight in the edition published on July 31, 1985:

    Q. Do you think terrorism and the increasing threat to public servants dealing with terrorists have put additional pressure on the judiciary particularly in a state such as the Punjab?
    A. No, I don’t think a judge trying terrorists should have a particular apprehension to his life. We have session judges who try cases of murder every day. Let me tell you it is a remarkable feature of Indian life that note even once – barring the very odd exception – has a judge been physically harmed.

  116. Mike Post says:

    Whoops, that should be: “Let me tell you it is a remarkable feature of Indian life that not even once – barring the very odd exception – has a judge been physically harmed.”

  117. Indiana Bones says:

    I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?

    And why turn over valuable mindshare to H1N1, terror, and encroaching asteroids??

  118. woodNfish says:

    Oliver K. Manuel (19:01:15) : “You made fools of the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, too.”

    With all due respect Doctor Manuel, the Nobel Prize Committee doesn’t need any help making fools of themselves.

  119. Mauibrad says:

    I think Pachauri and the IPCC thought the “fix was in” and that they would never come under this much scrutiny.

  120. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Some years ago a B-747 was on final approach at Bombay airport. Suddenly, a light aircraft appeared ahead, in the cone of danger. The Brit pilot got gear up and power on and went around. While doing so, he spoke to tower in no uncertain terms. When he finished, a plaintive Indian voice came back “Oh dear. Not another day like Tuesday?”

    That’s a problem here. The script just goes on and on, long after the final IPCC scene which was in 2007. Or before.

  121. Steve Oregon says:

    Willis Eschenbach (22:54:43) :

    “You can tell when Gavin is lying because his lips are moving. Of all of the players in this game, I consider him the most dishonest. He will say anything that he thinks will support his previous lies …”

    I read that part then moved up to see who wrote it.

    I was glad to see it was someone of Willis’ caliber because that has been my judgement for a long time.

    Having read much of GS on RC and experienced his methods of censoring and doctoring exchanges , IMO, he is without ethics, period. Made worse by his loyal thugs who post there.

  122. spital8katz says:

    The IPCC is a bunch of pseudo-academic liars working for their own remuneration and for the rip-off of the common people by governments around the world.

    And this is BIG business!

    Ask Al “The Bore” Gore, the model for an energy-saving US-Citizen…

  123. Tim Clark says:

    What, me worry?

  124. Jim Clarke says:

    I would say that the man is an idiot if he wasn’t getting so darn rich! In that light, he appears to be a genius and the rest of the world is guilty of idiocy!

  125. Robert M. Marshall says:

    I stink, therefore I am.

  126. Philip Lloyd says:

    Reminds me of a conversation with the IPCC Secy Gen’l: Me “I can’t stand the way the Summaries for Policy Makers say things the scientists never said.” Him “That’s the trouble with you scientists, Phil – you just won’t understand what we have to do to have influence.”

  127. I’m click through the TV channels the other day and Rajendra K. Pachauri the chairman of the IPCC is being interveiw on Indian TV.

    He said that the children of the world understand golbal climate change and they would make sure we would do the right thing. {OR something like that}

    If I remember my history, A Pope said something like “give me a child until seven and they’ll been mine for the rest of their lives”

    Hitler tried it on as well with the Hitler Youth, are we now going to see an IPCC green world young group?

Comments are closed.