Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
There is a core of uber-consulting professionals, jetting around the world advising companies, governments and NGO’s. They are well-educated, have impeccable resumes and travel more than George Clooney did in ‘Up in the Air.’ They work for companies like McKinsey, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and a handful of others.
Rajendra Pachauri is one such, coming from the Tata school of consultancy. He is charismatic, projecting leadership qualities and obviously considers himself a polymath, able to lead a secretariat of the UN, continue his professional duties and write a popular bodice ripper of a novel.
Sadly, like so many other uber-consultants, Pachauri’s leadership qualities have been more apparent than real. While others are using the current troubles at the IPCC as a reason to argue for his resignation, they are really more of a symptom of the real problems.
Because the IPCC is very small and its primary mission is to produce a report once every five or six years, it is vulnerable to the type of leadership Pachauri apparently provides–detached, aloof, hands-off. That Pachauri had time to write a book during the firestorm of Climategate and COP-15 is evidence that, whatever his capabilities, his performance at the IPCC was not sufficiently engaged. His shabby treatment of IPCC scientists regarding the error on Himalayan glaciers is more of an exclamation point than anything else.
Roger Pielke Jr. and others are saying Pachauri should resign because of conflicts of interest. Pachauri is director of TERI and advises third parties on energy policy and investment decisions. Pielke is right in saying that Pachauri would not meet the standards for avoiding conflicts of interest in many other organisations, including other UN bodies. But those standards are not in place at the IPCC, although they are recommended in yesterday’s report from the InterAcademy Council.
I also think Pachauri should resign. But not because of conflicts of interest. His continued involvement with TERI, his taking time to write a book, his hectic social schedule all point to another, more serious problem. His detached style of leadership has coincided with a period of continuous problems at the organisation he leads. And I’m not referring to the occasional error that inevitably slips into their huge assessment reports. The IPCC has not moved with the times during Pachauri’s tenure. They have not adapted to an age of the Internet in facilitating communications.
They have not recognised the political pressure that environmental organisations are trying to put on national and international governments and institutions. This has led to a careless over use of ‘grey’ literature, which is not peer reviewed and often has a clear point to push. The IPCC has not instituted a clear and effective way of dealing with mistakes, despite it getting ever easier to do this. Perhaps most damaging, the IPCC has adopted a view on communications that is from another century, focused on getting their message out, as opposed to listening and responding.
These are classic failures of leadership. Nobody but Rajendra Pachauri is responsible for these problems. Good leadership would have corrected them years ago. Detached leadership smiles and writes a book. Pachauri played socialite while his organisation stagnated. He received awards–not just the Nobel Prize, which he shared with Al Gore, but also the French Legion of Honour, Order of the White Rose from Finland, and the Padma Bhushan from his native India. He is apparently his organisation’s chief press officer, and its ambassador as well, flying all over the world to meetings and conferences. And yes, he does have other interests, including the Tata Energy Research Institute.
The IPCC’s–and Rajendra Pachauri’s–real problem is not a conflict of interest. It is a lack of interest. Pachauri fiddled while the IPCC foundered. He should go.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Good article, but I would like to see the issue taken a step further. Not only should Pachauri go, . . .
. . . THE ENTIRE IPCC SHOULD GO.
. . . and then after that, the hockey stick’, climate models (at least the ones that have the ‘CO2 increase temps’ built into them), then Mann, et al . . .
Wishful thinking on my part I guess . . .
You might want to edit the post because Tata has not been formally associated with Teri since 2003. From Wikipedia:
“TERI registered in Delhi in 1974 as the Tata Energy Research Institute. As the scope of its activities widened over a period of time, it was renamed The Energy and Resources Institute in 2003.”
My simple vote is for his resignation.
“That Pachauri had time to write a book during the firestorm of Climategate and COP-15 is evidence that . . .”
Well, to be perfectly honest, I took it as evidence that it doesn’t take a whole lot of engagement to write a bodice ripper; although I freely admit that I am biased toward that opinion. Might even, during a period of high stress, be a good way to blow off some, ummm . . .steam. Yeah, steam. That’s what I was thinking all along.
Remember also that Pachauri, as all top UN officials, was a political appointment. He was sanctioned by Bush.
There is definitely a case that such people should be given limited terms of tenure.
“They have not recognised the political pressure that environmental organisations are trying to put on national and international governments and institutions.”
Thomas, they recognized it only too well and used it and pushed it DELIBERATELY to exercise this pressure on governments. Indeed his use of grey literature (specifically WWF and Greenpeace tracts) are evidence of it. He opened his doors to these organizations and gave them the most powerful voice they had ever had. They rose from freshman high-jinx – hanging signs on buildings, exciting larks at sea and the like, to one of the ugliest conglomerates of fear and garnishers of world power. Imagine an environmental group saying to skeptics or anyone for that matter:
***We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few. ***
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/damage-control-greenpeace-removes-threats/
The prizes Pachauri received were enabling. They gave him ultra-arrogance and plenipotentiary powers that were on the brink of destroying the world economy for ever.
Reading the financial report of KPMG on Pachauri and TERI shows that Pachauri is the climate science Shirley Sherrod.
Our attitude, as shown above, gives the impression that we are the Andrew Breitbart of climate science.
He is not but one of the many, like you say, uber-consulting professionals, jetting around the world advising companies, governments and NGO’s., so he will be replaced by some other-and younger- devil’s apprentice.
Many years I wondered what a noble man could be, till I found the answer: “A noble man is he who never surrenders his principles”. In “modern” and “civilized” times those who are not have flourished like deadly bacteria on a petri dish or like worms onto a decaying corpse.
We can’t do anything but just wait for the end of times and pray.
These comments makes us look bad, as if we are like those conspiracy theorists who believe that climate change is a communist plot for world domination. We should be careful with our comments.
Pachauri is only guilty of failure of leadership if his goal was to present an impartial assessment of the science. If his goal was to provide fodder for the Green Machine leading up to Copenhagen, he did a bang up job. The real question is: did the AR4 contain misinformation and violate the IPCC’s own rules regarding use of gray literature etc., despite his leadership, or because of it? It’s the difference between nonfeasance and misfeasance.
Is there any evidence that Pachauri was actually unaware of what was going into the IPCC products? Or is he perhaps going to be thrown under the bus for getting caught?
An IPCC “on steroids” needed asap.
Couldn’t have said it any better, despite the inviting target that Pachauri presents on so many levels. Leadership, even management, requires much different qualities than consultantcy.
“If you don’t drink your milk I’ll call Patchy…”
I support the call for Rajendra Pachauri ‘s resignation from the IPCC, immediately.
My further call is that he be prohibited from further participation in any UN activity in the future as well. Time for Pachauri to stop occupying positions of public trust at the UN.
Also, some of his IPCC vice chairs should be removed immediately. Need new blood right now to ensure that for AR5 it is not the business -as-usual that was practiced in the AR4 prep.
Likewise, some of the WG1, WG2 & WG3 Co-Chairs and Vice Chairs should be removed. Again, need new blood to ensure that for AR5 it is not the business -as-usual that was practiced in the AR4 prep.
Likewise, the editors and lead authors of all 3 WGs need new faces in enough numbers to shake up the old habits formed in the AR4 prep.
Any argument against the above replacements/shakeups because they might delay the AR5 cannot have merit because the issue is trust not schedule. IPCC cannot any longer compromise trust. We need an AR5 that can be trusted even if later rather than an AR5 sooner that has the same old lack of trust problems.
John
“And I’m not referring to the occasional error that inevitably slips into their huge assessment reports.”
Really, you want to go with that characterization of the errors in the report ? Slips into ??? like on a bar of soap ?
in some organizations a sloppy leader with an obvious agenda wouldn’t be reflective of the workers within that organization but in this case you are simply trying to scapegoat him and ignore the obvious biases of the entire team …
nice try …
The IPCC’s–and Rajendra Pachauri’s–real problem is not a conflict of interest. It is a lack of interest. Pachauri fiddled while the IPCC foundered. He should go.
———————————————————————————–
Wrong! He didn’t fiddle while the IPCC foundered. He exploited his position in it for his other interests while it foundered. That is execrable.
Doug
It is time to do the honorable thing and resign.
The epitome of a greedy, narcissistic, dirty old man. No wonder he and Obama get along so well.
Once he had it all,
Fame and power and money.
What was done with that?
============
Guys…the IPCC is NOT going to be scraped.
So…lets try and keep it weak.
Pachauri’s the man for the job. A vote to keep him at the head is a vote to keep the IPCC weak.
Leave the shallow little money grubber where he is, I say. He is a perfect representation of what the entire IPCC is. Heaven help the free world, should the IPCC replace him with a competent leader.
I say no, he is about as inept as it gets, that’s a good thing. So keep him as long as possible, as the face of the money grubbing politicians.
I would not assume that Pachauri would be replaced by anyone better. It’s more important to push for the procedural changes from the IAC report.
I see Dr. Pachauri as presenting a face of questionable behaviour and self-interest within the IPCC. If the IPCC doesn’t go, then I think Dr. Pachauri should stay in charge. Every day he is in charge of the IPCC is another day that the IPCC stature’s is diminished, and an ineffective IPCC is a good thing.
This is much too mild.
Pachauri’s charity, TERI, was paid millions in grants to study the glaciers in the Himalayas as a direct consequence of the claim in AR4 that they would vanish by 2035 leaving billions of people without water supplies. He used this grant money to employ Syed Hussain to lead the research, the same man who first made the erroneous claim which AR4 had repeated.
TERI, after recieving all this money to study the problem, seem not to have noticed that the glaciers were not melting very fast, in fact some were expanding. They seem not to have advised there own boss, Pachauri, of the obvious mistake in the AR4 report.
When a local glaciologist pointed out the obvious mistake in AR4, Pachauri, wearing his hat as chairman of the IPCC, poured scorn on the whistleblower and called him a voodoo scientist. Pachauri then took weeks to admit there was a mistake in AR4. After admitting he was wrong to say the AR4 report was correct he said he was not responsible for the errors and was washing his hands of the whole affair.
Pachauri’s life style, and the spending of TERI’s money to build a sumptuous HQ with it’s own water guzzling golf course, is incompatable with being a chairman of the IPCC
paulw said:
August 31, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Martin C: . . . THE ENTIRE IPCC SHOULD GO.
. . . and then after that, the hockey stick’, climate models (at least the ones that have the ‘CO2 increase temps’ built into them), then Mann, et al . . .
These comments makes us look bad, as if we are like those conspiracy theorists who believe that climate change is a communist plot for world domination. We should be careful with our comments.
Paul, Are you being sarcastic with these comments? I cant’ tell.
If not, you are wholly mistaken about “us” and what Martin C said. Saying the IPCC, hockey stick, climate models with built in CO2 and Mann should go is actually quite rational based on everything we know. The statement doesn’t imply conspiracy or communist plots to me at least.
Over time a lie cannot survive so I really don’t think it matters if he stays or goes. If he stays the IPCC loose what little credibility it has, if he is replaced by someone competent CWAG will likely continue the recent trajectory and loose any credibility or importance it had.
Why stand in the way of his making a fool of himself and the IPCC?…an icon on how not to do science under the banner of the UN.
Lomborg knows how to market his next book… pouah!
I think he has to return to Almora
Keep him there hes doing a wonderful job for the skeptics LOL
Missing the Point
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/08/missing-point.html
I think the IPCC should hang around for the next two decades, at least. Then they should be demanded to explain why the world is freezing and starving to death because the IPCC failed to warn of the Grand Solar Minimum that has just begun and will be in full force by 2030.
It is planetary mechanics which drives climate; CO2 can only come along for the ride.
The IPCC cannot be reformed or improved. It was set up to find evidence of man’s influence on climate and it has done that. It is fundamentally flawed. However, too many finely-scented ar*se-holes have their bums in the butter, so the charade will continue, rather like Marie Antoinette in her peasant’s hovel…. or Potemkin’s villages …or …. oh, there are so many examples of elites just losing touch with reality, until they lost touch with their heads.
Very provocative ,Tom,but you’ve provided the evidence for why Pachauri led the way you allege: it’s a shoestring organisation,built around volunteerism,per diems and limited staffing. Assign funding ,staffing and real infrastructure and they would move with your times.
You implicitly criticise Pachauri for not gaining better funding and staffing,which could improve its responsiveness.. But if the IPCC demanded and received better resources,he’d be bagged for empire-building and seeking undue influence,given the ideological hostility they face.
Given the IAC report recommends new leadership every reporting period, and his long service Pachauri,will go soon at a realistic time.
Martin C is exactly right, for this reason:
The IPCC was not established to do science. It was created for the express purpose of lending institutional weight to the article of faith among the enviro-leftists that mankind was causing ‘global warming’ and that urgent action would be required to save the Earth from this purely imaginary catastrophe.
It is as if a huge bureaucracy was created to amass documentary evidence that inside the Earth was a giant fledgling chick, ready to hatch and burst our fragile world asunder. The aim is to terrify the population and begin vast projects to still that dangerous young life before it hatches. Never mind if real scientists say it’s all poppycock.*
You cannot prejudice the conclusion of a scientific investigation without fatally skewering the science. The IPCC should be unceremoniously abolished.
/Mr Lynn
* This of course was the plot of an amazing story by the late Nelson Bond, “And Lo! The Bird.” Except there it was real: http://tinyurl.com/2bka5qg
redbubble? where did that link come from?
I recall back in January or so you predicted Pachauri would be gone by now. He seems to be drawing it out as long and painfully as he can.
I agree with Ed Forbes; David, UK; tarpon; Orkneygal; and Stephan. Let Pachauri keep his little sinecure, let him write an Almora sequel, and let the IPCC ride off into the sunset as quickly as possible. It’ll be a welcome contrast to the Zombie Hockey Stick, the thing that refuses to die, no matter how many times it’s killed.
What is that strange silence I hear from the Nobel committee?
IPCC’s Pachauri should resign for “failures of leadership”
Why should he? He set up a residual oil extraction company and is currently its scientific advisor.
/end sarc /
http://www.glorioil.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=10
It’s a sign of how far the IPCC’s status has dropped that there are so few comments (so far) on this posting and the one about the IAC report on the IPCC. This is about chickens coming home to roost and these outcomes were long ago predicted here at WUWT. It’s almost like deja vu.
I echo the calls for the IPCC to be disbanded.
Conservation is good. Encouraging efficiencies is good. Speedier development of poor nations is good. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, and by extension reducing our support of unpleasant regimes, is good too. There was never a need for a fake consensus based on contentions, complex and at times poorly understood science for people to move in that direction. Neither is there a need for a global regime of carbon taxes or and a form of global Government.(Which *are* what the UN wants.)
The arguments for those positive outcomes can all be made using just politics and economics. Africa would benefit greatly it if was no longer hooked on subsidies. Countryside tends to be better protected by wealthier nations so let’s raise the income of the poorest by trading with them. Their income rises, our cost of living falls. Fossil fuels may or may not be limited in supply but detaching the cost of living from oil prices would surely be a good thing. I do not take kindly to people living a jet-set lifestyle lecturing me on how to be eco-friendly.
The very being of the UN is to bind nations together. This conflagration inhibits nations doing their own thing and slows down the responsiveness of the international community. It is stifling innovation. More unilateral action is what is needed! Competition between nations and between institutions to find practical solutions to actual problems is what is consistently missing from the UN-led efforts to combat the perceived man-made climate change. What we have instead is massively expensive white elephants for prestige purposes – the UK wind farm target and the EU nuclear fission project are two that spring to mind.
For as long as the IPCC has existed it has mostly served as an excuse for inaction, taxpayer funded jollies to holiday resorts (and Copenhagen) and props up potty answers to a *potential* problem. It is riddled with vested interests and highly susceptible to fraud.(see: Clean development mechanism, carbon credits, REDD, etc) We do not need them. Redistribute wealth by choice through trade and nations can afford their own climate change adaption programmes, if they chose to spend anything on it at all.
@paulw says:
August 31, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“…as if we are like those conspiracy theorists who believe that climate change is a communist plot for world domination….”
Václav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, who I dare say knows far more about communism than you or I, might disagree vehemently with you:
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/266
“…They need not do it because the climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, which is a new anti-individualistic, pseudo-collectivistic ideology based on putting nature and environment and their supposed protection and preservation before and above freedom. That’s one of the reasons why my recently published book on this topic has a subtitle: “What is Endangered, Climate or Freedom?”….”
Now get off your high horse.
@paulw says:
August 31, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“…as if we are like those conspiracy theorists who believe that climate change is a communist plot for world domination….”
Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, who I dare say knows far more about communism than you or I, might vehemently disagree with you:
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/266
“…They need not do it because the climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, which is a new anti-individualistic, pseudo-collectivistic ideology based on putting nature and environment and their supposed protection and preservation before and above freedom. That’s one of the reasons why my recently published book on this topic has a subtitle: “What is Endangered, Climate or Freedom?”….”
Now get off your politically correct high horse.
Pachauri was appointed to help achieve the objective as defined by the UN . . supranational government control over the very underpinning of national economic development, CO2.
How can they fire him when he points to the fact that he has met his job description requirements? I mean it’s not his fault the scientific underpinnings of the AGW enterprise are crap.
No , I see a dignified retirement ( dudes 70 anyway ) attached to a huge golden parachute followed by the appointment of someone who looks less like a love guru. A nice, bland, Australian fellow traveler probably.
Mind you having just read about Prof Lomberg switching sides it’s rather obvious that this particular (AGW) horse has died . . . professional contrarians don’t like being in the mainstream.
Keith Battye says:
August 31, 2010 at 11:52 pm
“Mind you having just read about Prof Lomberg switching sides it’s rather obvious that this particular (AGW) horse has died . . . professional contrarians don’t like being in the mainstream.”
Makes sense in theory but, as is clear from his books, particularly ‘Cool It,’ Lomborg didn’t really switch sides.
Also:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100051954/but-lomborg-was-always-a-warmist/
It’s weird really. While the IPCC scientists expend billions fantasising about the end of the world their leader expends company time writing a book fantasising about getting his end away. Synchronicity?
The IPCC is not a small body, it is the public face of the UNFCC. Yes, the IPCC should go and so should the UNFCCC and its interminable COP’s. Keep Pachauri; if he goes they will say the IPCC has been cleansed and will carry on, only with a bigger budget.
The false claims are still in AR4, beyond the headline glacier one. For example, unsupportable claims on ocean acidification are already the starting point in AR5, ie, “we know the oceans are becoming more acid”…
This is some vindication but not yet a victory.
I’m over the moon that the best the UK Guardian could do to counter the Express headlines “CLIMATE CHANGE LIES EXPOSED”, was headlines to embrace “skeptic changed sides” Bjorn Lomborg who, as stated above, was always a warmist.
TERI was first established in 1974 as the Tata Energy Research Institute, (TERI), based in New Delhi. Dr Pachauri became Director in 1981 and Director-General in 2001.
In an interview15 with the Times of India, December 21st, 2009, he was quite unequivocal about TERI’s links with the Tata group. Pachauri said, ‘‘Our ties ended when Darbari Seth, who was on our board, died in 1999. We haven’t received a single penny from Tatas for years and have no ties with them.’’ He added that TERI submits its yearly accounts to the government under Section 12 of the income tax law. ‘‘We fully comply with all government laws,’’ he said.
There is a worrying discrepancy between Dr Pachauri’s claim that any ties ended in 1999 and a report in the Indian Express of January 22, 2003 which described the change of name of the Tata Energy Research Institute to The Energy and Resources Institute on January 21st 2003, still of course, TERI, although communication manager Annapurna Vancheswaran was quick to comment at the time, “We have not severed our past relationship16 with the Tatas. It’s only (the change of name) for convenience.” Clearly, TERI was still the Tata Energy Research Institute for four years after Pachauri claims all ties had ended.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/no_fossil_fool.html
It was still the Tata Energy and Resources Institute in 2001, when Dr Pachauri received $45,000 from the Alfred P Sloan Foundation: http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/annual_reports/2001_annual_report.pdf
GLOBALIZATION, OFFICER GRANT – Tata Energy and Resources Institute Arlington, VA 22209 – $45,000 for support to plan a project to involve western businesses in poverty alleviation. Project Director: R. K.Pachauri, President.
Harold T Shapiro, (Chairman of the IAC committee looking into the IPCC), was Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Sloan Foundation at the time. http://wws.princeton.edu/people/data/h/hts/CV.pdf
The foundation still sponsors TERI-NA: http://www.terina.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24
John Whitman says:
August 31, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I support the call for Rajendra Pachauri ‘s resignation from the IPCC, immediately.
My further call is that he be prohibited from further participation in any UN activity in the future as well. Time for Pachauri to stop occupying positions of public trust at the UN.
Also, some of his IPCC vice chairs should be removed immediately. Need new blood right now to ensure that for AR5 it is not the business -as-usual that was practiced in the AR4 prep.
Likewise, some of the WG1, WG2 & WG3 Co-Chairs and Vice Chairs should be removed. Again, need new blood to ensure that for AR5 it is not the business -as-usual that was practiced in the AR4 prep.
Likewise, the editors and lead authors of all 3 WGs need new faces in enough numbers to shake up the old habits formed in the AR4 prep.
Any argument against the above replacements/shakeups because they might delay the AR5 cannot have merit because the issue is trust not schedule. IPCC cannot any longer compromise trust. We need an AR5 that can be trusted even if later rather than an AR5 sooner that has the same old lack of trust problems.
—————————–
Long before the IAC report was made public the selections for AR5
writers were made: 60 % of the teams (about 500 persons) are new,
including most chapter leaders.
Lack of trust in IPCC is a problem for you sceptics mainly. True: the
general public is confused and uneasy. I blame the media mostly.
IAC suggested a lot of targeted reforms, precisely because they
know that IPCC is important and scientifically sound.
Gareth says:
August 31, 2010 at 6:30 pm
I echo the calls for the IPCC to be disbanded.
….
For as long as the IPCC has existed it has mostly served as an excuse for inaction, taxpayer funded jollies to holiday resorts (and Copenhagen) and props up potty answers to a *potential* problem. It is riddled with vested interests and highly susceptible to fraud.(see: Clean development mechanism, carbon credits, REDD, etc) We do not need them. Redistribute wealth by choice through trade and nations can afford their own climate change adaption programmes, if they chose to spend anything on it at all.
__________________
You guys don’t seem to get it: IPCC does not pay writers or chair persons,
nor Pauchuri. Don’t mix governmental summits (Copenhagen), Kyoto
mechanisms (CDM) and programs (REDD) with IPCC.
In fact the IAC report, which, I understand, is rather to your liking at WUWT,
proposes to pay fees and salaries to key persons, grants for developing country participants for attending meetings etc.
Well educated people tend to believe stuff the average peasant would react to by demanding “Prove it!”
The UN has proved time and again that it is a wonderful mechanism for advancing careers for its often dubious insiders without acheiving much of any real worth, apart from a few ‘show trials’ of war criminals in various theatres long after the deeds. A friend who voluntarily drove trucks full of food and medical supplies in aid convoys in the Balkan nastiness of recent memory was scathing about that august body and was convinced that the UN, as he experienced it in a wartime context, was spectacularly and expensively useless for its stated purpose, but was a wonderfully effective gravy train for those who had swallowed their principles and boarded it.
In my view, the IPCC was formed to promote an agenda; now the actual and real scientific evidence against that agenda is emerging, the IPCC and its spurious aims must be disbanded and abandoned.
Dear Mr Pihlstrom; where on earth did you get the hilarious idea that the MSM is mostly at fault for the world-wide phenomenon of Joe Public deciding they don’t trust the Warmers and their message that we are all doomed by producing plant food.
I suggest you do a small piece of research – go in to a random newspaper’s ‘morgue’ and count the pro-warming articles vs the articles sceptical of AGW. You may learn something!
Another one from the UK Press:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7974521/IPCCs-Rajendra-Pachauri-is-damaging-the-world.html
An article criticising Pachauri from Geoffrey Lean, no less, who has been an open AGW supporter in many other articles previously.
Alexander K says:
September 1, 2010 at 3:52 am
Dear Mr Pihlstrom; where on earth did you get the hilarious idea that the MSM is mostly at fault for the world-wide phenomenon of Joe Public deciding they don’t trust the Warmers and their message that we are all doomed by producing plant food.
I suggest you do a small piece of research – go in to a random newspaper’s ‘morgue’ and count the pro-warming articles vs the articles sceptical of AGW. You may learn something!
—————————
I was refering to the IPCC review as presented by the press; overall
sloppy and inacccurate reporting + deliberate misrepresentation from
in the worst cases.
For instance, Express: “A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims
about global warming.”
Compare that to the IAC text:
“The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been
successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many
thousands of the world’s leading scientists andother experts to the
assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our
understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible
adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in
its own right.”
“Our task was to broadly assess the processes and procedures of the IPCC
and make recommendations on how they might be improved in order
to enhance the quality and authoritative nature of future assessments.”
In other words they did not primarily evaluate the science, but still
praised it many times.
vigilantfish says:
August 31, 2010 at 6:24 pm
It’s a sign of how far the IPCC’s status has dropped that there are so few comments (so far) on this posting and the one about the IAC report on the IPCC. This is about chickens coming home to roost and these outcomes were long ago predicted here at WUWT. It’s almost like deja vu.
——————-
Has IPCC’s status really dropped?
– at WUWT it has been constantly low, no drop here
– the IAC report suggests procedural improvements to raise IPCC’s status
– the IPCC 2007 report is still the standard reference for scientists and
governments in the Western world
– such a broad summary is perhaps not so needed in the near future
– IAC was supportive, only Pauchuri was kind of targeted – that may
be a political move, remove him to appease non-informed citizens
UK Sceptic says:
September 1, 2010 at 1:31 am
It’s weird really. While the IPCC scientists expend billions fantasising about the end of the world their leader expends company time writing a book fantasising about getting his end away. Synchronicity?
————–
Again the IPCC scientists don’t spend billions. They do the work for
free, considering it their duty to society, I would guess.
As the IAC report points out, this represents a huge monetary value, which is
taken from personal time or research time.
Dear Mikael,
Why did you go to the trouble of quoting me, then following it with a long list of irrelevant justifications, given the context you had set by quoting me, supporting the IPCC? Because of your odd and provably mistaken idea that the MSM has been actively promoting the sceptical message, I attempted to point out to you how you can prove for yourself that the MSM has been very firmly in the Warmist camp, with a few notable exceptions, up to very recently.
But perhaps your convictions are more meaningful to you than actual evidence.
mikael pihlström,
Thanks for your response to my comment: John Whitman says; August 31, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I have not checked your numbers yet about the ~60% new faces on the AR5 team. I will double check. But even if there is a >50% turnover from AR4 to AR5, we still have the concern of the IAC as follows:
So, I am already uncomfortable with the new faces if more transparency of the selection process was not implemented and it is just the buddies of the old IPCC crews.
Who to blame for the AR4 shame? It is the IPCC itself. It was openly biased for an anthropogenic cause of GW. They did not follow even their own biased rules.
I think there is a broader issue about why the world chose to implement such a flawed concept/model as the IPCC as a venue for climate assessment. It is the concept/model that inherently supports more authoritarian models of government. My impression is that the more ideological environmental groups are fundamentally anti-capitalistic, therefore they seem to be supporters of more authoritarian types of government rather than the most free of the democracies/republics. I support an approach to climate assessment that involves no government. If you wish I can discuss this further with you.
John
JimF
The website you cite (http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/266) mentions a story from 2007. The following links are from 2009 or newer.
This is how newspapers such as the Guardian talk about Václav Klaus and his views on climate change:
Czech leader joins meeting of climate change deniers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers
Vaclav Klaus: climate denial’s mythical man
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/19/vaclav-klaus
EU’s new figurehead believes climate change is a myth
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5430362.ece
I think people are missing a significant aesthetic point here. He also needs to go because of his increasingly obvious and ugly hairpiece. Those jetting in first class around the world must be becoming increasingly embarrased by his company. A bad look for the climate…
mikael pihlström said: “You guys don’t seem to get it: IPCC does not pay writers or chair persons, nor Pauchuri. Don’t mix governmental summits (Copenhagen), Kyoto mechanisms (CDM) and programs (REDD) with IPCC.
In fact the IAC report, which, I understand, is rather to your liking at WUWT, proposes to pay fees and salaries to key persons, grants for developing country participants for attending meetings etc.”
You do realise that the Copenhagen climate change conference, the clean development mechanism and the IPCC are all done under the auspices of the UN don’t you?
Governments pay the bills of the UN including for the work relating to IPCC reports, and Governments get their money from taxpayers. What the UN ultimately wants is a source of income that is largely independent of the member nations. The usual suggestion is a simple 0.7% GDP tithe. My view is that this is a vested interest driving the shoddy claims made about climate and it would be wise to prevent it. Not by keeping the UN as it is (funded at the whim of national Governments) but by demolishing the entire thing.
At the moment the CDM, REDD and other projects enable member nations to increase tax revenues so there is a surplus that can go to the UN. They are UN or UN endorsed projects. Why do we never see member nations announcing that they will meet the peer pressure obligations of contributing to a climate change fighting fund by reducing the operations of their own Government so taxpayers are not relieved of even more money? The various revenue raising projects recieve UNFCCC approval precisely because a portion of the funds they will raise will one day be at the disposal of the UN.
The UN *is* out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop until it has its own source of income.
mikael pihlström “Again the IPCC scientists don’t spend billions. They do the work for
free, considering it their duty to society, I would guess.
As the IAC report points out, this represents a huge monetary value, which is
taken from personal time or research time.”
They may do their IPCC “duty” gratis but their reports, as acted on by politicians and warmist pressure groups, is costing us billions and wrecking western economies. How many of these scientists are funded by taxpayers to carry out research to support their “findings”?
Gareth says:
September 1, 2010 at 7:16 am
America should simply resign from the UN.
That will dry up a large splodge of wonga and others will follow.
It is very hard to identify anything useful that comes from the UN that the USA doesn’t drive, pay for and take most of the criticism for it.
The UN has had it’s day.
I disagree with this.
It is scapegoating Pachauri to avoid a real analysis of conflicts of interest. They fire Pach and all is forgiven in the past, look to the future!!! The real problem is not that Pachauri was a bad leader.. It is that the organization was such that Pachauri was given an option to lead in the first place.
Don’t fire Pachauri.. Audit the whole mess for conflicting interests. THEN we can engage in some dialogue.
Keith Battye;
Agreed, US has to leave the UN – just saw where the UN is giving North Korea $290 million in aid.
And yes, I know it’s off topic.
DCC says:
August 31, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Given the boners the Peace Prize Committee has awarded lately, I would be hiding as well if I were them.
For some strange reason, Rajendra Pachauri’s photo for this article reminded me of Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin…
paulw says:
September 1, 2010 at 7:05 am
That you have the temerity to reference The Guardian’s opinion in the matter of AGW completely debunks your authority. And, despite which articles, Vaclav hasn’t changed his tune since 2007, nor has he lost any credibility or experience in his views of communism and the similarities of that system to present-day environmentalism. (Gee they both end with ism).
No, no, no, no, no, no. My “confidence in the IPCC” is not “restored” by a PR message on review procedure and openness, even when it’s delivered with a message spinning Rajendra Pachauri’s corruption as just not paying enough attention.
The IPCC has no legitimate reason to exist.
Rejecting articles without reading them is bad form. I am happy to read from different sources and establish if they represent credible information.
You quoted Vaclav from 2007, I quoted him with three articles (two from the Guardian, one from the (London) Times).
And here is another article from Dec 2009, the speech that Vaclav Klaus gave at the Washington Times Climate Change Policy Conference,
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/872
Do you still describe Vaclav Klaus as a ‘communist’ that believes that the climate is changing (due to humans)?
We, as blog commenters, have disparate views and we lack a direction.
I do not see us having a credible view on the issue of climate change. This needs to change. We can’t say at one time “there is no human-induced climate change” and then claim “the Earth is moving to an ice age so if we pump CO2 we make Earth warmer”.
We need to get a direction and tone down our responses. Otherwise, we appear as angry people.
No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous. ~Henry Brooks Adams, The Education of Henry Adams, 1907
@paulw says:
September 2, 2010 at 4:08 am
“…We, as blog commenters, have disparate views and we lack a direction.
I do not see us having a credible view on the issue of climate change….”
You speak for yourself there. My view is informed by my degrees in geology, and by reading the works and commentary of people expert in other fields. Global warming may currently be remarkable, but in 4.5 billion years it never got out of hand; and based on the last 5 million years, a glacier is right around the corner.
And where do you possibly come up with the following comment?
“…Do you still describe Vaclav Klaus as a ‘communist’ that believes that the climate is changing (due to humans)?…”
Klaus – in my opinion, based on his biography and statements – is an ANTI-COMMUNIST who ascribes to climate warming fear-mongers the traits of the Communists he knows so well and despises. Reading a statement such as the one you so kindly provided (below), how could anyone doubt that?
“…Quoting Vaclav Klaus: The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, [..] came up with the idea of global warming.
[Calling for a market solution to climate change] reminds me of the communist planners who similarly talked about “using market instruments” when they finally came to the conclusion that “planning instruments” did not work….”
Guys,
I suggest to quote Klaus completely. He said: “The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas – population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes – that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming.”
Non-existent population bomb? Yes, becaue the world population is decreasing. Non-existent rapid exhaustion of resources. Yes, because resources are always increasing, see deep water drills because there is a depletion of landbound oil wells. Non-existent global cooling? He is perfectly right, global warming is the issue. Non-existent acid rains? Yes, the lakes in Scandinavia were never acidified, only fish died for whatever reason. And rain pH in many countries including the U.S., Europe and China never decreased below pH 5.6! Non-existent ozone holes? Yes, all the satellites images are fakes. The scientists misinterpreted Dobson units.
Vaclav Klaus is a better scientist than all scientists of the world!