With Rajenda K. Pachauri now “toast“, and an AR6 in the works, this is this most logical choice forward.
Guest essay by Tom Fuller
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Nominate Judith Curry as the next Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, will elect a new chair this year. The post is currently being filled by an interim chair following the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri.
The United States has currently nominated Dr. Chris Field. We petition the current administration to withdraw his nomination and instead nominate Judith Curry.
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her integrity, understanding of the science and related policy issues make her a better choice, for the IPCC and American interests as well.
SIGNATURES NEEDED BY APRIL 03, 2015 TO REACH GOAL OF 100,000
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
more effective if the typos were fixed: “currentlynominaredDr. Chris Field”
Typos not fixed yet:
“The United States has currentlynominaredDr. Chris Field.”
I think this would be a very good move. She would bring a much needed improvement to the IPCC.
I don’t think she should be nominated. Why? She would give the IPCC some much needed credibility. I liked Pachauri there. 😉
Pachauri did more for sceptics than we fully understand. All Himalayan glaciers melted by 2035 via voodoo science! Sexual harassment allegations via ‘hacked’ emails, phones, hands and lips!
Dittos, jimbo, in fact, the whole commission needs to be re-created because CO2 has become too obviously impotent at dominating the global climate machine. With the recent admission of Micheal Mann that oceanic oscillation has explained the Pause the “Carbon Commission” Appears to be too narrow in it’s scope!
Yes, precisely, Jimbo. And Napoleon’s advice agrees with that of generations of martial arts instructors. As climate skeptics, our best move might be to lobby for Pachauri to get his job back. After all, the gravy train needs a good engine driver.
I learned from Robert Heinlein’s novel Revolt in 2100 that when you want to topple a power structure, the surest strategy is to eliminate all the competent and reasonable officials and leave the incompetents in place.
Moreover, who but a sadist would wish the IPPC chairmanship on Judith Curry? What has she done to deserve such a nightmarish job?
If we sceptics are right, then why do we need the IPCC? The IPCC was set up to look at man made ’causes’ of ‘climate change’ and mitigation. If our greenhouse gases means a negligible role in ‘climate change’, then why do we need the IPCC? Most of us say this is a non problem, our co2 output and a little warmth this century will be largely beneficial. Climate sensitivity looks to be on the low side. Model projections for surface temps have failed badly.
It is not allowed to falsify?
And Donna Laframboise as Human Resources Manager.
Seconded!
Holy smokes Tom, you don’t think Judy would hate this? Surely you ran it by her.
I say this because of her comment here.
Maybe – you better check – The job description doesn’t include any time in the lab.
It might well be a good idea, but I feel those involved with the IPCC would hate it. They do not want someone who may be more scientific, rather they want another alarmist.
The only thing that matters to the pretend Nobel Laureates is the continuation of the gravy train!
I have no scientific training; should I volunteer my services from Australia? I could become used to it.
Oh. After thinking this through I get that obviously the Obama Administration isn’t going to do this regardless, so…
Mark, I think you are right. Obummer would never do this, but… wouldn’t it be great to send a message to the commander-in-chief, several hundred thousand signatures, each a testament that he is full of crap! That would make a great headline story.
She will introduce the necessary balance between science and the open minded dialog.
Just so long as she doesn’t curry flavors.
“What, me curry?”
Shirley you’re joking.
GROOOAAAAANNNNN 🙂
If anyone truly wants to get at the truth about climate change, she is the best candidate out there. Her record speaks for itself. She should be trusted by everyone.
How is Judith Curry qualified to be the new UN IPCC Chair? What exactly does she know about Remaking The World Economy and Transforming the world’s economic development model?
There was remarkably little attention in the media to that grand, sweeping sentence, don’t you think? What exactly does it mean? How is it to be accomplished?
She has not a clue about railways.
Therefore, she is not suitable.
Great questions Paul in Sweden. As someone once said regarding the UN: “who elected these guys to run the planet?”. That’s another great question.
I think Anthony Watts would be a better choice.
Dr. Judy Curry does not deserve such horrid treatment!
That position is only a reward for a devoted alarmist EU bureaucracy a__ kisser. A balanced scientific perceiving scientist would suffer unduly receiving orders/advice from those toadys. Even trying to educate them is a cruel task for one person.
Dr. Curry as head of NASA, Yes! Otherwise let her hold her current positions where she swings a high batting average.
Nominate some CAGW government toady to go into the spotlight; then FOI them.
Dr. Curry as head of NOAA, Yes! Now there’s an idea for the next GOP POTUS.
Dr. Curry as head of GISS, that’s the job for her. The Gavin choice was disastrous. First, they made him the PR shill by asking him to set up the realclimate website. After he rode out the rough seas of climategate successfully in that position, heavy-handed moderation and all and brazenly claiming the emails don’t say what the words in them plainly say, then what does GISS do? Make the PR flack the head of the whole darn thing! If that isn’t open admission that this is all about the politics and nothing about the science, then nothing is. But right now the IPCC job is open, and I think getting this petition to 100,000 is a great idea!
Well, I don’t know about Ms Curry – but anyone wanting to take chair of the IPCC , from outside its current ranks – and who might wish to change its unscientific, mostly political approach – is likely to face very strong opposition and a hellish time in office! I certainly wouldn’t take the job without a VERY large salary AND an awful lot of INTERNAL SUPPORT from like minded people. Seriously, even though Curry has warmist sympathy, she (or anyone with even a hint of skepticism, let alone ‘real’ science arguments) would likely be completely ‘corrupted’ by the IPCC political meme, or completely overwhelmed and exhausted trying to fight against it.
My advice would be to leave well alone – if for no other reason than to keep away from something that has become so big and onerous as to be unable to be changed. Also, whilst it may not be a good organisation, the political weight it throws around would mean any ‘head’ of such an organization would face severe degradation if and when the inevitable ‘fall’ does come! Put another way, how many here would like to have ‘I was head of IPCC’ on their CV in the coming years??
I wonder. Does the chair have the authority to appoint lead scientists for each area of the assessment? That would really put the fox among the chickens.
I signed even though it will never happen.
I agree. Dr. Curry would be an excellent choice. But the probability of ISIS converting to Orthodox Jews is higher.
The joke is funny but we all know this isn’t how the IPCC works.
If you want to do it for real find a well-connected, Chinese scientist who is not beholden to Western Government funding.
Me too. Interestingly it accepted my Greek zip code.
A little off topic, but I gotta ask.
What’s the ultimate goal here?
Why day in and day out we sit in front of our screens discussing, blogging, trolling etc whether for informative purposes or just to instill fear into the psyche of the gullible . Is it all talk and no substance?
After a while it just becomes so monotonous, and to what point…….why do it?
I’m sure that for some, its simply there as entertainment, to expose the corruption and transfer of wealth associated with this subject of climate change/global warming or just because they have evidence that would suggest all this is nothing but propaganda.
The point I’m trying to make is that it just can’t be done as a conversation, there has to be a point in which people actually use the info to better their own life….. and I have yet to see anyone reap the benefits from exposing the real agenda behind this subject; because I can tell you all now……. the tool that is being used to attack your personal freedom, your way of life….especially through private property- is this very subject of so-called climate change/global warming.
If up until now people have yet to realize how agenda 21 is only made possible through global warming/climate change mongering……then you’ve got a lot to learn. who cares about all the stats, for this year and that year…. who cares about that b.s. about oceans flooding out major cties, or cares about emails….really? Its a red herring!!!
THEN END GAME IS PROPERTY! that’s why I do this. Its all about property and through property the people shall be controlled. Its never been about pollution, C02 and climate….. at least not to them.
Everything else all talk!
kenin – You have distilled this entire farce down to the Main Driver. While you may take ridicule for such subversive language – try saying “Agenda 21” around the water cooler at work and see what happens – all of the plans and methodologies are there, plainly written and available for all to see. CAGW is merely the tool that digs the grave for the modern, energy-driven way of life. Cue trolls: 1, 2, 3……..
MCR
Nice gesture, but the structure of the IPCC was set up to counteract the type of science necessary to properly address global climate. For a start, they are directed to look at only human causes.
Second, each Report builds on previous Reports, so unless you go back to the beginning you are locked into assumptions and formulas that prevent reaching a truly scientifically derived approach. The system isn’t even set up to allow for a null hypothesis.
Yes, possibly Curry should investigate climate change, but not under the rules, rubrics and procedures of the IPCC. There is a point where fixing the car is no longer an option. This point was reached before the IPCC was established.
Do you remember when Stephen Lewis was the U.N. Special Envoy on HIV / AIDS? He thought he could get things done. Instead, he discovered that the U.N. was set up to look like things were being done; all the while preventing any such thing. Roméo Dallaire had an even worse experience.
Just because you have a high office at the U.N. it doesn’t mean you’re the one pulling the strings. Judith Curry doesn’t deserve that kind of abuse.
Commie Bob,
You’re right. However…
The chair of the IPCC has one really tremendous advantage: the bully pulpit.
Whoever becomes the UN/IPCC chairman can make statements, and they are immediately newsworthy. If someone was the new chair of the IPCC and told the truth for a change, public awareness would rapidly increase, and people would really start to question the whole man-made global warming narrative.
For that reason alone, they cannot place an honest scientist into that position.
So Curry is out.
Tim that is exactly my position too.
I agree. Tom, don’t you fear that stepping into an outfit like IPCC would do more to change Judith Curry than Judith Curry could do to change it? As Tim Ball says, the advocacy of fear is their raison d’etre. Take that away, and they are nothing. Why would anyone want to be in charge of deflating the world’s biggest balloon?
Tim, I agree. Curry couldn’t achieve much since the horses have been out of the gate for too long.
The efforts necessary to manage/direct a turn-around would crush her physically and intellectually and should wouldn’t have the time to “do” science.
All in all, the better solution would be to scrap the IPCC and for everybody to go back to real science instead of consensus-finding.
Tim Ball, 3/4/15 @ur momisugly 9:16 am
IPCC was established by UNEP and WMO in 1988 to assess the state of existing knowledge about climate change: its science, the environmental, economic and social impacts and possible response strategies. http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?DocumentID=43&ArticleID=206&l=en
Instead, and at most a decade later, IPCC altered its charter to be
to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. Bold added, Principles Governing IPCC Work, 10/1/1998.
In other words, the science is settled, it’s time to get on with the regulations and funding.
The chairperson, like the charter, should neither now nor ever in the past have assumed AGW was anything more than a (now failed) conjecture. By its organization, IPCC is a political body, and that’s all it can be. It should be deprived of any mantle that it is a scientific body. That means as a minimum, don’t install a head with a reputation as a scientist, certainly never an AGW agnostic. Better, IPCC should be defunded and abandoned. Don’t even bother with an apology.
Jeff Glassman, you note correctly that the IPCC was set up in 1988 and it had a change in it’s charter look into “human-induced climate change” in 1998.
I too note the following:
• The IPCC was established in 1988.
• The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) was identified in 1994.
• The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) was identified in 1997.
Jimbo, 3/4/2015 @ur momisugly 11:59 pm:
• … AMO … identified … 1994. [¶] • … PDO … identified … 1997.
OK. Therefore are you urging that these events establish that human-induced climate change exists? That it, HICC, is settled? That hence IPCC was justified in modifying its own charter circa 1998 to accommodate the newly discovered, now settled science?
The new discoveries demonstrate that the causes of climate change are unsettled, at least among the consensus of IPCC climatologists. Regional effects, like the AMO and PDO, complicate, not account for, Global Warming. These are details, eddy currents in Earth’s response to global warming, evidence of the deep and surface currents which stir global warming — warming that happens to come from the Sun, and which is stored in the ocean for centuries to a millennium.
Warming: absorbed from the Sun in the cold upwelling at the Equator, some to be given back across the cooling ocean surface, reloading with CO2 along the way (Law of Solubility, William Henry identified 1836), and heading to the main drains at the polls, where, dense from the temperature loss and the CO2 load, any remaining energy plunges to the bottom, to return, some here, a little there, but mostly at the Equator via the vertically rising, spiral currents (Vagn Walfrid Ekman identified 1902) to be reheated, to give up its CO2 load (back to Henry) to the atmosphere, and once again, less dense, to reenter the surface currents with their fine structure, like the AMO and the PDO. QED.
Man is not in the loop. Neither is the IPCC.
Jeff,
“Jimbo, 3/4/2015 @ur momisugly 11:59 pm:
• … AMO … identified … 1994. [¶] • … PDO … identified … 1997.
OK. Therefore are you urging that these events establish that human-induced climate change exists? That it, HICC, is settled? That hence IPCC was justified in modifying its own charter circa 1998 to accommodate the newly discovered, now settled science?
”
No, I believe he’s implying that once the science realized that there were actual physical phenomenon which could account for a lot of what they’d been seeing, the IPCC changed it charter specifically to avoid talking about those things and keep the discussion on how people are evil and need to be reined in.
Tim,
You are absolutely right. I read down the comments until I found one that stated the purpose of the IPCC. Yours did it. Why would Dr. Curry want to be head of a agency whose job it was to prove CAGW?
Just posted this at CE:
“Dr. Curry,
No disrespect to your wishes and expressed preferences, but I plan to add my name and here’s why. If nothing else, should enough folks express support you already substantial visibility might even grow. So folks, I ask that you ignore that our host has stated if selected she will not serve, but let’s make the best use we can of a reasonable voice.
All those in favor:”
If Dr. Curry agrees, I’ll sign up too. But I certainly do not wish to burden her with that job.
No way I’m on board. I’d miss her blog too much!
I don’t think Dr. Curry would wish to have the job; and I think I don’t wish it upon her. Consider what she wrote on her blog yesterday:
While I’m not sure why any scientist/academic would want this (unpaid) position that requires you to travel all over the world and deal with some nasty politics, it seems that there is a strong list of candidates, none of whom would appear to have anything approaching Pachauri’s conflicts of interest.
Sounds good to me, but they will more likely pick someone from a deforestation country with good under reporting and deflection skills and UN report manipulation experience.
I think Dr. Judith Curry would make an excellent chair of the IPCC. But I don’t see that happening. President Obama’s administration wants a warmist to chair the IPCC.
I’m sure she would be a good choice, but a better petition is to junk the whole IPCC and its parent company the U N.
Amen!
a very sensible choice, the IPCC would regain some credibility, but it will not happen because they want an alarmist or an alarmist’s flunky.
Surely James Hansen will get the nod.
My head will surely explode.
See – that would be their plan to kill off all the skeptics.
Speaking of the IPCC … what I am about to mention is just totally strange. I just read a Daily Mail article about the email Jihadi John sent to the Mail back in 2011 or so. The title of the email (image of which was included in today’s article)? “The IPCC Document.”
!!!!!!!!
Well, the fighting in Syria has been blamed on man-made climate change. Apparently the centuries long war among Kurds, Alawites, Shi’a and Sunni Muslims has nothing to do with it.
Different IPCC – Independent Police Complaints Commission