Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored: IPCC's Pachauri says "warming is taking place at a much faster rate"

UPDATE: 11/10 From the Sydney Morning Herald

Michael Duffy

November 8, 2008

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman

Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.

As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]”.

Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there’s been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.

Satellite derived lower troposphere temperature since 1979 – Click for a larger image

Reference: UAH lower troposphere data

So it’s disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri’s presentation was so erroneous, and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university.

Below: find out how you can tell Mr. Pachauri directly what you think – he has a blog!

Later that night, on ABC TV’s Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those who disagree with his own views on global warming are “flat-earthers” who deny “the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence”. But what evidence could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself had fudged only a few hours earlier?

In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is shrinking, a curious claim he was unable to substantiate when questioned about it on Lateline. Still, there’s no doubt a majority of climate scientists agree with the view of the IPCC.

Today I want to look at why this might be so: after all, such a state of affairs presents a challenge to sceptics such as me. If we’re right, then an awful lot of scientists are wrong. How could this be?

This question was addressed in September in a paper by Professor Richard Lindzen, of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, probably the most qualified prominent global-warming sceptic, suggested that a number of changes in the way science is conducted have contributed to the rise of climate alarmism among American scientists.

Central to this is the importance of government funding to science. Much of that funding since World War II has occurred because scientists build up public fears (examples include fear of the USSR’s superiority in weapons or space travel, of health problems, of environmental degradation) and offer themselves as the solution to those fears. The administrators who work with the scientists join in with enthusiasm: much of their own funding is attached to the scientific grants. Lindzen says this state of affairs favours science involving fear, and also science that involves expensive activities such as computer modelling. He notes we have seen “the de-emphasis of theory because of its difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals.
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”- see story here
“In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and [computer] programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.”

Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.

Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world’s most authoritative alarmist web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental causes.

None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail. Sceptics are not the only ones who have received funding from sources sympathetic to their viewpoint. (And yes, Lindzen did once receive some money from energy companies.)

Lindzen claims that scientific journals play an important role in promoting global warming alarmism, and gives a number of examples.

Someone else who’s looked closely at scientific journals (although not specifically those dealing with climate science) is epidemiologist John Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication. (Lest he be dismissed as some eccentric, I note that the Economist recently said Ioannidis has made his case “quite convincingly”.)

Why might this be so? Later work by Ioannidis and colleagues suggests that these days journal editors are more likely to publish research that will make a splash than that which will not. They do this to sell more copies of their publications and of reprints of papers in it. Ioannidis believes these publication practices might be distorting science.

It’s possible the forces described by Lindzen and Ioannidis have imbued climate science with a preference for results that involve (or seem to involve) disastrous change rather than stability. Rajenda Pachauri’s recent Sydney lecture suggests that in this relatively new field, inconvenient truths to the contrary are not welcome.

Note: Dr. Pachauri now has a blog. You can even post comments.
Video of the Pachauri lecture is here. Apart from seeing it on the video linked above, the graph used is here.
h/t to Paul Biggs for these links
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I have posted on this article as well.
See here.
Cheers,
Simon

I do not suggest for one moment that what I am about to say applies to Dr Pachauri. But I thought anyone considering leaving comments on the blog of an irrational spouter of claptrap might like to bear in mind a fine old saying: “never argue with an idiot, he will reduce you to his level then beat you with experience.”

crosspatch

NCDC finally has the October narrative up on their “Climate at a Glance” site:

The average temperature in October 2008 was 54.5 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 44th coolest October in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

Brent Matich

FatBigot, I can’t agree more!!!
Brent in Calgary

hunter

The climate simply refuses to cooperate and obey those models.
How sad.

evanjones

“We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate”
Say, WHAT?
Oy. And other comments.
The climate simply refuses to cooperate and obey those models.
We can rebuild it. We have the technology.

Michael Duffy:
John Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication.
It will be interesting to see if his research holds up in five years… 🙂

Rick Sharp

Didn’t have his glasses that day or his graphs were upside down. Give the guy a break I’m sure it was just an honest mistake. Pray for snow…….
Rick

Douglas Janeway

“We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]“.
“Never mind the facts! You will now stare into my chart. Gaze intently at the rising line. You are getting warmer . . . you are getting warmer . . . you are now really, really warm now. Follow the line upward as it goes off the chart! You are sweating profusely now as you imagine how high the line will go!”
“But, Sir, the UAH chart shows a decline in . . .”
“Enough I say, enough! Never mind the highly accurate satellite measurements! They are just facts! We have experienced global warming by imagining it, and the world will be hypnotized under the power of the IPCC! We will rule the world!!”
Whewee!

The “good Doctor” ONLY allows comments from those who AGREE with him– at least he only publishes those that agree. I looked at just about every article, and ALL the posts were about how wonderful he was, what GREAT information he provided, or questions like “what should I do to live a planet friendly lifestyle”
Yes, it is his blog. Yes he is the Editor of his blog and can do as he wants. But he should at least have a disclaimer that says “I only post comments of people that agree with me.”
Personally, at my blog I always post the comments of those who disagree with me–IF they leave a name. I mean really, if you are going to disagree, actually stand up for what you believe. The debate is GOOD. (Plus it increases traffic).

Tom in Florida

I went to his blog just now and there were no posted comments. So I posted this:
“Dr Pachauri,
A simple question. What is the correct temperature for the Earth? I personally would like it a little warmer. It is the reason I moved to Florida in the first place. I like warm. I do not like cool. I prefer the sea temperature above 82 degrees F. How can the scientific community resolve the many differences in personal tastes for what the ideal temperature should be?”
I will be anxious to see if it makes in past the moderator.

Cathy

If you’ve not seen this Michael Crichton interview on Charlie Rose last year – you must. Go to minute 20. It’s worth the watch if only to watch Charlie sink to near hysteria when he can’t persuade Michael of the fact of global warming catastrophe.
http://michaelcrichton.net/video-charlierose-2-17-07.html
Crichton died yesterday. I hadn’t appreciated the courage it took to write his book that was critical of the theory. It can get pretty nasty swimming against that tide – as you know, Anthony.

John D.

Still, if the last single interval is excluded, the slope climbs from left to right..no?
REPLY: Cherry picking, John. Tsk

crosspatch

Isn’t this the same Rajendra Pachauri who told the government of India that global warming wasn’t really a problem and that the issue was to be used in order to provide India with a more competitive position in world markets?
From this article in the Financial Post:

In India, growth trumps sustainability
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post ,Published: Saturday, July 26, 2008
India loves the UN’s climate change policies and so does India’s representative at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri.
Why the love-in? The Indian government’s new “National Action Plan on Climate Change,” which Pachauri helped craft, plainly explains why: The UN formally establishes that global warming is a matter of secondary importance to India, allowing the world’s largest democracy to pursue its own best interests.
As the National Action Plan unapologetically puts it, the UN’s climate change convention “recognizes that ‘economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country parties.’ Thus, developing countries are not required to divert resources from development priorities by implementing projects involving incremental costs.”
And India doesn’t. Throughout its National Action Plan, India demonstrates that it will divert precious little of its scarce resources to solving the climate crisis. Where greenhouse gases will be curbed — for example, by aggressively building hydro dams or modernizing industry — the curbs will be a by-product of India’s national security concerns or economic development plans.
The UN’s climate change convention is even better than that — it’s a money-maker for India and a lever with which to obtain western technology. As the Action Plan makes clear, there’s only one condition under which India need spend a rupee to help curb global warming “–(if) these incremental costs are borne by developed countries and the needed technologies are transferred.”
Apart from wanting to develop, and wanting transfers of western wealth, the Indian government has one other reason for putting global warming on the back burner — although it agrees that climate change may one day pose a threat, the National Action Plan states boldly that man-made global warming may not exist, and that if it does exist, its existence may be of no account to India.

crosspatch

So he tells India that there is a good chance that “global warming” doesn’t exist and out of the other side of his mouth tells the world that it is a dire emergency.
PUHLEEZE!

[…] Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored: IPCC’s Pachauri says “warming is takin… A Test of Climate, Sun, and Culture Relationships from an 1810-Year Chinese Cave Record __________________ ~Paradox "In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~ George Orwell Join The Revolution […]

JimB

FatBigot (19:40:11) :
“…might like to bear in mind a fine old saying: “never argue with an idiot, he will reduce you to his level then beat you with experience.”
Up in Maine, we weren’t all schooled up…
The saying when I was a kid was Never argue with a pig. You’ll both get dirty, but the pig will like it.
Jim

evanjones

Still, if the last single interval is excluded, the slope climbs from left to right..no?
We’ve been through this a number of times. Here is my take:
You have two choices. You can either include El Nino 1998 or exclude it.
If you exclude it an an anomaly, you must also exclude La Nina 1999-2000 and measure from 2001.
You will notice you get close to the same result if you measure from 1998 or 2001.
Yes, El Nino ’98 is a high point that elevates the left side of the graph. But it is offset by La Nina ’99-’00, which is less steep but a bit longer. Both are over on the left side of the graph.
One can even spitball and point out that there was a triple El Nino ending at the start of 2007 with no intervening La Nina to balance it.
At any rate, the temperatures seem to be headed south again, so it’s likely we’ll wind up with a downward trend even if we cheat and include 1998 OUT and 1999-2000 IN.

Kohl Piersen

One hears a lot of rubbish sprouted by various people who should know better. Generally it is at the margins and one shakes one’s head and moves on. But when people in positions of influence, claiming to be scientists, paid by my tax money (or by someone very like me) presume to fabricate outright falsehoods with neither shame nor apology, then it really gets on my goat!
I agree Anthony, it is shocking. To my mind it raises serious questions as to what sort of people they really are. And since it appears to be deliberative behaviour, I cannot help pondering upon what the possible motives might be.

Kate

Someone else who’s looked closely at scientific journals (although not specifically those dealing with climate science) is epidemiologist John Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication.
Oh the joy of a chaotic system.

Kohl Piersen

Ah!! I get it.
From Crosspatch – “Isn’t this the same Rajendra Pachauri who told the government of India that global warming wasn’t really a problem and that the issue was to be used in order to provide India with a more competitive position in world markets?”
So Rajendra DOES HAVE an agenda!
(Love the alliteration too)

anna v

Kohl Piersen (21:27:41) :
“And since it appears to be deliberative behaviour, I cannot help pondering upon what the possible motives might be.”
Get even with western civilization? Never underestimate the power of chauvinism.
Also crosspatch (21:03:37) : supports this.

evanjones

Well, at least he isn’t trying to lead India and China over the cliff. #B^1

evanjones

Back to John D.:
Actually it’s good to measure from breakpoints because you get to see the whole swing of the cycle.
1979 was the very beginning of a warm phase. 1998 is the very beginning of a cool phase (or at least a flat phase). 2007 looks very much like the start of a steep cooling.
In order to understand the full swing of the various phases, we must measure them in their entirety. Anything else will yield misleading results. So we look at 1979-1998, 1998-2007, and 2007 going forward.
Right?

John D.

Hey there Anthony,
Is it “Cherry Picking”..or choosing to pay attention to larger scale?
Not sure..and if we chose an earlier beginning point…?
You kow more about statistical analysis of these data sets than I do..wouldn’t that last interval carry a little less weight on overall trend than what one assumes by emphasizing the endpoint of the graph?
And isn’t paying alot of attention to an endpoint “cherrypicking” when it comes to elucidating long-term trend? Afterall, not much siginificant in long-term trend happens during very short intervals. I’d venture to say that we don’t know what that last dip means untill we see the next few years of data.
Still, it looks clear to me like the graph has an overall slope to the upper right, regardless of the endpoint.
John D.

John D.

Evan,
I’ve got to look more closely at your comments-points.
I’m just a simple biologist!
Thanks
John D.

Bill P

Pachauri:

We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before].


Was it not Cassandra, pictured here, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solomon_Ajax_and_Cassandra.jpg)
who said, “I see disaster. I see catastrophe. Worse, I see lawyers!” (?)

Leon Brozyna

He is the consummate con, I mean pitch, no, salesman. He’ll say what he expects the audience to be receptive to. When in India he tells his fellow citizens that AGW is not a problem, at least as far as India’s development priorities are concerned. To the superbly developed West, he points to our excessive consumption, preying on a guilt that’s been well developed over the decades, and warns of coming doom unless we mend our sinful ways. Just shut down the country till you’re left with change…in your pocket.
Cherry picking data to present an alarming graphic is easy; start in the coldest part of the 19th century and run it to around January 2007 {the most recent peak as shown above on the UAH graph}. At first glance, it looks ominous. Then quickly move on to the next slide and just keep the slides moving, giving the audience just a taste without allowing a close look at the light and mirror show. It’s magic.
P.T. Barnum would be proud.

John D.

Oh; as an after-thought of my posts, the point of the article you posted Anthony, is Dr. Pachauri saying that warming is accelerrating, obviously he cannot be basing that inference on the terminus-interval of the graph presented. I’ll certainly concede that!
But I’d have to look more closely at his presentation to know exactly what he is saying, and based on which data. I haven’t read it yet.
Best regards,
and thanks again.
John D.

crosspatch

evanjones: And the same is true on longer time scales. The modern thermometer and temperature scale were invented at the end of the Little Ice Age so *all* modern temperature records record the recovery from that event. You will find nothing but general warming from the late 1700’s until the first half of the 1900’s. Then it cools somewhat until the mid/late 1970’s, warms a bit for 20 years or so, then begins to cool again. But to go farther back than 1930 or so guarantees you are going to get a “warming” trend.

Cary

Have any of you looked at the carbon-14 and beryllium-10 production graphs? Theres a couple of them on this wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
They show that solar activity has been steadily increasing over the past 300 years.
Also, this ENSO index graph matches up incredibly well with the UAH temperature graph. http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/mei.html#discussion
I’m not a climatologist, but shouldn’t the increased solar activity along with the positive ENSO be able to explain most of the warming?

evanjones

And the same is true on longer time scales. The modern thermometer and temperature scale were invented at the end of the Little Ice Age so *all* modern temperature records record the recovery from that event.
Yes, I agree. It is hard to know when the recovery ends, of course, whether it is still continuing, or for how long it may continue.
It’s even possible that the last 10 years of flat temperatures have signaled an end of the recovery, or at least reflect diminishing returns.
We just don’t know.
But with ten times the number of climate students (now the topic itself is hot), I bet we find out a lot not too far down the road. (Grad students just love clasting them icons.)

evanjones

But the reason I like the break points I mentioned is that from 1976 or so to 2001, the “Big Six” cycles (PDO, AMO, NAO, IPO, AO, AAO) went from cold to warm phase one by one. The climate warmed.
Then they were all on warm. The climate was fairly flat.
Now PDO goes cold, and it looks as if the NAO and AO are beginning to swing as well. And the temperature drops.
So it correlates fairly well.
This is not to say there cannot be underlying factors such as LIA recovery or even (gasp) a bit of CO2 influence.

Norm

The average temperature in October 2008 was 54.5 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 44th coolest October in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
So that makes October 2008 the 70th warmest in history!

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

F Rasmin

Site http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png.
I see that the Arctic sea ice extent is higher now for this time of year, than for all of the years on the chart back to and including 2002.

matty

I think Pachauri has been forced into this. He either concedes the cooling knowing the sceptics will have him on toast, or he ramps up the deception. He chooses the latter and now finds himself on some very thin ice which is where he deserves to be. It isn’t sustainable so watch for the cracks which may now begin to spread through the whole movement. Matty, Perth, Western Australia

[…] View original post here:  Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored: IPCC … […]

P Folkens

Let us harken back to the good ol’ days of 2005. Amidst the clamor over AIT, a Russian solar scientist announced that their data indicated a distinct cooling trend developing going forward that would be well-established in about 10 years. Within days, Hansen and his ilk were saying things like “we must solve the problem immediately because in ten years it will be too late!” (Remember those comments?) It was not lost on some of us skeptics that the AGW core was well aware of the solar scientists’ work. Clearly, the AGW shills needed the Draconian measures sought by the IPCC (UN) put in place so they could claim that their quick action saved the planet from certain peril of GW.
We are three years since the claims and concerns. It appears the AGW wonks got it wrong, but they have enough political traction still to push their agenda before the cooling becomes really obvious.

John D.

Bruce H.
Your citation of Goebbels is appropriate, timely and telling, considering what has happened as of late! It pertains and extends far beyond “Climate Science”.
John D.

evanjones

You mean like the continual refrain of Bush Lied! Bush Lied! Bush Lied! Bush Lied! Bush Lied! Bush Lied?
(I am getting terribly bored with German song.)

Cary (22:42:13) :
They show that solar activity has been steadily increasing over the past 300 years.
No, there is good evidence that solar activity has not increased steadily over the past 300 years: http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf

Last year when it was claimed Antarctica was disappearing and with a few simple clicks you can see the original South Pole station is getting buried you have to start wondering about the human condition.
I agree with the theory we evolved with a tendency to suspend reason and succumb to the group … a strategy which allowed us to eliminate our hominid competition but has also made us suckers for … this stuff.
It has been getting so retarded I really don’t care if there is a debate or discussion. Let that English AGW clown march to the North Pole and freeze to death in February (?), that would be evolution. One less lemming and maybe we can move on to consistently using the scientific method and not keep burning down the library in Alexandria … metaphorically speaking. Let the facts speak.

G Alston

evanjones — “You mean like the continual refrain of Bush Lied!”
The misapplied quoting of Goebbels and Franklin (security/safety) to denigrate Bush is pretty much de rigueur… back in the day, why, I recall the misapplied quoting of Ike’s military/industrial complex speech by those who were convinced they were intellectually superior to Reagan.
When you get down to the rub vis a vis climate stuff, doesn’t the entire argument really distill down to (misapplication of) timescales?
Misapplication seems to be a common theme.
Hmmmm.

Phillip Bratby

F Rasmin:
Also the Arctic ice area is close to the 1979 to 2007 mean and the Arctic ice extent is about 1 SD from the 1979 to 2007 mean.
See: http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

Anne

because scientists build up public fears (examples include fear of the USSR’s superiority in weapons or space travel, of health problems, of environmental degradation
Now all of a sudden we have scientists to thank for the ‘global communism scare’ of the cold war. You’re joking, may I assume?

Anne

…He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication…
Nice to know that the research findings concluding CO2 is a greenhouse gas are more than a century old. And the research findings indicating that CO2 is changing our climate are decades old.

MartinGAtkins

October monthly temp anomalies have been in for a day or so but only for _v03_2.
_v03_1 seems to be stuck at September.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/

brettmcs

BTW it’s “Sydney” (my birthplace), not “Sidney”.