UPDATE: 11/10 From the Sydney Morning Herald
Michael Duffy
November 8, 2008
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Awww – give the guy a break! We’re in a global recession and the guy probablt has a wife and kids to support. The last thing he is going to do is make himself voluntarily redundant.
Seriously, there are now hundreds of thousands of people all over the world whose livelihood depends on anthropogenic global warming being real – and most of them work for government in one way or another. Whether it is a politican whose personal credibility is on the line, a scientist who is funded by government to research “climate change” or a bin inspector paid by the state to check what we chuck away – they all have a vested interest in keeping the gravy train on the tracks.
crosspatch (21:06:29) :
So he tells India that there is a good chance that “global warming” doesn’t exist
Did he really do that? Read the article, it says:
….The Indian government’s new “National Action Plan on Climate Change,” which Pachauri helped craft….
The report was created by the Indian government and is their responsibility, not Pachauri’s. He apparently was a contributor, which could be as little as answering one or to questions or writing a small introductory paragraph here and there.
By the way, googling around I could not find confirmation that he indeed ‘helped craft’ the action plan. I could find reports about him endorsing the plan, which does not mean he has to agree with everything written in the action plan.
Without knowing exactly how he contributed to the plan, you can not make this type of judgements.
John D. (20:52:28) :
If the electoral results from the states of VA, OH, IA, CA, NY are excluded from the election results, John McCain won…no?
matty (23:24:30) :
Isn’t thinning ice the inevitable result of warming?
I am much disturbed by Mr. Pachauri. Way back last winter, in reference to the degree of warming attributable to CO2, he said something like ‘maybe someone has got their sums’ wrong. Then he came out with the report for India, downplaying AGW. Now this, and of course the rest of his work pushing the IPCC agenda. This guy is an economist as well as an engineer. He ought to know better.
As to motive, it must be obvious to the poobahs at the IPCC and elsewhere that there is a good chance that the world will continue to cool. Why do they think this hoax can continue, and why do they think that they can continue to get away with it? If they are wrong, and it surely seems as if they are, the judgement of science and society is going to be harsh.
===================================
Leon Brozyna (22:18:38) :
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.
No he did not say that. He said that it is of secondary importance. Stick to the facts.
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.
The western countries are for more than 90% responsible for combined CO2 emissions done over the past centuries. It would be morally untenable to not hold those same western countries repsonsible for the problem.
Just shut down the country till you’re left with change…in your pocket.
This is not true. Nobody apart from some extreme environmentalists suggest to shutdown the economy. Wait, you make it even worse, by claiming they suggest we have to shutdown the country.
I have complete faith in humen ingenuity to develop the technology needed to reduce CO2 emissions without sinking our economies or even noticeably affecting our way of life.
Thinking a large reduction of CO2 emissions will mean the end of civilization as we know it, is alarmism of the other kind.
These statements were made by the esteemed Mr. Pachuari in Australia which has a Government that is committed to starting their Emission Trading Scheme in 2010.
The government friendly Australian MSM is pummelling out daily alarmist AGW nonsense and consequences.
The government ministry department of the environment has be relabeled the department of Climate Change.
No scientific facts are going to get in the way of the the Governments ETS. All guns are being loaded in the governments AGW arsenal. Any contribution by any psuedo official is welcomed. MR Pachauri (I can’t bring it in myself to label him the title Dr. Pachauri) fits the bill (bull).
Quote: MICHAEL Crichton
“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance. We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.”
Found on: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
“In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is shrinking”
In previous talks Pachauri has said that scientists skeptical of global warming are like modern day people who believe the earth is flat.
Way to go with extreme statements. He is just a mouth for a political organisation.
Incidentally, I used to believe all the global warming stuff, and was genuinely moved–tears came to my eyes–when I heard Kyoto was being put together. My God the world is actually coming together to do something!
Then I started noticing that the AGW people were closed minded and making mean spirited attacks against any dissenting opinions. At that point it was obvious the real truth of the matter could not be known because people summarily dismissed any dissenting voice. You can’t know the truth if you are closed minded. It is as simple as that. Eventually Pachauri himself became a prime example of this. Now I wouldn’t trust these people to fix my plumbing let alone save the world.
I don’t think Pachauri is a liar. Like Gore, Hansen and all the others he almost certainly believes this to be the truth, despite the obvious contradictions in the data.
I’m reminded of a tragic accident: the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the U.S.S Vincennes. Although the radar showed with high precision that the Airbus was ascending, the crewman monitoring it continued to report that the Airbus was descending, and so appeared to be on an attack profile.
In the investigation the crewman was unable to explain why this happened. He was unable to explain why he reported the exact opposite of the truth.
There was a psychological explanation: scenario fulfillment. Because the captain and his officers believed they were probably under attack, then strong evidence that contradicted this was ignored. Actually, it wasn’t ignored. The crewman probably really did believe the Airbus was descending, despite the evidence right in front of his eyes. Because of his belief he saw something quite different to the truth.
Could this effect explain Pachauri and all the others? Quite possibly. If the sceptics are right – and I believe they are – then there must be an explanation as to how this delusion has taken over the world, despite the complete absence of credible evidence to support it.
I think the fundamental reason for this huge and damaging delusion – and many other delusions – is very simple: all human beings are fallible. The scary thing is that this also applies to sceptics!
Chris
AN ENERGY POLICY FOR AMERICA
The USA has two really big problems – the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, and President-Elect Obama’s energy policies, which if implemented will deepen this crisis.
Obama stated in a San Francisco Chronicle television interview that he wants to implement a very aggressive CO2 cap-and-trade system that could bankrupt coal companies. He further states that energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.
Obama states that he thinks global warming is critical. He states that he supports the use of solar energy, wind power and biodiesel. Obama does seem to support a market approach and technological development.
The main components of primary energy are oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectricity. Approximately 25% of USA total primary energy is supplied by coal – natural gas is about equivalent and oil supplies almost twice as much. http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622
Here are some practical suggestions for a responsible, economic US energy policy:
1. Reject cap-and trade and CO2 taxes. The theory of dangerous humanmade global warming is demonstrably incorrect. The Earth is naturally cooling, not warming. Global temperatures are insensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
2. Generate as much energy as possible from coal – the USA has over 28% of global proved coal reserves. Use the best available technologies to control SOx, NOx and particulate emissions, and don’t worry about CO2.
3. Over time, I think we’ll see a move to more electric and gasoline-electric light vehicles – the power infrastructure exists, and refueling can be done during off-peak periods.
4. Reject corn ethanol and wind power. These do not work economically or effectively. Corn ethanol used for motor fuel requires huge subsidies and distorts food prices. Wind power requires subsidies, and almost 100% backup from conventional power generation. Conduct a full-life-cycle energy balance on corn ethanol, wind, biodiesel and solar, and also examine the environmental demands and pollutions associated with these technologies.
5. Reject hydrogen – it is an energy medium (and a poor one at that), like electricity, and if implemented would require a huge new hydrogen infrastructure to be built at great cost, for no apparent energy gain.
Instead of skyrocketing energy prices, these policies will result in lower energy prices. Coal is cheap and abundant in the USA, and real pollution from coal can be effectively controlled.
Best regards and good fortune to America,
Allan
Disclaimer – I do not work in the coal industry and hold no coal investments.
Has anyone seen the HADCRU/UAH or indeed any figures for the “anomoly” for October yet?
Cary, Leif
But decreased GCR “along with the positive ENSO should be able to explain most of the warming”. Because the solar activity proxies on wikipedia are actually GCR proxies and not solar. (And you should include the absence of large volcanoes between 1994 and 2001 to explain the temporary warming in that period)
Nitpick: It’s Sydney Morning Herald.
I think we have to go beyond this provincial and nationalistic outlook. But if you want to stick to that map of the world, then we can’t blame the west in any way other than they were the ones who happened to get there first. All peoples of the world have always been in competition with each other. That is what we are trying to get beyond, to have a united world.
But if you want to apportion “blame”, then go back to seeing the world as a collection of mobs in competition with each other. Go back to a long history of wars and conflicts. Go back to the day when might makes right. You cannot build a united world if you keep perpetuating the view that we are pitted one against another.
The west certainly didn’t have it easy; two world wars in recent memory, millions of upon millions dead or suffering. It is arguably that monstrous conflict that drove the west to rapid technical and material development. Driven by adversarial conditions of Us-vs-Them. And this is the view– –“apportion blame”– –that you wish to perpetuate in the face of a global problem?? I’m sorry, but that is a morality from the Old World. It is not Global.
Anne (03:42:29) wrote:
The western countries are for more than 90% responsible for combined CO2 emissions done over the past centuries. It would be morally untenable to not hold those same western countries repsonsible for the problem.
You’re taking it as given that CO2 is responsible for “global warming,” and that “global warming” is a problem. Until it’s proven that the human-produced additions of CO2 to the atmosphere is responsible for “global warming,” western countries cannot be held responsible. Plus studies have shown that warmer temperatures result in climate conditions that benefit agricultural production (e.g., stronger monsoons), while cooler temperatures tend to cause drought and famine. How can “global warming” be considered a problem in that light?
The scary thing is that ‘scenario fulfilment’ applies to everyone all the time.
In my day job as a lawyer I see it as all pervasive in disputes that should never have arisen.
It is something I fight against daily in every aspect of my own life.
However at some point the real world does take over and only the most dangerous people continue with their defective perceptions in the face of that.
Now, given the lack of warming for 10 years now, where on the scale for ‘dangerous’ would Mr. Pachauri and other cooling deniers fall.
Another inconvenient scientific observation is show on Anthony’s graph, that Arctic sea ice yesterday was greater than during each of the preceding six years on that date.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
And, from the Cryosphere website, the NH negative sea ice anomaly (1979-2000) is exactly offset by the SH positive anomaly; global sea ice is just normal.
Chris,
You are someone I am quite happy to disagree with. You moved beyond the demonizations and stereotypes, reducing the entire debate to a simple Hollywood good vs. bad scenario. Something, I will immediately concede, happens at the pro-AGW side of the debate as well. But that doesn’t make it right.
I have not seen the graph Michael refers to in his article, so I can not judge for myself if and how much Dr. Pachauri mislead his audience. I only have second hand information. I am always skeptical about second hand information.
The statement that Dr. Pachauri somehow seems to tell the Indians that GW is not a problem clearly ilustrates that: I and no one on this forum have exactly read first-hand what was said and written. It is all second hand information, inevitably exaggerated/distorted/taken out of context along the way. The article says clearly that the action plan states ‘that man-made global warming may not exist’, which is translated by crosspatch into ‘Pachauri says that there is a good chance that “global warming” doesn’t exist’. Before the end of this thread we can see Pachauri declaring AGW a myth!
Kim,
” Why do they think this hoax can continue, and why do they think that they can continue to get away with it? If they are wrong, and it surely seems as if they are, the judgement of science and society is going to be harsh.”
I don’t think this will happen, at least not likely in our lifetimes. You underestimate the marketing ability of the group as a whole. They have already started making statements to the effect that “This is a temporary downtrend…but make no mistake!…in another few years/decade/several decades, the temps will start going right back up!”
Chris:
“I think the fundamental reason for this huge and damaging delusion – and many other delusions – is very simple: all human beings are fallible. The scary thing is that this also applies to sceptics!
Chris”
They are fallible, yes, and mostly due to misplaced trusts and laziness. I know of no one within the circle of people I have as friends and workmates who has taken the time to actually do 1hr of research on this subject. Another major event in recent history also falls under this same situation.
It’s a 30sec soundbite society.
Jim
Sorry this is OT, but I don’t know a more appropriate place to ask. Last year I downloaded the original broadcast of The Great Global Warming Swindle that ran on British television. I convinced my local library to buy a DVD copy to counterbalance all the PBS global warming videos they’ve bought and Al Gore’s movie.
I have finished watching the DVD, which is slightly re-edited, but substantially the same as the original broadcast. My question: Are there any factual errors or any misleading parts of this documentary? For the most part, I can’t find anything to complain about. Have you seen it? What did you think?
I want to recommend this documentary to many other people, but I want also to know all its limitations. If I was an AGW believer, I would just dismiss it with insults. That’s what they do. But we know there are big flaws in Al Gore’s movie. If there are any big flaws in this one, I’d like to know what they are. As I said, I don’t see any real problems, save one.
It seems to me the film implied that when we look at the past 400,000 years and see changes in atmospheric CO2 following rather than leading temperature changes, it means the oceans act as a sink for CO2, releasing more when it warms up, and absorbing CO2 when it cools down. That may be true in history, but that does not seem to be happening today. CO2 in the ocean is slightly increasing, if I’m not mistaken. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not primarily coming from the oceans this time around. Is my analysis correct?
I think the overall thrust of The Great Global Warming Swindle is very good, and I agree with it. I would appreciate comments and criticisms from others who have attempted to fact-check this documentary.
Quite right Chris. It is a sociological phenomenon which has happened many times in the past and will happen many times in the future as well documented in books like “extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds” and the more recent “mobs and messiahs”. History shows that it will fizzle out eventually but it won’t be by persuasion or facts so much as by being replaced by the next catastrophe prediction. What will that be? Well I’ve noticed on Andy Revkin’s blog the renaissance of the resource-depletion, population explosion talking heads and it was also subject of a recent feature in the new scientist mag. As a warning shot it’s ok but these types simply refuse to look at the real facts and figures. They rely instead on overly-simplistic logic and fit everything to a magic two variable straight line graph with little or no foundation in reality.
I don’t know if anyone else has noticed too but most, if not all, visions of the future in film or print are either catastrophic or depressing. Maybe it just makes for a more interesting storyline or maybe people are inclined to believe in catastrophes more readily. I’ve certainly noticed that many who are so willing to believe scientists when they predict catastrophe are much the same types who disbelieve scientists when they say something won’t cause any harm – like genetically modified crops for example, or MMR vaccinations, or DDT. It seems to be a deep reactionary conservatism which says that all change (or all chemicals?) is to be feared. Hence the future, being utterly uncertain, is to be feared the most. All you have to do is find the bogeyman which fits your persona, or just follow the latest fashion in fears.
Chris Wright,
“I don’t think Pachauri is a liar. Like Gore, Hansen and all the others he almost certainly believes this to be the truth, despite the obvious contradictions in the data”.
Where do you buy your pink sunglasses?
If climate is your job and you provide false information to serve an agenda that will harm economies and populations, you are not only a liar but a crook too.
In the past we were forced to wage wars because of characters like Pachauri.
The only difference is that the other guys were dressed in uniform.
Pachauri and his clan serve an agenda that is aimed at total control over life.
They are more than half way with their crooked schemes and it’s time to wake up in order to stop them.
Again, I am embarassed that he holds a degree from the same fine university as I do: North Carolina State.
Look, let’s not beat about the bush, Rajendra Pachauri is a liar – it’s as simple as that. I’m all for being courteous, but when someone is not telling the truth (and they know it) then they are lying – there’s no better word for it in the English language. If he wasn’t being strictly true then one might say he was being disingenuous, but he isn’t. He’s a liar.