Here in the USA, WUWT readers probably don’t have a true handle on the firestorm that is going on in India over Pachauri’s “glaciergate”. It is making headlines and the people there are quite angry, because they’ve been led to believe that their Himalayan water supply was seriously threatened in the not too distant future (2035) as reported in the IPCC AR4, and now they find out it’s a bogus, and that a Pachauri peer now specifically admits the 2035 date was known to be false, and used anyway to scare policymakers into action.
Dr. Richard North, who co-wrote the first story with Christopher Booker of the Telegraph that got the inquiry started over two weeks ago, now says on an interview on Indian television that ” If Dr Pachauri does not resign voluntarily, he will be forced to do so.”
Here is video and partial transcript of that interview.
It was not until the Sunday Times last week actually highlighted it that he was forced to take action. And on that basis I don’t think he has any credible alternative but to resign and he is either going to resign voluntarily or as the media are increasingly saying he is going to be forced.
It is a very clearly recognisable tactic where he simply denies the undeniable and for a while if you are in a very elevated position you get away with it. He hasn’t yet recognised that his position is already untenable and the more he denies, the way the media works the more evidence they are going to find until such time as his denials will be so lacking in credibility that he will be unable to operate .
Transcript via Liberty New Central.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The first paragraph of this article / thread contains a misstatement:
I pointed out earlier today (or maybe it was before midnight — it’s all a blur) in another thread the following — that all Lal will (or could) admit to is that he knew the claim hadn’t appeared in the peer-reviewed literature and been confirmed. The subheadline makes the distinction clear: “I knew data hadn’t been verified.” That’s not the same as saying he knew it was false.
abbeyroad69 (22:54:03) :
You like the word ROBUST?
This is how the IPCC defines robust…
“As in the TAR, a robust finding for climate change is defined
as one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models
and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by
uncertainties. Key uncertainties are those that, if reduced, could
lead to new robust findings. {TAR SYR Q.9}
Robust findings do not encompass all key findings of the AR4.
Some key findings may be policy-relevant even though they are
associated with large uncertainties. {WGII 20.9}”
If you want lots more “robust” check out the AR4 Synthesis report section 6. It’s actually a very funny read
Peter, because the BBC is the biased left-wing communications arm of the current socio-marxist government. It wouldn’t suit the BBC at all to run with anything which may be viewed as disparaging to the idealist dogma which currently prevails.
This is going to be a tough, uphill battle. Whilst things appear generally to be going our way at the moment, it’s swings and roundabouts and our run of luck will dry up eventually, when the AGW/Carbon-is-a-monster crowd find something of interest and excitement (for them) to hit us with.
Suffice it to say, those who publish such marvellous articles (and posts) here, should make every effort to keep up the momentum, as only by continually twisting the knife will we continue to make progress
I live in hope…
Bill Gates worries climate money robs health aid
“If just 1 percent of the $100 billion goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2516336420100125
Amazing how people good at logic tend not to understand climate logic.
Does any of you remember how Pachauri got nominated as Chair of the IPCC? Here’s a story from Science 1997:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;296/5566/232a.pdf
Basically he was chosen to please the Bush administration. US obviously wanted to weaken the IPCC. – And now you guys want to tear him apart. Sorry, but i feel it is sickening…
I gave my vote to ‘resign’, although it will probably need a quiet tap on his shoulder from the powers that be before he finally walks the gang-plank.
It would be better for the ‘sceptical cause’ if he were to stay around. Nothing better than a lame duck leader when you need to force the truth. Without integrity, anything Pachauri says will be viewed with suspicion and the true UN agenda will be fully exposed – although it may already be too late for then to save this corrupt organisation.
peter stevenson (00:30:13) :
Obvioulsy, the BBC and the rest of the MSM have been and still are profiting from the global warming scare. I am not sure how, though. It could not be just because global warming attracts readers and thus advertising revenues. Most people are jaded by the incessant and boring alarmist stories by now. How many times do we want to read that every species on the planet is on the verge of extinction because of man-made CO2?
I think the idea of making either Lindzen or Mockton as the next chairman of the IPCC is a really fantastic idea in more ways than one. It would for starters create a skeptical environment, which is the way true scientific research is supposed to be conducted. Given there’s no way the UN and others will allow this to happen proves they have already made up their mind and will refuse to accept the possibility of the AGW thesis being wrong. In that case, the only real solution is to scrap the IPCC and start a new organization headed by one of those two gentlemen, or someone else like them. It’s a pity a really rich person or group of people don”t come forward and create such a new group anyway in direct competition to the IPCC. They could also pay good money to good scientists to provide the research. Of course, there may be a conflict of interest whereby the popular conception is these rich people are partly behind the fraud in the first place so they can get even more rich. However, I would hope there are a few who are honest and above all that. More likely I’m just a dreamer and there’s no real hope of a philanthropist coming forward.
The Indian TV caption has Richard North saying “theory” when he said “TERI” but it’s pretty good otherwise.
(Try it a couple of times in different accents, you can see how they made the mistake).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html
OT but worth checking out in today’s UK Daily Telegraph
Sorry not sure where to post or how to draw your attention this. Do not post if you feel it’s not relevant
We need the disbandment of the IPCC.
We need an esteemed international award for the CRU whistle blower.
We need an esteemed international award to replace the now totally discredited Nobel Prize.
We need to claw back some of the money that Tata and their many associates have relieved us of.
We need a lot of real data – data that is not good enough to stand in its raw state should be ruthlessly rejected.
We need the disbandment of the United Nations Organisation. That great statesman, Jan Smuts, knew not the consequences when he dreamed up the League of Nations.
Making progress but I agree it may still take time. I’m seeing little to no coverage of this issue (US), and I check websites I think would be carrying something like this. At most it will be a light reference to the general nutty situation. They don’t want to get into it. There is way too much money behind this, hundreds of carbon traders were at a big convention in NYC recently, leaning on Obama to fork over US cash. Tonight I read a BBC story that “rich nations” are urged to immediately make the first $10 billion in payments to poor nations for climate injustice, They made no mention whatever that within the 24 hour news cycle was published a detailed report (by UKTimesOnline) that the billions to go from rich to poor nations in Cop. was based on the IPCC report of impending “natural disasters”. They’ve now said that was faked too, hearsay, with several scientists coming forward saying it was bunk. BBC ignored the whole thing, pretended it didn’t happen. So it’s going to take awhile. Obama is in trouble here, he does have plans to make it worse and with media like the NY Times and Washington Post in a complete rage, they want him to just quit being so “nice” and ram through a giant carbon tax.
Bulldust (21:42:12) : OT, but his Lordship has arrived in Australia:
It will be fascinating to see Monckton using this opportunity, I would like to have a report here too! I am reminded of that famous moment in the careers of Darwin (NO PUN INTENTED!) and Huxley, when Huxley and Bishop “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce are debating… oh it’s too funny, the bishop asks Huxley whether he is descended from an ape on his mother’s side or his father’s side. Huxley slaps his thigh and exclaims “The Lord has delivered him into my hands”…
I agree wit hmuch if not all Doug in Seattle wrote.
The UN IMHO started out with noble intentions when first formed, but has succumbed to activist, marxist propaganda over the years, that good intentions can be overcome by idealogy of one form or another!
& for Peter Stevenson, I think the BBC is standing child like with fingers in ears, eyes shut tight, screaming bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla…… hoping it all stops. Either that oir they’re so shocked at all the revelations they are dumb struck. I see Professor Iain Stewart (he of “Climate Wars” infamy) has started another propaganda story on the BBC about the history of the Earth from a geology stance. Haven’t seen it but I’ll garuntee the we Scot will slip in good ol’ Climate Change somewhere along the line, just as Tony Robinson og Time Team & Blackadder fame did with his Earth Story prog on Ch 4, its “science” concluded that there may just be some hope & time for us all in the future! These are all well & good progs ut with a propaganda bias hidden under the skin, the same format follows the previously mentioned, “no one can explain exactly what effect, the POWER of the Sun has on hour climate, but whatever it is, it has already been overtaken by man mande global warming!”
The Australians are complaining that “The sceptics are so well funded, so well organised. “They have nothing else to do. They don’t have day jobs so they can put all their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public, whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and [managing publicity] actually isn’t one of them.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/25/2800992.htm
Hope you are enjoying your well paid job Anthony!!!
jerry (22:53:19) above refers to an Australian ABC interview (with link) above. Below I quote another exerpt by Professor Andy Pitman from the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. He was a lead author on the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 reports.
“ANDY PITMAN: Oh, my personal view is that climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organised, have nothing else to do. They kind of don’t have day jobs. They can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this actually isn’t one of them.
All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily for no funding and no pay whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns and are doing a damn good job I think. They are doing a superb job at misinforming and miscommunicating the general public, state and federal governments.”
There are enough outright lies in his statement above to cause one to question anything that the IPCC and its associated science purveyors promelgate that I am starting to question the intelligence of their so called “scientists”. Truth and good sense was obviously not part of their curriculum.
Maybe being cloistered in institutions for all their adult life leads some to believe that they are able to say whatever they like and get away with it.
I am disgusted with Prof Andy Pitman’s above response. He is a shame on himself, his university and his country. He is unable to address the issue and leads off in a poor bait and switch. Prof Pitman achieves an “F” for his attempt. On the bright side I think it is good advertising for skepticism.
Seems like Pachauri’s been collecting a lot of grant money for his own research institute, TERI, only days before the Glaciergate story broke.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
While I agree that Steve McIntyre and Alan Watts are the pivotal entities in this marvelous turnabout, McIntyre for his meticulous analysis of all that manure, and Watts for his report on the structural deficiencies of nearly 1,000 Stevenson Outhouses, I think special acknowledgment is owed to AL GORE, for inventing the internet without which their work would have remained unknown.
Looks like Pachauri is now a ‘denialist.’
Bulldust: His Lordship has arrived in Australia. He”s arrived at an opportune time. Could there be some fractures in the climate science paradigm? I’ll be attending the Melbourne lecture and will wear a yellow carnation as a reminder of the sun’s role in climate change. Perhaps other WUWT supporters might do likewise.
Doug in Seattle (21:20:17),
Only SOME of the press is digging in to the problem that is global warming. Unfortunately the BBC and the Guardian continue to bury their heads in the sand over this.
Mailman
AGW Water Shortage Researchers On Wikipedia I keep mentioning that the state of AGW science now is that the ‘scientists’ spend their time on wikipedia instead of doing research. Wikipedia is obviously very very important to them. Robin de la Motte (rd232) is one of several IPCC and realclimate linked administrators and editors on wikipedia who are controlling the climategate page as well as other pages on the topic of climate. http://www.dmoz.org/profiles/rd232.html
He works for the Public Services International Research Unit and you’ll find his research on water in the 2007 IPCC report here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4-ens4-references.html
Pachauri is not the problem. Pachauri is just an unavoidable consequence of the problem: the IPCC.
its all George Bush’s Fault Why should Rajendra Pachauri resign?
he has long been a controversial figure. Environmentalists were outraged when he became chairman of the IPCC in 2002, ousting the enormously respected Dr Robert Watson (now Defra’s chief scientist), after lobbying by the George W.Bush administration
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100023489/pachauri-must-quit-as-head-of-official-science-panel/
kadaka (23:16:12) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
*sigh* Lost and forgotten…
“Pachauri says the “IPCC’s credibility has increased”…”
Yet another attempt to hide the decline. This time it is the diminishing credibility of the UN’s IPCC and the misnamed scientific-consensus.