The London Times is reporting:
“The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.”
See the Times article here
And from Richard North at The EU Referendum, this video news report link and his commentary:
Less than a week after he claimed the IPCC’s credibility had increased as a result of its handling of the “Glaciergate” scandal, Pachauri’s own personal credibility lies in tatters as The Times accuses him of a direct lie.
This is about when he first became aware of the false claim over the melting glaciers, Pachauri’s version on 22 January being that he had only known about it “for a few days” – i.e., after it had appeared in The Sunday Times.
However, Ben Webster writes that a prominent science journalist, Pallava Bagla – who works for the Science journal (and NDTV as its science correspondent) – claims that last November he had informed Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
Bagla interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, he asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”
Dr Pachauri replied: “Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month — as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates — early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.”
According to Pachauri, “… within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”
Without even Bagla’s input, we know this to be lies. Apart from anything else, there was the crisis meeting under the aegis of UNEP – which we reported on Thursday – which concluded that the 2035 claim “does not appear to be based upon any scientific studies and therefore has no foundation”.
Read his complete essay here
If the IPCC goes down, so does the EPA endangerment finding.
We will all miss Rajendra Pachauri when he’s gone.
Slicker, more polished crooks in high places hope the story will stop there.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo
SlightlyO/T~~ I see that skepticalscience blog has misrepresented skeptics by an order of magnitude. Alarming. It is set up a lot like WUWT? Do you think that might have been intentional? Do you also think the title of the blog is design to catch people who want to learn more about the subject before they get to WUWT? I have been blocked from posting at every alarmist site I have found. Dare I try skepticalscience?
This is a brilliant report from Ninad D. Sheth
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world
“I did not have sex with that glacier.”
(I reminded myself of my 1st marriage on that one ;)….
Why does this surprise anybody, this ‘charade’ as it has been exposed?
It is drawing out now only the *thickest* of low-level trolls who are becoming as ‘thick as fur’ … gone are the days when Joel Shore, noted physicist would debate and argue actual (albeit perhaps obscure, non-essential) technical points, we now have certain ‘thickheads’ who don’t even know the basis (initially counter SM and MM), the beginnings (David Fenton communications), the reason for existence (promote _only_ the AGW viewpoint) of RC (realclimate.org)!!!!
.
.
Ken Smith (17:54:52) : “Here is a great clip from an interview panel featuring Pachauri and the head o’ the California Air Resources Board (June 2008).”
Do you mean this CARB?
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tran-222324-board-carb.html
Jones has stood down already (and we’re waiting for the announcement that it’s permanent), Mann is under review, and Pachauri looks doomed. I wonder how this will play out. Will they fall in some sort of rapid succession? How much coverage will their terminations get? Will Mann survive? Quit?
Oh, bother (18:03:33) : “Mr. Railway Engineer, you do know what the light at the end of your tunnel looks like?”
No, but the higher-ups have selected him to inspect the undercarriage of the train they’re preparing to toss him under.
Cleansing the IPCC of Pachauri no more cleanses the IPCC than firing Phil Jones,Michael Mann, and their ilk, would cleanse the legacy of IPCC ‘science’. The entire administrative edifice of the IPCC should be discarded and replaced with nothing at all. This intergovernmental attempt at supranational administration is revealed to be a failed experiment. The IPCC, from its creation, was an agenda immune to refutation.
We seem to be forgetting that these people are career diplomats/beurocrats. As such their lives revolve around reaching agreements and consensus.
With that in mind, I contend Pachauri will neither resign nor will he be sacked. What will happen is that he will be PROMOTED within the UN, with the usual accolades and thankyous for his dedication yada yada yada. Don’t be surprised if Yves De Boer isn’t standing beside him at the press conference announcing this. Show of support wink wink
David Ball – Re: Skepticalscience, I post there sometimes, it is a very well run sight, and except for a couple of contributors, most of the regulars seem to be very ernest. I am not a sceptic per se, but a lukewarming fencesitter, so it is nice to be able to get some of my questions answered by both sides in a respectful manner. Try it!
P.S. I do not post controversial stuff, cuz I am way out of my league, I just ask questions of things that interest/bother me.
I –finally– begin to smell the distinct aroma of toast.
Oliver K. Manuel (18:58:46) :
It didn’t stop with Climategate CRU, so there’s no reason to expect the avalanche crashing down the slope will stop at Pachauri’s office.
Remember, they round robin-ed their own circle of peer-reviewed trust for years, so now they find themselves shackled together… perched on a precipice.
Jones has stood down already (and we’re waiting for the announcement that it’s permanent), Mann is under review, and Pachauri looks doomed. I wonder how this will play out. Will they fall in some sort of rapid succession? How much coverage will their terminations get? Will Mann survive? Quit?>
If only it were that simple. The rot goes far beyond the scientists, they are just the front lines. If we were talking about infantry, they would be called “bullet stops”. The roy will protect itself. The scientists will leave one by one, each with a severance package requiring non-disclosure of terms and issues. That protects the scientists because they legaly can’t discuss what happened and why for fear of losing their severence package. It protects the rot higher up because now no one is going to give up their severence package to let the cat out of the bag that they were just producing the results that the higher ups wanted. They’ll quietly find low profile jobs with the assistance of the political hacks they are protecting. The IPCC will get reorganized or dissolved and replaced, with the political hacks who now cannot be implicated still in charge. When a suitable time has passed they quietly resurrect their soldiers with new titles and positions and issues to manipulate the tax payer with.
I wish it were not so, but I am old enough to be cynical and to have seen history repeat itself.
CAGW Theory Avalanche Danger has been updated to: Unprecedented
OT – Question
Where is Al Gore these days?
not “roy”… “rot”
David Ball (19:06:11) :
SlightlyO/T~~ I see that skepticalscience blog has misrepresented skeptics by an order of magnitude. Alarming.
David, most alarming to me is that they would like to literally silence all opposition. The first indignant reaction is always, “blah blan Shouldn’t be allowed!” Stalin would have been proud.
I have a particularly insightful comment here from over at realclimate:
****1. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all this fixation on get-it-right, got-it-wrong is obscuring the real issue: the truth is what we define it to be, and the truth is that mankind is a scourge on the planet. The sooner we can limit the right to breed, the sooner the planet will recover. If glacier data is a little incorrect but helps that effort, then the data is true in all but a very narrow and clinical scientific sense.
2. Common people don’t really understand science. But they understand not having enough to eat and not being able to sit down on a too-crowded subway. if we can educate people not to reproduce there will be many seats and the fewer people will be happier. Indeed, as the capitalist economies of scale are reduced, the atisfaction from making your own clothes and embracing a low-carbon vegan diet will be so intense, reproduction will come to be seen in the same category as child abuse.
I yearn for the day when i might not have been born!***************
We teachers joke about the weak “Gene Pool” sometimes. But this is proof.
Leo G (19:32:05),
The fact that an alarmist propaganda blog, which censors uncomfortable skeptics’ posts, calls itself “Skeptical Science,” should make it clear to you that they are starting out with a lie from the get-go.
Believe their AGW spin if you want to. But I’d hope you would be smarter than that.
Ask your questions here. You will get much more honest answers.
ClimateGate2009 (18:16:17) : “A whimsical look at the Senate reaction to Obama’s claim of “the overwhelming scientific evidence for Climate Change”.”
The full quote that the Demmunists are snickering at is something like: “Did you know that there are actually people who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change?”
Imagine that.
“The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was
I once said on WUWT that Pachauri should resign. I have since then changed my mind because I think he has become our best ally. :o)
Quote: bateman (19:33:23) :
“It didn’t stop with Climategate CRU, so there’s no reason to expect the avalanche crashing down the slope will stop at Pachauri’s office.
Remember, they round robin-ed their own circle of peer-reviewed trust for years, so now they find themselves shackled together… perched on a precipice.”
Exactly! I have observed and could name members of the round robin-ed circle of peer-reviewed trust for space sciences since the early 1960s.
But I was more disturbed when the Climategate scandal exposed these scientists and the UN’s IPCC as part of an unholy international alliance of politicians, scientists, news media and publishers that have used science as a propaganda tool to try to control the world.
That is frightening! In the best of circumstances, self-governance may work if the people have reliable information.
What’s how it looks from the “Show-Me” state,
Oliver K. Manuel
Smokey (19:56:30) :
Smokey (19:56:30) :
Leo G (19:32:05),
Ask your questions here. You will get much more honest answers.
Ask at both sites, and compare your answers.
Where is Al Gore these days?
I think he’s over at Sherwin-Williams trying to develop a new white wash.