In an interview with the Times, John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK suggests that the IPCC needs a new chairman other than The Love Guru. But, in a recent press release, it looks like the IPCC is digging in their collective Nobel Laureate heels. Meanwhile, news of newspaper clippings in IPCC AR4 peer reviewed research.
With quotes like these coming from Pachy, he’s quickly running out of supporters who have been looking past his blown credibility. Here’s a quote from the Love Guru himself in a Financial Times interview today:
(h/t to Andrew Bolt for that one) Send in the clowns! Maybe he’s referring to the makeover suggested by the National Post?
John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK , said that Dr Pachauri should have acted as soon as he had been informed of the error, even though issuing a correction would have embarrassed the IPCC on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.
…
The IPCC needed a new chairman who would hold public confidence by introducing more rigorous procedures, Mr Sauven said. “The IPCC needs to regain credibility. Is that going to happen with Pachauri [as chairman]? I don’t think so. We need someone held in high regard who has extremely good judgment and is seen by the global public as someone on their side.
“If we get a new person in with an open mind, prepared to fundamentally review how the IPCC works, we would regain confidence in the organisation.”
Read more at the Times
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NO! Keep PAC-man around. I like all the monsters chasing him, especially since he seems to be out of power-pills. Very entertaining.
Yikes. If Greenpeace is speaking out against the IPCC/Pachauri, then their public opinion must be very, very bad!
Where are they going to find another railroad engineer who can write science fiction as well as romance novels?
coaldust.
I agree with above.
Greenpeace can see they are losing the AGW argument and want someone more sympathetic to their heavily funded Idealism
This is not to be lauded. This is just a coverup of the systematic distortions presented by the IPCC. Greenpeace CEO just this year admitted that dangers needed to be exaggerated in order to reduce economic output.
The problem is NOT the boss. The problem is in the structure of the orgainization. If nothing else, climategate taught us that.
This is soooo primitive. The old alpha wolf getting tossed out of the pack. Absolutely primal. Strange coming from a bunch who consider themselves the very epitome of civilized behavior. Guess the old reptile brain is still alive and kicking.
At this point, it will not matter one bit.
That’s like blaming the president, and ignoring congress.
Between CRU, Mann, NASA, the IPCC/UN.
They might as well have Howdy Doody.
Does this mean the IPCC is so corrupt and discredited that it should be abolished and a new organization should be given the work of gathering real scientific research on climate?
Jeff Id (18:10:37) :
This is not to be lauded. This is just a coverup of the systematic distortions presented by the IPCC. Greenpeace CEO just this year admitted that dangers needed to be exaggerated in order to reduce economic output.
The problem is NOT the boss. The problem is in the structure of the orgainization. If nothing else, climategate taught us that.
Perhaps Greenpeace should just chase whaling boats and not get involved with Global warming or cooling issues.
Each to their own.
I generally like green pea dishes but not so much Greenpease.
Nooooo. Keep him on as chairman.
We need these charlatans kept in the public view for a while yet .
Maybe the MSM may start asking questions.
Jeff Id (18:10:37) :
“This is not to be lauded. This is just a coverup of the systematic distortions presented by the IPCC. Greenpeace CEO just this year admitted that dangers needed to be exaggerated in order to reduce economic output.
The problem is NOT the boss. The problem is in the structure of the orgainization. If nothing else, climategate taught us that”.
No Jeff, it’s the mission of the organization
It’s a Government supplier of semi scientific garbage only to justify the political process of Cap & Trade and World Government.
Make the politicians look good!
The real problem lies with our own Government institutions that financed all this crap.
Ok, we accept their claim, but only if they also sack their own board of directors for unfounded alarmism.
I still say, after all the hand waving at the IPCC, CRU, Penn State and in the pro-AGW MSM, the fix is in. Here in Australia, I think KRudd747 will get his CPRS (ETS) through the senate as some liberal MP’s, like Malcolm Turn(coat)bull, has said he will “cross the floor” to support Labour. I bet he has some vested interest there (As if he weren’t rich enough). Tony Abbott doesn’t appear to be intesreted in listening to reason (Which is not a surprise).
So who is in a position to fire him? Now that Greenpeace says he should be replaced, he surely must go. But who has the hooked cane to pull him off stage?
I never have trusted anything the the UN puts out, now I think folks are starting to realize just how much they should distrust that whole crockpot.
I so need to apologize for my snide comment in another thread suggesting that some article that was the focus of the thread must have referenced a paper by Dr. Seuss. Upon further contemplation, I realize that if the author HAD referred to an actual paper by Dr. Seuss, it would have been BETTER than many articles they had indeed referenced. My bad. Mea Culpa. In that same light, I would like to send Dr. Smut several 5th grade science reports that I am sure he would find enlightening and worth a reference.
Wait…I just made the same mistake…never mind.
I agree with John. However, I am not as concerned about the blatant mistakes as the near certainty with which IPCC proclaims that AGW has been shown to be correct. The mistakes are consistent with this concern in that they are not random but favor more alarming warming. But my major concern is over-interpretation (IMHO) of the plot of temperatures during the modern era, in which proxies are not necessary. If I understand the graphs and other information correctly, there has been warming since about 1970, but not during the last 10 years. Thus, we have a 30 year period with a clear warming trend and a 10 year period without warming. In other fields of research with which I am familiar, a data set in which 1/4 of the data do not fit the expected trend or in which there is a trend for the first 3 time points but not the 4th would not be regarded as sufficient to make any firm conclusions or predictions.
Having said this and at the risk of moving slightly off topic, I would also like to suggest that accusations without solid, direct evidence against the AGW supporters, which are common on this blog (and others), hurt the cause of skepticism. Use of words like lie, fraud, conspiracy and assigning motives like promoting world government to making money are counterproductive. In the absence of solid evidence (at least in most cases), this makes it seem as though skeptics are not any more objective and evidence-driven than the AGW supporters. What’s more, this the invective is not necessary.
“Hide the decline” does not have to be interpreted as a conspiracy to lie in order to be recognized as outside the realm of accepted practice in science. Stopping the plot of the line representing the proxy data just when it begins to diverge from the measured temperatures seems to me to be outside the realm of acceptable practice. It doesn’t matter if it was designed to intentionally deceive or if it was part of a conspiracy.
Just two cents worth from someone who paid no attention to this issue until November of last year.
No what it means is that the ship is sinking so fast it is necessary to jettison everything possible in the hopes of remaining afloat in some kind of seaworthy condition.
It can work at sea but in a political collapse like this is it only opens up more breaches for the sea to come in.
It is a purely cynical exercise in skin saving which sometimes works for small scandals.
We are watching a wreck in progress but whether any vestige of AGW or even much f the green movement can be salvaged from it remains to be seen.
There are those who think the Green, political, and financial lobby is too big to fail.
Time will tell.
Kindest Regards
The Little Engine that Couldn’t
Keep in mind that the IPCC is a UN organization. Look at the oil for food scandal that involved the then head of the UN and his family as well as others. Did the UN take any action? No, the circumstances were covered up.
Does anyone believe that the UN can run anything without corruption. Even many of the Peace keeping operations have gone astray. Look at the problems they ignore in Africa. Look at how they allow dictators to have responsible positions and how Chavez, Castro, and the head of Iran give speaches and are applauded by many of the UN Members.
Don’t let the UN run the organization if it is re created.
“The IPCC needs to regain credibility. Is that going to happen with Pachauri [as chairman]?”
Funny, the IPCC itself is the problem. It’s the thing that contains all the errors.
So Greenpeace will make Pachauri the scapegoat so they can distract attention away fro the IPCC report. And then announce now that the problem, Pachauri, has been dealt with let’s get back to dealing with the solid science that’s in the IPCC reports and tax every aspect of evil mankind.
Factually, Greenpeace and similar organizations are used to being advocacy groups. They are not used to being scrutinized as governmental organizations. The IPCC has received a free ride in this regard for 10+ years. But, blogs such as WUWT and the myriad others who have exposed the corrupt foundations of the IPCC, have scared Greenpeace like organizations.
They had gotten used to having their government sponsored sugar-daddy. I think they now see that their status on the world stage is threatened. and thus, they need to try and force out the figurehead of their troubles. Lucky for them, their figurehead appears the sacrificial figurehead is also a bit of a whack job, so asking for his ouster is fairly easy.
Anyone with “good judgement” would shut the whole scam down. An “IPCC director with good judgement” is a contradiction in terms.
“The IPCC needed a new chairman who would hold public confidence by introducing more rigorous procedures,…”
We can have either ‘more rigorous procedures’ or IPCC. Take your pick. They cannot coexist.