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.
I vote he stays. What better leader for this staid, contemplative, impartial body of world renowned researchers than a fine railway engineer turned climate profiteer turned romance/soft porn novelist?
Who better to impart credibility to a cadre of activists and eco zealots? Remember the Brad Pitt tinsel trailer? The slightly frozen grim reaper on her horse?
But….but….wasnt the science robust and settled?
*IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT*. The references page at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-references.html has “a few goodies”…
1) This is a press release…
> Allen, J., 2003: Drought Lowers Lake Mead, NASA. [Accessed 09.02.07:
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/LakeMead/ ]
2) Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002.
3) BC Tourism Sector Monitor!!!
> BC Stats, 2003: Tourism Sector Monitor – November 2003, British
> Columbia Ministry of Management Services, Victoria, 11 pp.
> [Accessed 09.02.07: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/tour/tsm0311.pdf ]
4) A business magazine site
> Business Week, 2005: A Second Look at Katrina’s Cost. Business
> Week. September 13, 2005. [Accessed 09.02.07:
> http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2005/nf20050913_8975_db082.htm ]
5) A newspaper article
> Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically,
> even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002.
6) “Better Roads” magazine?
> Stiger, R.W., 2001: Alaska DOT deals with permafrost
> thaws. Better Roads. June, 30-31. [Accessed 12.02.07:
> http://obr.gcnpublishing.com/articles/brjun01c.htm ]
7) Another newspaper article
> Welch, C., 2006: Sweeping change reshapes Arctic. The Seattle Times. Jan. 1 2006. [Accessed 12.02.07:
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002714404_arctic01main.html ]
8) Another newspaper article. See
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/08/nyregion/aftermath-heat-wave-neighborhoods-cold-showers-rotting-food-then-lights-then.html?pagewanted=1
> Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the
> Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999.
Roger Knights (18:50:59) :
The Little Engine that Couldn’t
Fat, Inflated, Behemoth Engine that Couldn’t
More and more evidence VR games = toys of the infantile.
R. Gates (22:20:47) :
All this is very interesting, but meanwhile, we’re seeing global average temperatures right now (as in Feb. 2/3 2010) that are at what would normally be seen in late March and early April.
See: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Even with some human error and outright poor judgement on the part of certain scientists, the lower part of the atmosphere, up to about 46,000 feet is definitely warming dramatically.
Plotting 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007 and today at 7.5km, 400mb you see standard variation of .5C Nothing dramatic about it. What IS dramatic is the denial of scientific tampering by “adults” who know better.
Forget the science this is about Greenpeaces infiltration of the UN and most of the associated governments.
Big Marxism,Big Money ,Big Power.
http://euro-med.dk/?p=11956
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, newspapers like Volkskrant, Telegraaf and AD (the last being my former employer) open with a piece about Global Warming being caused by the dropping of a large number of weatherstations.
http://www.ad.nl/ Opwarming aarde door verdwenen weerstations.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/ Hoezo opwarming?
http://www.volkskrant.nl/ Politici woedend op IPCC
The proverbial sh*t is about to hit a wind-turbine 🙂
Maurice Strong?
George Soros?
Pachauri?
Greenpeace, WWF, NWF, and other NGO’s?
All bit players — impotent in themselves to do anything.
It is a convergence of power and greed, motivated by power and greed, whose unstated but understood end is more power and greed. The crisis du jour — (Fill in the blank) — is just a means to those ends. Just pick your crisis — AGW, SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Overpopulation, Resource Scarcity, blah, blah, blah. Defeat AGW and another imaginery threat will take its place. Whether it is a self-appointed elite or a ruling class (or both), their driving force is power and greed — keeping it and denying it to others (the so-called common man).
This convergence gives rise to a monster with no real center, no clear target at which to aim, which has been mankind’s burden for many thousands of years. The first major defeat to this monster happened in the 18th century when a bunch of middle class colonists, tired of English mercantilism, rose in rebellion. The rich and powerful colonists? A few offered intellectual guidance but most weren’t the drivers of that rebellion, they just went along for the ride for as soon as it seemed to founder in late 1776, they were ready to make peace with England. It was the so-called common man – the middle class – that wanted freedom from the monster of power and greed and they kept up the fight until their goals were realized and a new, free country arose which soon had a constitution that was meant to hamstring the monster, and it worked and a vast middle class rose and prospered while power was spread out and diffuse. Yes, it worked quite well — for awhile, until some of its internal safeguards were breached.
So now who’s the villain?
Brown?
Obama?
Rudd?
Again, all impotent. None of them are running the show but all are taking advantage of the crisis of the moment to increase their power, spurred on by greed. It’s no wonder that Congress laughed when Obama spoke about climate change in his State of the Union speech. They know. It’s not about climate change but about increasing power and tax revenues. The crisis du jour is just a handy cover.
Get rid of Pachauri? Someone else will take his place.
Get rid of IPCC? Something else will take its place.
Depressing, isn’t it?
R. Gates,
Nothing will convince anybody now that any “official” data were not falsified to serve the political agenda. The bubble has popped, the train is gone. You can bet all you wish (since you don’t seem to put your money where your mouth is), it doesn’t matter any more.
When Greenpeace is honest enough to call itself Redpeace we might make some progress
If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is!
So while Greenpeace is at it, maybe they might want to step aside, seeing as how they hijacked Patrick Moore’s good-natured attempt to raise awareness on real environmental problems.
Or are they, too, waiting til after they write their own smut? I can just see it now, too…
“Trees– Not Just For Hugging Anymore!”
“Everything You’ve Wanted to Know, But Were Afraid to Ask (how to do more for whales than save them)”
“Naughty, Naughty Skeptic– A Dominatrix’s Guide on How-to Mount Rushmore” (certain radio pundits may take offense at this one, ahem…)
“Golden Showers in the Rainforest”
I could go on and on, but I won’t!
R. Gates (22:20:47) : “I stand by my contention that it is very likely that 2010 will be the warmest year on record (unless we have a Mt. Pintubo type volcanic eruption)”.
I’m not usually an antagonistic person, especially in a forum I respect, but…
I’ve always wondered what kind of detergent you people use for that brain-wash of yours. Whatever it is, it must have a heavy amount of bleach, turning grey matter to white, and white to that nice, crumbling quality from being soaked for too long.
I mean, I know it’s still early to say, this being January and all, but… Warmist year on record?!
Come off it!
We’ve “had” so many of those over the last decade, but for some reason I’ve used my air-conditioner less over many of those years, especially the last summer. And if the commodities bubble hadn’t popped, I probably wouldn’t have as much heating in this cold, cold winter we’re experiencing (this is, therefore, the warmest winter I’ve had in a good long while, but that has more to do with markets than the climate, obviously).
Leon Brozyna (00:24:04) : ” The crisis du jour is just a handy cover. ….
Get rid of Pachauri? Someone else will take his place. …. Get rid of IPCC? Something else will take its place. …. Depressing, isn’t it? ”
Leon,
Cheer up. It is depressing perhaps if you look at it only as a fight on one specific politic issue then just plodding on to the endlessly next specific political issue. But it is not depressing if you look at it as being the fundamental grand battle for ~2500 years between two fundamental philosophies within the Western Civilisation. It is the greatest battle ever fought and cheer up because there has been significant progress since the medieval supranatural dark ages to a more reason based philosophy. Enjoy the grand battle, it will never end. It is the great constant human endeavor.
You may be thinking we are retreating back to the supranatural medieval dark ages, but objectively we are not. And I am not an optimist, i’m not, not, not.
John
Damage limitation by Greenpeace. But the damage is bigger in a way. It has to do with the green propaganda itself. — See, something curious happens when you watch green programme after green programme about how energy intensive and “evil” modern infrastructure is — I began to realise just how vast and important and essential the global system has become. It is essential to life. It is vast and intricate and when analysed for efficiency, they find it looks like natural systems that optimise. And that converted me to be a firm modernist.
The anti-modern Green mantra is that, if only people could just realise, have “insight” into how much we consume, we’d quit and go “local”. But for most people, I wonder that the opposite might happen; we’ll actually start to understand our global infrastructure, and appreciate it, and improve it.
It is very hard for the greens to argue with something like the internet. They are too busy using it themselves. Eventually the penny will drop.
R. Gates (22:20:47) :
“…but the combined effects of both increased CO2 and methane are countering even the quiet sun…the lower part of the atmosphere, up to about 46,000 feet is definitely warming dramatically…The oceans ability to absorb the excess CO2 from human activities is decreasing, and we have at least 4 or 5 degrees C increase already cooked into the system by about 2100…”
Look at the facts. Earth is a warm, wet, greenhouse planet. There has been ice on its surface for less than 20% of its history, and in the geological past there have been six great ice ages. Two ice ages were characterized by ice at the Equator, and with sea levels falling by up to 5,000ft. Now that is what I call sea-level change!
Five of the ice ages saw a far higher atmospheric carbon dioxide content than at present. So carbon dioxide could not have caused past climate changes. Indeed, early Earth had 1,000 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now, (yes, you read that correctly, 1,000 times more carbon dioxide than today’s megre 0.0314%) – yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect, or “tipping points” or “acid oceans”. [By the way, has anybody counted the number of “tipping points” predicted by the media doom-mongers? There must have been at least 40 in the last 15 years, yet, unlike the “tipping points” we are all still here.]
When the Earth as we now know it was formed, the initial source of the two main greenhouse gases, water vapor and carbon dioxide, was volcanoes. Water vapor is still the main greenhouse gas. Once oceans formed and life appeared, carbon was then recycled between the oceans, atmosphere, soils, life and rocks. Carbon dioxide is a plant food, not a pollutant.
Human activity produces only 3% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions each year. One volcanic belch can emit as much as that in a day. Carbon dioxide has a short life in the atmosphere and is absorbed by natural processes that have been taking place for billions of years.
At the normal past rates of absorption, even if we burned all fossil fuels on Earth, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content would not double.
In past ages carbon dioxide has been naturally absorbed into everything from limestone reefs to soil, rocks and living things. For example, limestone is a very common rock and contains 44% carbon dioxide. Dissolving carbon dioxide in ocean water has not created “ocean acidity”. The constant chemical reactions between ocean water and sediments and rocks on the sea floor have kept the oceans alkaline. When we run out of rocks on the sea floor, then the oceans might become acid. Don’t wait up for that!
The lower part of the atmosphere “up to about 46,000 feet” is not warming at all, in fact it’s cooling. Where are you getting your facts? Methane would be a greenhouse gas, but the story all goes wrong because it is so unstable and breaks down too quickly to have any significant effect. As for “at least 4 or 5 degrees C increase already cooked into the system by about 2100”, what on Earth are you talking about? “Cooked into”? Is this some new scientific climatic process you have gone and discovered all by yourself?
Re: Tom in Texas (20:07:14) :
Do Greenpeace or WWF receive any taxpayer $$?
—
Yes, lots. WWF report-
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/annualreview_2008.pdf
30.9m euros in 2008 from Governments and Aid Agencies
Greenpeace don’t list any direct Government grants in their report. Both NGOs state reasonably large losses from investments blaming the recession. Presumably both invest in the green technologies they champion so have a vested interest in trying to maintain the value of those investments. Not sure if the SEC would consider this to be pumping stocks but seems a conflict of interest to me. If scepticism continues to increase, the value of their investments will continue to fall.
Greenpeace must be doing some damage limitation. If their research referenced in IPCC and ridiculed by the media it makes them look bad. They are throwing Pacman under the bus as a diversion.
Meanwhile back in Haiti, the UN is showing off its sheer ineffectiveness in the face of tragedy. Supplies are flowing into UN warehouses, with little going out. The Haitian government, long known for corruption, with policies that have devastated their end of the island they share with the Dominican Republic with no recovery in sight, has been allowed to take control of the aid operations. Resulting in monumental inefficiency with suffocating bureaucracy which will certainly result in more people dying. It’s a safe bet that there are Haitian officials requiring bribes to allow aid to be shipped and distributed.
And there is, of course, the increasing violence. The Blue Helmets will be jumping right on that as well as usual.
Will someone explain to me again why colonialism is a bad thing? Seems taking over for at least a decade may be the best thing to fix this country and give the Haitians a better life for the long term. Provided the UN stays out of it.
Lindsay H (00:48:57) :
When Greenpeace is honest enough to call itself Redpeace we might make some progress
I’ve read science fiction where they had become GreenWar. Drop the pandering and posturing for donations and public sympathy, openly merge with Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and voila!
For what purpose should “a new organization should be given the work of gathering real scientific research on climate?” You do realize the present IPCC has no authority to make any assessment whatsoever which may dispute or deny human-induced Global Warming and Climate Change?
The IPCC was established in 1989, but the First World Climate Change Conference (1stWCC) had already decided human-induced Global Warming and Climate Change was a foregone conclusion and fact ten years earlier in 1979. The IPPC was established to determine only the extent of the climate change and what efforts the Conference of Parties (member states of the United Nations) would take to mitigate the effects of the alleged climate change. The IPCC has never been given the authority or mission to assess or even question the previously concluded existence of Global Warming, Climate Change, and a human-induced cause for them.
If you abolish the IPCC, you must also abolish and/or radically reorganize the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), Conference of the Parties (COP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and much more. Those organizations established and support the present organization, activities, and policies of the IPCC; and they are responsible for assuming and declaring the existence of human-induced climate change and Global Warming as a foregone conclusion in 1979.
The IPCC was created by political organizations for the purpose of organizing international efforts supporting governmental, scientific, and other activities which are designed to mitigate human-induced climate change. The IPCC was never intended nor used to determine whether or not there really is any significant human-induced climate change in existence which needs such extensive and deletorious mitigation efforts.
BTW it looks like India has had enough of the IPCC and/or the bad writing..
India to have own panel on climate change
greenpeaces latest mail out is using Global warming to push the Copenhagen CO2 story still.
in truth the lack of animals grazing the undergrowth and stopping clearing in populated surrounds of rural towns and a couple of firebugs had More to do with it than they will fess up.
yes we have huge and nasty fires somewhere here almost every year, its a Fact of life in Aus and it has NOT got any worse due to Warming. more due to inept and biased super green goofiness, our parks themselves are huge risk areas, and its quite often the fires start there and no one can get into stop them.
Power lines fall over, so do trees fall on lines, lightning stikes.
I think ‘aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES’ got it right first time..
‘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’.
There’s an AWFULL AWFULL lot of wishful thinking in this blog…..
There is too much invested in AGW from big pensions to the careers of major scientists…
Don’t hold you breath for the end of AGW . It may happen in 10yrs or so, and only then very quietly.
Remember the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, the fossil record said that the dinosaurs took over 1 million years to die out..not ten… Did anybody listen to the science ? No, this myth is still perpetuated.
The important point here is that the groups interests are diverging. While everybody agreed to present the most alarmist message and the cash flow was not scrutinised they could all agree. That time is gone. The infighting begins.
Wow
United we stand, divided we fall – does this mean that the wwf will now attack greenpeace for calling into question the credibility of the IPCC? I am hoping for some good infighting to take place. If not, they’ll all have to sing the same tune – sown with the ipcc