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 see the NZ Govt taking a swing over the IPCC debacle, and suggesting publicly that moves are afoot to abandon UN framework on climate change and replace it with a G20 framework.
That could have an impact on Pachauri..
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/02/breaking-news-nz-govt-blasts-ipcc-hints-un-climate-process-may-be-dumped.html
IPCC-junk science crooks: Including Canadian Maurice Strong, the UNabomber.
…-
“IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks
American Thinker ^ | February 04, 2010 | Marc Sheppard
Unquestionably the world’s final authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings and recommendations have formed the bedrock of literally every climate-related initiative worldwide for more than a decade. Likewise, virtually all such future endeavors — be they Kyoto II, domestic cap-and-tax, or EPA carbon regulation, would inexorably be built upon the credibility of the same U.N. panel’s “expert” counsel. But a glut of ongoing recent discoveries of systemic fraud has rocked that foundation, and the entire man-made global warming house of cards is now teetering on the verge of complete collapse.
Simply stated, we’ve been swindled. We’ve been set up as marks by a gang of opportunistic hucksters who have exploited the naïvely altruistic intentions of the environmental movement in an effort to control international energy consumption while redistributing global wealth and (in many cases) greedily lining their own pockets in the process.
Perhaps now, more people will finally understand what many have known for years: Man-made climate change was never really a problem — but rather, a solution.
For just as the science of the IPCC has been exposed as fraudulent, so have its apparent motives. The true ones became strikingly evident when the negotiating text for the “last chance to save the planet” International Climate Accord [PDF], put forth in Copenhagen in December, was found to contain as many paragraphs outlining the payment of “climate debt” reparations by Western nations under the watchful eye of a U.N.-controlled global government as it did emission reduction schemes.
Then again, neither stratagem should come as any real surprise to those who’ve paid attention. Here’s a recap for those who have, and a long-overdue wake-up call for those who haven’t.
The Perfect Problem to the Imperfect Solution
The U.N. signaled its intent to politicize science as far back as 1972 at its Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm, Sweden. There, an unlikely mélange of legitimate environmental activists, dyed-in-the-wool Marxists, and assorted anti-establishment ’60s leftovers were delighted to hear not only the usual complaints about “industrialized” environmental problems, but also a long list of international inequities. Among the many human responsibilities condemned were overpopulation, misuse of resources and technology, unbalanced development, and the worldwide dilemma of urbanization. And from that marriage of global, environmental, and social justice concerns was born the IPCC’s parent organization — the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) — and the fortune-cookie like prose of its socialist-environmentalist manifesto, the Stockholm Declaration.
It was seven years later that UNEP was handed the ideal villain to fuel its counterfeit crusade. That was the year (1979) in which NASA’s James Hansen’s team of climate modelers convinced a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel to report [PDF] that doubling atmospheric CO2 — which had risen from 280 ppmv in the pre-industrial 1800s to over 335 ppmv — would cause nearly 3°C of global warming. And although the figure was wildly speculative, many funding-minded scientists — including some previously predicting that aerosols and orbital shifts would lead to catastrophic global cooling — suddenly embraced greenhouse gas theory and the inevitability of global warming.
It was at that moment that it became clear that the long-held scientific position that the Earth’s ecosystem has always and will always maintain CO2 equilibrium could be easily swayed toward a more exploitable belief system. And the UNEP now had the perfect problem to its solution: anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
After all, both its abatement and adaptation require huge expansion of government controls and taxation. Furthermore, it makes industry and capitalism look bad while affording endless visuals of animals and third-world humans suffering at the hands of wealthy Westerners. And most importantly, by fomenting accusations that “rich” countries have effectively violated the human rights of hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people by selfishly causing climate-based global suffering, it helps promote the promise of international wealth redistribution to help less fortunate nations adapt to its consequences.
Best of all, being driven by junk-science that easily metamorphoses as required, it appeared to be endlessly self-sustaining.
But it needed to be packaged for widespread consumption. And packaged it they surely have. Here’s an early classic. ” (more)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2444063/posts
John Whitman (01:17:14)
You’re right. You caught me in one of my rare ‘down’ moods.
While the conflict predates them and covers all cultures, it’s really an intellectual war — Plato’s overwhelming mysticism vs. Aristole’s (mostly) rationality.
A good breakfast of donut and a cold coke gave my morning a real lift – or at least a sugar rush.
Pachauri’s full quote was even more crazy: “They are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – I hope that they apply it to their faces every day – and people who say that the only way to deal with HIV/Aids is to screen the population on a regular basis and isolate those who are infected.”
I’ve never even heard anyone suggest that asbesto be used as talcum powder, or that HIV victims should be rounded up and quarantined. I don’t think a single person here or any other skeptic would claim that cigarettes are not connected to all sorts of health problems including cancer.
This guy is a total loon willing to make claims at the drop of a hat. No wonder the IPCC report was full of nonsense. The guy doesn’t think like a scientist he thinks like some kind of conspiracy theorist. Next he’ll be telling us the WTC towers were demolished with explosives by the US government.
@ur momisugly John Whiteman
“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…”
I thought that was the battle between the English and ‘our sweet enemy’, the French…
@Kate (01:48:44) :
Thanks Kate for that very useful exposition. I have copied and pasted this as a document that I can use with my believer friends as a basis for a discussion on the science, not theology.
Everyone probably remembers years ago signs starting appearing across the USA saying, ” GET US OUT OF THE UN”. We should have heeded their advice.
The long knives are out. Popcorn futures are through the roof.
Greenpeace has twigged if a little late in the day that Pachauri is the sceptics best friend, so he has to go to in order to try to get the AGW gravytrain back on the rails
Yes the talcum powder reference is to Christopher Booker’s long campaign against the ‘white asbestos is a killer’ scam, see
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531446/Christopher-Bookers-Notebook.html
and many other articles by him on the topic in his ST column
It was of ocurse Richard North working with his regualr ‘partner’ Chris Booker who exposed all Pachauri’s financial affairs a few weeks ago, stuff which first appeared in the MSM in Booker’s column
With him as the head of the IPCC the next AR5 will be rated XXX !!☺
Re: amicus curiae (03:59:10) :
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
—
Well said, but while urban environmentalists with little or no practical experience of land management run the shop, little will change. But to add to the increasing risks, another twisted fire starter here-
http://www.epaw.org/multimedia.php?lang=en&article=a7
Being 100m+ tall, rather difficult for firefighters to deal with. There’s some other nice images of turbine failures on that site as well.
jack morrow (06:20:55) :
Everyone probably remembers years ago signs starting appearing across the USA saying, ” GET US OUT OF THE UN”. We should have heeded their advice
It’s up to you. That building is in New York…just get a few trucks with feathers and tar and do it the old American Way!!
The UN is a dream whose time has ended, again. If you think of it as I do, as merely a worthless “League of Nations II”, then it’s time has definitely long since ended, again. No doubt humanity will go on to re-dream this Utopian dream over and over again for the next thousand years, or two. Maybe someday in the not too distant future, humans will have finally arrived at the point that it will work. I doubt that whatever “it” is will look anything like it does today.
As a American, I simply don’t think the United States can afford to waste anymore money or mental energy on it, we’re broke, we’ve blown our life savings (and the inheritance of our children and grandchildren) on stupid social engineering projects and foreign policy screwups and need to focus on the reality of the day: getting back to work, rebuilding our economy so we can make a small profit, paying off the Chinese loansharks and the Arab Shieks, and saving a little for those cold rainy days that seem to be coming more and more frequently. Maybe, just maybe, we can also get rid of Department of Education and the NEA and send our kids to some decent private schools the way all the rich folks do.
Of course, we can always do what the Romans did and not worry about all that silly stuff….
Choo-choo Pachauri is handing out grooming advice? Has that guy looked in a mirror recently? What a mess.
Pascvaks (07:41:43) : BRAVO!
If greenpeace want him out it`s because he doesn`t wear his hairshirt with enough conviction. Could anyone ever be green enough for greenpeace?
Related Scientific Fraud Topic–
2 days ago Lancet– the UK’s leading left-wing medical science journal– fully withdrew it 1998 paper “associating” childhood vacines and autism. After 11 years the editors found no scientific or statistical basis for the claim. The author of the 1998 paper (who runs a major autism treatment clinic in Texas — quelle suprise) told AP, don’t blame me, my paper only suggested a possible “link” that was worthy of long-term study, Lancet and the media ran away with the story and overstated the case. The Lancet tradegy is that because idiot parents bought this junk science over the past 12 years, who knows how many children suffered disease because they weren’y immunized. Fortunately, because vaccines are a discrete medical issue, real scientists were able to ultimately disprove the junk science. AGW is a much more complex issue, but I have confidence that one day, the alarmists’ scientific fraud will be proven, and Nature, Scientific American et al, will all have to withdraw their thousands of alarmist ‘peer reviewed’ articles as false and disproven.
Pachauri responded that Greenpeace should think loooong and hard about what it is saying. That they should succumb to the warm musky embrace of IPCC funding… to feel the warm breath of mother GAIA on their supple …
Wait, what are we talking about again?
My guess for the date of Pachauri’s resignation, February 19th. Anybody else have a guess….John…
India to ‘pull out of IPCC’ (Telegraph, 4th Jan 2010)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html
“India has threatened to pull out of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and set up its on climate change body because it “cannot rely” on the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.”
The IPCC is chartered to support AGW. They are to collect and promote information on the effects of AGW. It doesn’t matter who is in charge. Unless they are dissolved the organization will continue to promote AGW. They have no incentive to do otherwise.
I think Dr R K Pachauri is counting the days until he’s forced to resign – 14 February seems a good day. I don’t think he’ll be the only one forced to leave; a CAGW Valentines Day massacre perhaps?
John
Not quite correct. IPCC are not charterd to support AGW. See this link.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
We can hold them to account when they deviate from that principle.
India’s setting up of its own Climate Commission, and its veiled threat to withdraw from the IPCC, are (I think) intended to provide the push to get Pachauri out. I think the push will be successful. The UN can’t ignore it.
Veronica, you are right, but there is still no requirement to consider anything contrary to AGW.