BBC questions if Pachauri's continued presence "is still serving the best interests of the IPCC"

Rajendra Pachauri, current IPCC Chairman

Roger Harrabin of the BBC writes:

UN climate chief resignation call

Several environmentalists, UK MPs and scientists has called for the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN’s climate science body.

Dr Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has in the past been criticised by climate “sceptics”.

They have claimed that some of his comments had become politicised.

Pressure increased recently when a report recommended that IPCC chairs serve only a single term of office.

Dr Pachauri has yet to comment on the matter.

The IPCC chair is into his second term and several leading scientists and green thinkers contacted by BBC News say he should quit now.

The list includes Tim Yeo, chairman of the all-party Commons Climate and Energy Committee; Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the Royal Society’s climate change head; and Mike Hulme a former IPCC lead author.

Mr Yeo told BBC News: “Dr Pachauri has become a liability – he is now causing more harm than good. Climate science needs a guarantee of utmost reliability, and Dr Pachauri can no longer guarantee that. It would be as well if he stepped aside.”

Professor Hulme said: “Whatever merit his leadership of IPCC has had in the past, Dr Pachauri is unfortunately now associated with controversy and error in the IPCC AR4.”

“As clearly implied by the IAC Review, a new chair for AR5 would bring fresh vitality and a new respect to the IPCC.”

The BBC understands that if Dr Pachauri is determined to hang on to the job, his post is safe for a while at least. A UN source said developed countries were keen to strike a deal on biodiversity, so would not be prepared to upset developing countries by calling for resignation of a high-profile Indian.

The question now is whether Dr Pachauri feels he is still serving the best interests of the IPCC, following such a negative reaction from British greens whom he may have considered to be his friends.

====================================

Full Story at the BBC here

Advertisements

92 thoughts on “BBC questions if Pachauri's continued presence "is still serving the best interests of the IPCC"

  1. Please don’t show that picture. It scares me, so think what it will do for any children who happen to pop by.
    The longer Pachauri is in post the better. He brings the IPCC and “climate science” into great disrepute.

  2. “The question now is whether Dr Pachauri feels he is still serving the best interests of the IPCC . . .”
    Gee, I wonder how he feels about himself? This is definitely *not* the important question.

  3. after the very solid research by EUREFerendum on Pachauri, I am staggered anyone left him there for a minute longer than it should take to empty his desk, so to speak.
    a new and vital IPCC. more credibility?
    I doubt it.

  4. Couldn’t agree more that Pachauri should resist any and all attempts to dislodge him from his position. I’d pay good money to watch a prolonged, knock-down, drag-out fight among the “extremists” (who want him gone, so someone can effectively lead the charge back to the Middle Ages that the AGW movement will lead us), the “realists” (who want him gone because they realize their reputations might be affected by him being poster-boy for their “science”), and the “good ol’ boys” (who want him to stay on because they’ve got a good scam going and once one link in the chain breaks….).
    It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe Soros will put in the “fix” and he’ll be gone in a few weeks. Sigh.

  5. Phillip Bratby says:
    September 23, 2010 at 8:47 am
    The longer Pachauri is in post the better. He brings the IPCC and “climate science” into great disrepute.
    I agree. Every time the IPCC issues any statement with his name on it there will be media references to his recent “problems” and quotes from a variety of people commenting on them. The longer he is there the greater damage he is doing to the IPCC and the more the public will learn to distrust both Pachuri himself, the IPCC and the people who write for it.

  6. The IPCC was established for the express purpose of giving the appearance of scientific legitimacy to a foregone conclusion: that human use of fossil fuels was causing catastrophic ‘global warming’.
    Changing its director will not change the agenda of the IPCC. It is a disgrace and it should be abolished. Scientists everywhere should insist on no less.
    /Mr Lynn

  7. Never mind Pachauri, how about we rid ourselves of Harrabin, Black, Yeo, Hulme, Monbiot and the rest of the UK post-normal freak show. This is the real threat to the UK, its economy and the social well being of its people, not the IPCC. Frankly I’m not interested in what a bunch of spleen grease peddlers have to say about anything.

  8. “Dr Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has in the past been criticised by climate “sceptics”.
    They have claimed that some of his comments had become politicised.”
    “The BBC understands that if Dr Pachauri is determined to hang on to the job, his post is safe for a while at least. A UN source said developed countries were keen to strike a deal on biodiversity, so would not be prepared to upset developing countries by calling for resignation of a high-profile Indian.”
    It’s not just his comments the “sceptics” are criticizing as being political, it’s the whole panel.
    John says:
    September 23, 2010 at 8:55 am
    No John, I want the clown to stay. He is showing himself to be a buffoon and someone new might give the panel new credibility.

  9. He is still serving his own interests. In fact he recently engaged an audit firm to audit his 0wn ny regarding his own travel expenses.
    The audit of his own travel expenses showed he traveled where the tickets he purchased were paid to take him.

  10. Fascinating to watch the warmists trying for damage limitation by ditching Patchy and installing another unscientific warmist with a cleaner pair of hands to carry on their dirty work… Once again – this isn’t science, it’s politics and the snouts in the trough looking after their own interests…
    And anybody who thinks we’ll be satisfied with Patchy’s head as a “trophy” is seriously mistaken. Nothing less than dismantling the entire corrupt warmists’ construct will satisfy me!
    Frankly I don’t care whether he stays or goes – in many ways the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. In some ways it would be a waste of our energy to have to start and dismantle the credibility of another IPCC Chair but what are dark cold winter evenings for?

  11. Phillip Bratby says:
    September 23, 2010 at 8:47 am
    “Please don’t show that picture. It scares me, so think what it will do for any children who happen to pop by.
    The longer Pachauri is in post the better. He brings the IPCC and “climate science” into great disrepute.”

    Got it in one (both points). Good job, Mr. Bratby.

  12. Watching Patchy desperately clinging to his ivory tower of privilege and power in the IPCC will do much more long term harm to the AGW cause than kicking him out.
    A discredited individual, having a sideline of running an organisation with obviously dodgy finances and undisclosed cash distributions, is just what you need at the helm of the flagship of bad climate science, the IPCC. It keeps things in perspective, as well as helping keep the stench of fraud – both scientific and otherwise – firmly in the general public’s nostrils.
    My vote is to keep Patchy in his place.

  13. I recommend that one, make that two, INDEPENDENT review processes be formulated to examine the science, or maybe the leadership qualities, or… not.
    Hardly original, but it worked so well last time…

  14. good he is still there. he is a cartoon character. As long as he is there, it is easier for people to see how arrogant and crooked these guys at IPCC are

  15. What amazes me is how these creatures turn on one-another so readily.
    “I say old chap, got caught what? Throw him under the bus would you James, then fetch me my brandy.”
    Like the Hydra the machine will grow another head, maybe one we don’t have as many handles on.

  16. He should stay so that the demise of the IPPC is hastened. His political statements and support for phoney science will surely cast doubt on any further IPPC pronouncements.
    The last thing needed is a ‘credible’ replacement.

  17. Dear Penthouse Letters,
    I never thought this would happen to me. I was a happy-go-lucky engineer in India when I was picked to be the head of a UN sponsored committee on climate change. I don’t know much about the issue, but my friend Al Gore (see the March 2000 issue, “Me and the Massesuse”) helped get this thing started. We became an international powerhouse, even creating our own industry about it!
    But I felt something was missing from my life, so I moved from the world of writing articles for scientific journals to writing racy romance novels. It was there I met “Debby”….

  18. It’s TERIble. Patchy TERIfied everyone so he could rake in TERIfic $hekel$.
    Quick quick quick, someone move Patchy out of the way, doubleplus quick, before his humungous moneymaking scam becomes too frakkin obvious to skeptics.
    heck, it was skeptics who noticed.

  19. Salute this man! Pachauri did what no climate sceptic is able to do. A Trojan Horse that destroyed the IPCC from the inside.
    If Pachauri did not exist, we climate sceptics would have had to literally invent him. He is in fact every sceptic’s dream. How could we have asked for more when he embodies the UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in all completeness? Interestingly, he also strongly epitomizes the typical climate activist and their organizations that they are attached. Did he mould both in his image or its vice versa is however for history to judge.
    Next month 194 governments of the IPCC are scheduled to meet in Busan, South Korea. This is where a plot to ouster Pachuari could be unleashed. Pachuari remains defiant: “At the moment, my mandate is very clear. I have to complete the fifth assessment” The Indian Government who Pachuari is their candidate is equally defiant, backing him to the hilt. If Pachauri goes, we leave the IPCC! And if India leaves the IPCC, it can trigger an exodus.
    Read More: http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2010/09/salute-this-man-pachauri-did-what-no.html

  20. They want him to resign, no one wants to upset the Indians
    “The IAC recommendation is subtle,” he said. “But it probably would be better for the future of the IPCC if Dr Pachauri were to resign of his own accord, taking great care to ensure that there is no question of India losing face as India is such a major country for mitigation (of emissions) and adaptation (to climate change).”

  21. I am disappointed to see all the WWF motivated ‘save the Pachauri comments’.
    However, the suggestion of Phil Jones as a credible successor is a good one. Phil has been cleared of any wrong doing, possesses good organizational skills, and impeccable scientific credentials. If Phil is overlooked for this position, it will be clear that the skeptic community is being given too much sway by the establishment. Muir Russell and Ron Oxburgh would also be potential candidates.

  22. This is a watermellon proposal. Dr.P demonstrably has not overcome scepticism of IPCC conclusions and it is a travesty that he has not, in their opinion. In this, he is their sacrificial lamb.
    They could easily have followed the IAC review recommendations and limited his term as chairman but choose to go the route of dishonourable discharge. On reflection, not sacrificial lamb but scapegoat.
    Nice people eh?

  23. I’m aghast at the number of people that want Dr Pachauri to leave. I hate to see him go as he and the IPCC have been virtually my only source of amusement for two years. Much better than sit coms or reality TV.

  24. Given the total lack of credibility and wide gulf between “political positioning” and real science, I doubt there are any candidates of any standing at all who would want the job!
    Who’d want to don the costume of the climate clown and pretend that people aren’t laughing at them?

  25. I think his credibility is as hollow and flawed as the science he represents.
    What more fitting person is there for the job?
    Who of integrity would want to pick up such a poisoned chalice?

  26. I 100% agree with ZT, Jones, Russell or Oxburg for the new IPCC head. Imagine appointing any one of those three. They have less credibility than Pachauri.
    It would leave the IPCC as a hopeless shell without any scientific basis ……. it would be the worst blow to the `we are all going to die’ crowd since CRU email release. I vote for Jones!

  27. Is it just me, or does his mugshot look like the ones on the playing cards the US used to hand out to soldiers in Iraq?
    Just sayin’.

  28. I agree with those who say leave him where he is. He is the perfect representation of the IPCC. Why make him quit now? He can fall when the rest fall.

  29. ZT said
    “However, the suggestion of Phil Jones as a credible successor is a good one. Phil has been cleared of any wrong doing, possesses good organizational skills, and impeccable scientific credentials. If Phil is overlooked for this position, it will be clear that the skeptic community is being given too much sway by the establishment. Muir Russell and Ron Oxburgh would also be potential candidates.”
    * * *
    I’m going to assume this is sarcasm.
    After all, nobody could possibly be THAT wrong.
    Except the IPCC.

  30. Reminds me of the famous story of Churchill, when presented with a plan to kill Hitler early on, Churchill was reported to have said:”Are you mad? He is our best asset ! They
    might replace him with someone who knows what they are doing!”..
    Applies to Pachy too…

  31. New and young faces needed at the sulfur smelling headquarters , the only condition: Being progressives up to the last consequences and swore eternal loyalty to the “white brotherhood”. 🙂

  32. Mr Lynn says:
    September 23, 2010 at 9:27 am
    “The IPCC was established for the express purpose of giving the appearance of scientific legitimacy to a foregone conclusion: that human use of fossil fuels was causing catastrophic ‘global warming’.
    Changing its director will not change the agenda of the IPCC. It is a disgrace and it should be abolished. Scientists everywhere should insist on no less.

    I agree, the IPCC and the cargo cult scientists who support it are a total disgrace. However, I feel that the IPCC is only working to the UN political brief to prove global warming and so pave the way to an unelected world government with a common carbon (energy) currency.
    So I think it is the UN that needs to be abolished, along with the World Bank, IMF, WWF, Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Soros Foundation, the Bilderberg Group and any other ‘green’ socialist organisation who would put world government before the freedom of the individual.
    Please feel free to add any I may have missed to the list 🙂

  33. I’m with the “Let him stay!” camp! I can’t wait to see what the follow-through to his smash porno-rag “Return to Almora” will be….
    A movie perhaps? Or sequel? Whatever, the longer he stays in, the more embarrassment he causes!

  34. The hanky stays. It is a part of the IPCC charter. To remove the hanky would be tantamount to calling for the dissolution of the UN, the WHO, the EPA, and would cast considerable doubt on AGW.
    If the Pachauri campaign should, for some obscure reason falter, and the poisonous skeptics get their way, could I also nominate Gavin Schmidt (Esquire), as a possible contender, based on his extensive diplomatic credentials.

  35. ZT says:September 23, 2010 at 10:39 am
    I am disappointed to see all the WWF motivated ‘save the Pachauri comments’.

    I’m disappointed to see the IPCC still in operation.
    However, the suggestion of Phil Jones as a credible successor is a good one. Phil has been cleared of any wrong doing, possesses good organizational skills, and impeccable scientific credentials. If Phil is overlooked for this position, it will be clear that the skeptic community is being given too much sway by the establishment. Muir Russell and Ron Oxburgh would also be potential candidates.
    Is that a joke? Would you welcome the selection of Michael Mann also? Sheesh!
    J Felton says: September 23, 2010 at 11:05 am
    Is it just me, or does his mugshot look like the ones on the playing cards the US used to hand out to soldiers in Iraq?

    After his XXX novel, he considers himself the “King of Hearts”.

  36. I totally agree with AJB (comment at 9:32 am).
    The IPCC has a hidden agenda. Their ‘science’ will therefore never be objective.
    The only reasonable thing to do is to close it down.
    To paraphrase Moonbat: “It was fun while it lasted”.
    Well, thanks for spoiling billions of dollars, now please go home and get a new hobby.
    Maybe build a greenhouse and start growing cucumbers. Don’t forget to add CO2!

  37. Geico Ad lookalike aside, one can say that ALL of Pachauri’s statements are politicized as everything he says is political. He is just the head of Maurice Strong’s Propaganda machine to make the case for global emissions controls. His job is to deflect or ignore all criticism and continuously protest that he is right, no matter how many ways he is shown wrong.
    We can show everything in the IPCC AR4 report to be false and he will still claim that the conclusions are correct. That’s his job.
    However, couldn’t they find someone who looks to be in the 21st century? Really.

  38. As an indication of the diligence that the BBC exercises in researching climate related stories, they (a presenter, not Harrabin)referred this morning to the clamour for the resignation of Professor Pachauri.

  39. Tenuc says:
    September 23, 2010 at 11:16 am
    The UN’s headquarters is in New York, USA, and now there is a global and happy jamboree down there and no one complains. BTW it seems that there will be a new head of that organism, as the Moon guy is approaching the end of his term.
    I am not versed in demonology so I couldn’t predict who will replace him, but some people say that the time has arrived for a female-demon to be nominated.

  40. ZT says:
    September 23, 2010 at 10:39 am
    I am disappointed to see all the WWF motivated ‘save the Pachauri comments’.
    However, the suggestion of Phil Jones

    I nominate James Hansen! He’d do miracles for the “cause”.

  41. @ZT (post #1) “Phil has been cleared of any wrong doing, possesses good organizational skills, and impeccable scientific credentials. ” (post #2) “I also nominate Gavin Schmidt (Esquire), as a possible contender, based on his extensive diplomatic credentials.”
    First Phil Jones and now Gavin, next you’ll be nominating the UN IPCC to institute a global climate control scheme based on its rigorous, objective, and ethical application of the scientific method!

  42. A UN source said developed countries were keen to strike a deal on biodiversity, so would not be prepared to upset developing countries by calling for resignation of a high-profile Indian.
    Is the UN playing the race card? Gee, are they trying to play on the guilt of the rich developed white Western nations? Given the longstanding record of respect shown those nations at the UN by those other countries, as proudly displayed at the Copenhagen conference?

  43. @scarface “The IPCC has a hidden agenda. Their ‘science’ will therefore never be objective.”
    “Hidden”? The IPCC’s explicit and stated role is to “assess… human-induced climate change.”
    They are AGW promoters and believers, there’s nothing “scientific” about it.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
    “ROLE : The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. “

  44. I love how the author of the article uses quotes when referring to AGW “skeptics.” Almost like he’s struggling to not use the usual “denier” meme, but still refuses to confer any legitimacy on anybody not buying the AGW theory.

  45. My forecast?. A well known african-american lady will be nominated to replace him. She has recently helped fighting that sickening gas we all exhale by anathemizing it for ever.

  46. What is this deal that is to be struck with the Indians that mustn’t be upset by Pachauri being asked to resign? Is it we will limit our emissions if you give us all your money? Ah yes, I thought so.
    I agree with AJB: ‘Never mind Pachauri, how about we rid ourselves of Harrabin, Black, Yeo, Hulme, George Monbiot and the rest of the UK post-normal freak show. This is the real threat to the UK, its economy and its people, not the IPCC.’ The very thought cheered me up immensely. Many thanks AJB

  47. I think we need a new HTML switch ‘specially for ZT /sard
    The posts are not sarcastic but sardonic.
    characterized by bitter or scornful derision; mocking; cynical; sneering:
    DaveE

  48. Judging by his compatriots running the Commonwealth Games, the last thing he is likely to do is admit there is a problem. Like the footbridge and the weightlifting building ceiling, his career with the IPCC will fall down in a screaming heap. Last thing any senior Indian bureaucrat will do is admit failure.
    Like many others here I am glad he is in there attracting all the flies to the IPCC.
    BTW On things a tad closer to home, Matt and Janet Thompson were served the eviction notice from their bank. They have to vacate the farm by mid October.

  49. Pachauri is a goner. But a little bit later would be more to my liking. The US mid-term elections are in early November. I would love to see, after our election , a new US congress involved in discussion of his replacement.
    John

  50. He has to be hide away, as he became a worldwide known joke, as Al Baby, who disappeared silently behind curtains, which, btw, it is a relief as babies won’t get scared anymore by seeing his artificially rosy cheeks and his blazing sight.

  51. I vote to leave him in.
    In perhaps a quarter century, when monuments are being built to those who saved humanity from the poverty and tyranny of the AGW delusion, right along with the courage of Lindzen and Singer, the integrity of Pielke the Elder, the courage of Spencer and Christie, the jollity of Watts, and many others, will appear fountains and boulevards paying homage to the narcissistic cupidity and egregious cluelessness of Pachauri.
    He is truly irreplaceable. He has managed to alienate even the government of India to the point that they have their own climate commission, independent of the IPCC.

  52. “Dr Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has in the past been criticised by climate “sceptics”
    Listen rajendra, its not our fault, it’s those pesky skeptics that want you out and we have got to shut them up somehow.
    I think i know what the plan is. There is a certain ex vice president of america who is in need of gainful employment. Al baby, this job is just what the doctor ordered. Go for it.

  53. Colin from Mission B.C. says September 23, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    I love how the author of the article uses quotes when referring to AGW “skeptics.” Almost like he’s struggling to not use the usual “denier” meme, but still refuses to confer any legitimacy on anybody not buying the AGW theory.

    They have a common purpose. Mr Harrabin and the brotherhood at the BBC I’m afraid fool no one.

  54. Tenuc says:
    September 23, 2010 at 11:16 am
    I agree, the IPCC and the cargo cult scientists who support it are a total disgrace. However, I feel that the IPCC is only working to the UN political brief to prove global warming and so pave the way to an unelected world government with a common carbon (energy) currency.
    So I think it is the UN that needs to be abolished, along with the World Bank, IMF, WWF, Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Soros Foundation, the Bilderberg Group and any other ‘green’ socialist organisation who would put world government before the freedom of the individual.
    Please feel free to add any I may have missed to the list 🙂

    Couldn’t agree more. By just recommending the abolition of the IPCC, I was just trying to be modest in my demands.
    Anyway, funniest suggestion for Pachy’s replacement: Gavin Schmidt.
    /Mr Lynn

  55. The problem is that when you go to a used car lot and you have a huckster trying to sell you a wreck and you walk away only to come back to the same lot a day later and there is a different huckster trying to sell you the same wreck, what has really changed?

  56. Pachuri is a trustee of a charity called TERI Europe. Last November Richard North challenged the published accounts since it was seemed that money that had been paid by public bodies to TERI Europe was less that the totals declared to the British Charity Commission. They admitted their accoutns were wrong
    A few weeks ago the revised accounts were published by the British Charity Commission
    This is the link to the revised accounts: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/SHOWCHARITY/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1077624&SubsidiaryNumber=0
    Year before inquiries Corrected figures submitted after inquiries
    2006 7,000 16,610
    2007 9,000 49,878
    2008 8,000 103,980
    In other words TERI Europe had made a mistake in their accounts and only posted about 15% of their income to the British authorites.
    Monbiot says this is not relevent and we can trust Pachauri
    I and Shub have written this story up and it is posted on Bishop Hill. I really do implore readers at WUWT to get this story out to a wider public before Pachauri goes. Once he goes it will be a dead story. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/9/18/george-monbiot-scrubbing-the-record-clean.html
    No one is suggesting Pachauri is corrupt or has done anything wrong, but he has made as series of blunders and has many conflict of interest because he is both the chairman of the IPCC and at the same time being a trustee of charities that receive grants to study the subject raised in IPCC report make it very difficult for everyone to regard him as neutral chairman. Even the New Scientist have called for him to go because the conflict of interest make his position untenable.

  57. Get rid of the railroad engineer and bring in someone more qualified for the work of the IPCC: a sewage engineer.

  58. I would not worry overmuch about the employment status of Mr Pachauri. Of much more interest is one of those asked for an opinion of his position by BBC news, Prof Mike Hulme. He appears to be a man with a very different view of what “Science” and the “scientific method” mean than that apparently accepted by the majority of posters on this site. I would recommend a visit to Buy the Truth.wordpress.com to read a post there titled Climate Change and the Death of Science (sorry, I am unable to post a link) for some interesting quotes from Prof Hulme and, in my view, an understanding from the analysis there of why we have the problem of “Climate Change” at all.
    It may give some of those here who would debate the “science” with visitors of a warmer persuasion, pause for thought, as to whether you are perhaps wasting your time.
    Your older view of what science Should be, and their Post Normal version are very, very,very different concepts.

  59. I assume he is the most qualified the UN could find for the job. If so it shows the nature of the UN, very costly and dis honest. And evidently not accountable.

  60. I’ll miss Patchy Morals. I say He can’t leave until he’s had a shower!
    A 1940’s technology rail engineer (no Magleve, High Speed, or Mono rail or Intercity 125’s there) as head of the IPCC was a monstrous insult and was the perfect choice by providence to derail what could have been a formidable black hole on human development particularly in the 3rd world….like India. He won’t go. He’s writing a sequel to that his first novel while commuting on jets to important IPCC meetings. His first book could be a movie……..with Patchy as the lead man……you know…….Daniel Craig is….James Bond, Ian McKellan is Gandalf,……Patchy Morals is….. Sick.

  61. Removing him won’t do because he is a high profile Indian????? So if he was a westerner, removing him would be ok??? Frigging racists.
    I for one hope RJP stays for a long long time. He is the best thing for the sceptical side since climategate e-mails.

  62. Olen says:
    September 23, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    I assume he is the most qualified the UN could find for the job. If so it shows the nature of the UN, very costly and dis honest. And evidently not accountable.

    In fact he was appointed due to lobbying by the Dubya Bush administration. Climategate emails reveal the “team” were very very unhappy about it.
    Seems Dubya was a very insightful man. He must have known RJP would’ve stained the AGW movement.
    Dubya was right.

  63. Pachauri is a railway engineer with a PhD in economics. Hardly an expert in climate. [snip]
    Not only sack Pachauri but close down the IPCC!

  64. The best option seems (to me) to be the dissolution of the UN and all of its empire; a more acceptable figurehead for the IPCC would only help to disguise the fact that the IPCC was set up for the purpose of distributing the CAGW Kool-Aid to the world. It was not set up to promote scientific enquiry into the earth’s climate but to promote a predetermined scenario regardless of any science. I really dislike conspiracy theories, but I suspect that if it was not for the Internet and sites such as this one, Maurice Strong and his cohort would have won the day.
    The moves to get rid of Pachauri are a distraction; he is not the problem, his employer is.

  65. Many thanks for tolerating the suggestions for suitable write-in replacements, should Pachauri be unfairly hounded from office by (us) guttersnipes.
    I think that George Monbiot called this one correctly – Pachauri is manifestly innocent. As evidence, I proffer the following write up on his own web site, captured in the TERI report here: http://www.teriin.org/about/AnnualReport_08_09.pdf
    “The official website of Dr R K Pachauri, Director-General, TERI, was developed this year. This website provides an interface where media persons, climate change researchers, and the public in general can know more about Dr Pachauri’s individual and professional life. The website is a complete repository of all his speeches and addresses delivered at various public forums; these are provided in the text format and are also available as online webcasts. The website informs the visitor about the various national and international awards and honours bestowed upon Dr Pachauri. His illustrious body of work, which includes books, research papers, and articles authored by him, are also listed chronologically. One of the highlights of the website is a photo gallery, which highlights Dr Pachauri’s interactions with eminent personalities, provides photographs of his frequent trips, and also captures his personal moods.
    The interested visitor can also find videos and webcasts of all his television interviews and the text of all his newspaper interviews. News clippings and magazine covers featuring Dr Pachauri in the international media are also included. There is an interesting section on cricket, which showcases Dr Pachauri’s passion for this recreational sport. His milestones in corporate cricket, his cricketing moments and feats, and columns written by him on cricket are featured here.
    The website also has a blog through which Dr Pachauri regularly expresses his views on the latest developments related to climate change. He writes on issues of global importance, and the number of page hits and the nature of comments on each blog entry reflect the popularity of this blog amongst audiences around the world.”
    Unfortunately, the blog itself (though not the TERI write up) seems to have been suppressed (no doubt another manifestation of the vast big oil conspiracy).
    (Gavin’s web site will be better, though.)

  66. Pachauri and the IPCC is like made for each other. The only one who could possibly do more damage would be ….. Al Gore!

  67. A lot of comments here which that remind me of the saying about the ugly side if human beings – ‘shoot the messanger if you don’t like the message’ .
    If you don’t think the planet is warming why are the Russians making historic trips with an ice breaker tanker arond the new North East passage . And if this is nothing to do with rising CO2 levels , why are the oceans becoming less alkaline due to increases carbonic acid levels.
    What the IPCC has done is point out that there is significant evidence across many areas ( thermal measurements , glacial changes , biological signals , sea level measurements , and computer simpulations) that point out global warming is occuring and this is consistemnt with human activity ( buring fossil fuels) .

  68. PeteM says September 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    What the IPCC has done is point out that there is significant evidence across many areas (thermal measurements, glacial changes, biological signals, sea level measurements and computer simulations) that point out global warming is occurring and this is consistent with human activity (burning fossil fuels).

    Exactly right. The IPCC has amassed circumstantial evidence in the form of often dubious correlations all with absolutely no proof of causation. “Consistent with” is incomplete science and utterly insufficient to support replacement of the world’s entire social, economic and industrial fabric in favour of some global totalitarian regime featuring a new fiat currency as its basis of control. Yet the latter is the openly declared focus.
    This is not science or even religion. Sadly, it bears all the hallmarks of an evolved extremist ideology the like of which has caused untold human suffering and death multiple times throughout history: demonization, political infiltration, subjugation of academia and public institutions, organized indoctrination of the young, attempted philosophical redefinition (e.g. post-normal science, precautionary principle), the blurring of history, relentless propaganda at every level, vilification of decent, invocation of psycho babble, etc. Usually this is followed closely by increasing authoritarianism, conflict and eventually mass bloodshed.
    The real science of climate centres on the role of water, which is very poorly understood (not even the sign of its “feedback” to use myopic radiative parlance) and conveniently obfuscated or downplayed. Until this glaring omission is properly addressed, the null hypothesis with regard to CO2 must prevail. All we have at present is conjecture from a bunch of dangerous politicised hot heads that have spent too long in the sun getting high on narcotic kool-aid dispensed from a magic self-replenishing fountain.
    There is no conspiracy here; the history of human evolution is littered with aberrations like the current one. Ugly ego collectives are probably a natural mechanism for population control, no need to shoot the messenger.

  69. KPMg actually made an error in auditing his travel arrangements. Their report is here on Scribd, uploaded by the assistant editor of the Guardian, Adam Vaughn, two days before the Telegraph apology.
    Page 14 “The Cost of travel for Dr. Saroj Pachauri was incurred by Dr. Pachauri through his personal account for attending the presentation ceremony of Yale University’s Honorary Degree. Travel Reimbursement in respect to travel to New York during 28-30 June 2008. ” Saroj is his wife.
    What’s the mistake? The Honorary degree ceremony took place on 26th May and is shown in his UN travel itinerary as such and also on the Yale website. He was in New York from 28th to 30th June, but he was at a UN Economic and Social Council “High Level Policy Dialogue”.
    Great auditing, he should ask for his money back. Still, it was only one mistake….

  70. By the way, did you know KPMG sponsor the Nobel Peace Centre?
    http://www.kpmg.ca/en/news/pr20040630.html
    Toronto, June 30, 2004 – KPMG International, the global network of professional services firms providing audit, tax and advisory services, today announced that it has been named the Global Founding Partner of the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo, Norway, as a demonstration of its global commitment to inspire leadership, ethics and responsibility.
    “All too often, the daily pursuit of business objectives leaves little room for the highest ideals of mankind,” said Nobel’s Lundestad. “Nobel shares the belief that the times demand positive change. And, we share the determination to advance the highest ideals, be it in the world of business or the broader world stage. We look forward to a long and fruitful relationship with KPMG.”
    KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”) is a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.

  71. AJB – I’m not sure where to begin with your response, which to put it politely, seems confused.
    The physics of the greenhouse effect is clear and any attempt to wish it away using statements about ‘extreme ideology’ and ‘human suffering’ is curious . There is no climate change global-totalitarian-regime that wants to dismantle the entire social , economic and industrial fabric . (Humans managed totalitarianism in the past without having to invoke complex science) .
    There is some very clear information about the reality of increased greenhouse gases (available from many reputable scientific sources ).
    The idea that the planet is warming is cleared supported by many individual and independant pieces of evidence. The IPCC is correct to mention this . This is totally consistent with good science.
    There are implications with the knowledge we have accumulated . It suggests we do need to revisit our choices of energy source as soon as possible because the laws of businesss or politics are irrelevant to the way the laws of physics work.
    This is not an aberation. In the recent past , similar bodies of evidence were used to suggest that smoking is not a healthy life sytle choice or CFCs cause ozone layer depletion. At the time (and in some cases still continuing) many less informed individuals were happy to decry these ideas but in the long run the scientific facts became accepted.
    The real science continues to evolve and build on (or modify) the existing science . Unless you have evidence that the greenhouse effect isn’t a real phenomena (which would mean the dismantling of huge swathes of current knowledge ) , then thee only choice to debate is how we lean to live in balance with the planet we inhabit.

  72. PeteM says September 25, 2010 at 3:23 am

    The physics of the greenhouse effect is clear

    In the laboratory, yes. But its relevance to the role CO2 plays in the atmosphere and the net contribution to warming there from is anything but. The correlations are poor. Bland references to the basic physics of the greenhouse effect are not proof of causation. If you don’t understand that perhaps a review of this recent thread will help you appreciate the real issue:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/spencer-on-water-vapor-feedback

    There are implications with the knowledge we have accumulated . It suggests we do need to revisit our choices of energy source as soon as possible.

    Suggestion on the basis of an unproven hypothesis is fine and should prompt further focused enquiry aimed at establishment of proof of causation. That is science. Classifying CO2 as a pollutant, implementing cap and trade legislation, raising additional taxation, setting up bogus carbon trading scams, etc. on the basis of this conjecture can be viewed as merely jumping the gun.
    But grotesque social engineering on a grand scale supported by a disingenuous philosophical redefinition of science, use of blatant, incessant propaganda, subversion and indoctrination techniques, mass enlistment and fuelling of useful idiots coupled with programs like Agenda21 that are remote from normal political discourse is something else entirely and anything but curious. Some of us are old enough to have seen it all before, you clearly are not.

    … which to put it politely, seems confused … any attempt to wish it away… smoking is not a healthy lifestyle choice … because the laws of business or politics are irrelevant … the only choice to debate is how we learn to live in balance with the planet we inhabit.

    Irrelevant pre-programmed psycho babble – you have been drinking too much kool-aid and are running on autosuggestion. Please take a reality break.

  73. AJB – It seems you are still unable to respond in an unconfused way .
    Sorry to dissapoint you, but outside of the lab the greenhouse effect is used to explain the fact that the Earth has the pleasant temperature despite being the ‘wrong’ distance from the Sun.
    As far as general references about the greenhouse effect, you are free to go and study the proper detailed science and to educate yourself about why more than bland statements . Most researchers in this area have a phd in a related hard science . After a few years hard work in this area and a bit of mathematical understanding , I think you will find that irrelevant political answers do not invalidate the reality of the physics behind global warming.
    The science is clear enough (not perfece and still room for improvement but weknow a lot) and you have yet to offer clear explanation ( aside from economic and political curiosities ) why the physics of the greenhouse effect is wrong .
    Fossil fuels have been helpful but it’s time think again before we distupt climate further and (as a side effect) alter the alkilinity of the oceans . Alternatively, show a way we can use fossil fuels while reversing some of the increases of atmospheric Co2 .

  74. PeteM says:
    September 26, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    It seems you are still unable to respond in an unconfused way.

    More condescending nonsense, at least learn to punctuate properly before you start casting aspersions on the standard of other people’s education. This interchange is terminated.

  75. AJB –
    I will add a final clarification about the confusion . You are placing business or political hyperbole in your comments.
    Any of the following from your responses are clear examples.
    … to support replacement of the world’s entire social, economic and industrial fabric in favour of some global totalitarian regime featuring a new fiat currency as its basis of control….
    … all the hallmarks of an evolved extremist ideology the like of which has caused untold human suffering and death multiple times throughout history: demonization, political infiltration, subjugation of academia and public institutions, organized indoctrination of the young …
    … is conjecture from a bunch of dangerous politicised hot heads that have spent too long in the sun getting high on narcotic kool-aid dispensed from a magic self-replenishing fountain….
    ….Irrelevant pre-programmed psycho babble….
    I would contrast your rhetoric, with the language provided by organisations like the IPCC who have correctly pointed out the accumulated knowledge about global warming . Increasing greenhouse gases will cause an energy imbalance and , in the case of CO2 , contribute to ocean acidification. Failure to tackle this will have consequences.
    I refer to education options, since your comments appear overwhelmingly driven by an apparent belief that business or political arguments invalidate the effect of physical processes. I think the irrelevance of this approach was demonstrated by King Canute about 1000 years ago.

Comments are closed.