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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Olen says:
September 23, 2010 at 7:45 pm
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.
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!
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.
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.)
Pachauri and the IPCC is like made for each other. The only one who could possibly do more damage would be ….. Al Gore!
[snip – you are right – it IS over the top]
A nice video about concensus;
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) .
PeteM says September 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm
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.
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….
Sorry, Scribd link for those interested is http://www.scribd.com/doc/36401538/KPMG-review-of-personal-financial-records-of-Dr-Rajendra-K-Pachauri-and-other-records-of-TERI-for-the-period-1-April-2008-to-31-December-2009?autodown=pdf
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.
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.
PeteM says September 25, 2010 at 3:23 am
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
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.
Irrelevant pre-programmed psycho babble – you have been drinking too much kool-aid and are running on autosuggestion. Please take a reality break.
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 .
PeteM says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:20 pm
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.
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.