Gobsmacking arrogance from Pachauri as reported by Steve McIntyre at his Climate Audit blog. Steve writes:
Yesterday, IPCC chairman Pachauri told Oliver Morton of The Economist at an IPCC event in Brussels that conflict of interest policies would not not apply to AR5 authors. IPCC thereby sabotaged recommendations from the Interacademy Council and announced its plans to evade the conflict of interest policies passed at the 33rd IPCC plenary only a month ago.
The Pachauri Interview
Here’s what Pachauri said in response to Oliver Morton
– see Morton’s interesting blog article here:
B: Are you happy with the IPCC’s new conflict-of-interest policy? [adopted at the panel’s recent plenary]
RP: Absolutely. I must say that was a very heartening piece of work. People put in a lot of effort to come up with what I think is a very robust policy in terms of conflict of interest.
B: At what point should it start to apply?
RP: It’s applicable right away. Of course if you look at conflict of interest with respect to authors who are there in the 5th Assessment Report we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.
All sorts of editorial responses spring to mind (one of which is that, in transcription, Pachauri sure sounds like Acton of East Anglia.) But first let’s follow some backstory – through the IAC Report and the COI policy adopted at the 33rd IPCC plenary.
more at Climate Audit
B: At what point should it start to apply?
RP:.. we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.
“The science is settled!”: if it weren’t for your unfair ability to still ask [me] questions, “we” wouldn’t even have to talk about
thisanything!Yes but, who put Pachauri in that position?
The IPCC and their camp followers will continue to laugh at you until you will use some 2×4 diplomacy. But you will never do that.
How about this Mr Watts? Taken from American Thinker today: Most of us expect an intergovernmental agency not to have enviro-advocacy people influencing its reports. Unfortunately for the IPCC, Anthony Watts details at his blog how another blogger, Steve McIntyre, blows the whistle on the report’s ties to Greenpeace.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/there_is_a_cancer_growing_on_the_ipcc_and_al_gore.html
The ONLY way this will change is by voting out the governments that support this: mainly USA, Australia, Britain, and Germany. Only when these governments go, will anything change and it will take many years even if temps plummet they will (IPCC) hang on as long as possible to AGW… Unfortunately ranting on CA or WUWT or JONova will have no effect whatsoever.
RP:.. we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.
“Looking for ‘fair’ changes? You fools, we stand
correctedcorrupted!”John D wrote: “Unfortunately ranting on CA or WUWT or JONova will have no effect whatsoever”
au contraire, no need to be so pessimistic! 3 years ago skepticism was unheard of, these 3 you name were just lonely voices in the wilderness. Look at how much they have changed in that time!!! They have been the point of the spear, and the tide is turning! No longer does a large majority just blindly buy into AGW, and now, at least in the US, Canada, and Australia, there are significant political forces at work to end this charade. (for you in the UK, I’m sorry.)
Now the warmists are worried – they are terrified by these blogs, and those who host them. That alone should tell you how effective they have been! Broadbased political movements start at the grass roots – well, this is the grass roots right here! True change starts here, including a change in government!
Doug in Seattle says:
June 18, 2011 at 10:59 pm
“And there’s that word again – “robust”. Just what does it really mean to them?”
I’m not quite sure but i think that it means grantworthy!
Applying it ‘ retrospectively’ (the policy) to upcoming AR5, wouldn’t be sort of fair to who exactly ? The beleaguered authors & reviewers who have worked so hard already or the long-suffering tax payers who are funding the whole circus and don’t have any say in the matter ?
Why does complacency spring to mind ?
So, essentially, a kudos to Mr Pauchauri for telling the rest of the world that the composition of the WG5 is so rottenly biased from start, that they can’t apply common decent, and rational, rules after the teams creation.
Can the private sector now do the same when it comes to new business regulations being passed?
Some of Pachaur’s shoot from the lip proclamations make me wonder whether he ever bothers to read what he has said previously and/or what the actual IPCC decisions were. In this particular instance, his:
would seem to be at odds with [from the “decisions taken” text]:
Certainly one could drive a truck through the loopholes in the above excerpts. Not to mention that “Annex A: Implementation” and “Annex B: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form” – to the 17 paragraphs which constitute Appendix 1 – have yet to be written.
But one can only conclude that either:
a) Pachauri doesn’t know what he’s talking about; or
b) Whatever “decisions” the IPCC might have “taken” are nothing but foggy verbiage designed to provide cover for “business as usual” – in complete disregard for the intent of the IAC’s recommendations.
[More at:: IPCC and conflict of interest: tapping into the team-work side-step]
This reminded me of a song from the 1960’s by Bernard Cribbins…
“Bernard Cribbins – 1962
“There I was, a-diggin’ this ‘ole
‘Ole in the ground, so big and sort o’ round it was
And there was I, diggin’ it deep
It was flat at the bottom and the sides were steep
When along comes this bloke in a bowler
Which he lifted and scratched his ‘ead
Woooh, he looked down the ‘ole
Poor demented soul and he said
“Do you mind if I make a suggestion?
Don’t dig there, dig it elsewhere
Your digging it round and it ought to be square
The shape of it’s wrong, it’s much too long
And you can’t put hole where a hole don’t belong”
I ask, what a liberty, eh?
Nearly bashed him right in the bowler
Well, there was I, a-stood in me ‘ole
Shovellin’ earth for all that I was worth, I was
And there was ‘im, standin’ up there
So grand and official with his nose in the air
So I gave him a look sort of sideways
And I leaned on me shovel and sighed
Woooh, I lit me a fag
And havin’ took a drag I replied
I just couldn’t bear to dig it elsewhere
I’m diggin’ it round ‘cos I don’t want it square
And if you disagree, it doesn’t bother me
That’s the place where the ‘oles gonna be
Well there we were, discussing this ‘ole
‘Ole in the groud, so big and sort o’ round
It’s not there now, the ground’s all flat
And beneath it is the bloke in the bowler hat
And that’s that!”
Pachauri sounds like St Augustine: ‘Lord, make me chaste. But not yet…’
Whatever “COI policy” the IPPC has or does not have is irrelevant in a sense. If any real COIs are found to exist in AR5 then its credibility will be damaged. I mean what little credibility it has will be damaged. Yes ok, I know it has no credibility, but you take my point.
So, the authors have been appointed already, and it wouldn’t be fair to get rid of them (implicit acknowledgement of conflicts?). No problem. The IPCC should issue a disclaimer of opinion, much as an auditor issues a disclaimer of opinion if limitation of scope is so pervasive that the auditor cannot form an opinion. Maybe something along the lines: ”
Since there are no safeguards or checks to prevent conflicts arising between the authors roles in preparing these reports and their external interests, the IPPC neither endorses nor refutes any conclusions, predictions or recommendations that may or may not be contained therein. Nothing contained within these pages may be construed as representing fact or reality, other than that which relates to empirical data.”
Regarding this latest IPCC incident revealed to us by Steve McIntyre and his associates, two quotes at the beginning of chapter 11 of Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ should be commented upon.
Quote #1 – ‘’’’’IPCC reports are being produced in a very open process under the discipline of science, where honesty and balance are hallmarks of that discipline. ‘’’’’’ (Sir John Houghton)
Quote #2 – ‘’’’’The point is that every single man who was there knows that the story is nonsense, and yet it has never been contradicted. It will never be overtaken now. It is a completely untrue story grown to legend while the men who knew it to be untrue looked on and said nothing.’’’’’’’ (Josephine Tey, ‘The Daughter of Time’)
The first quote has been revealed as nonsense; that nonsense has almost become legend.
The second quote is true wrt the MSM; they wanted to allow the IPCC nonsense to become legend because it supports their ideological premise that whatever the IPCC does will save the planet. MSM simply ignores any controversial IPCC activities as irrelevant because they ‘a priori’ know the IPCC will save the planet. Thanks to Steve McIntyre and his associates for helping to block the IPCC nonsense from becoming legend.
John
Thanks to Wil above at the June 19 8:03am mark for linking to my American Thinker article from yesterday. Indeed, two people who’ve participated in the long term smear of skeptic scientists are also involved in the IPCC. One worked at the same enviro-activist group in 1996 that also employed Al Gore’s current spokesperson. The other co-authored a book with the same out-of-context accusation phrase from a leaked memo that Gore has repeatedly, and incorrectly, said someone else discovered. It sure does appear Gore had the memo at the start of it all back in 1991, but like everybody else, he never showed it to the public, so we are all left wondering why he claims somebody else ‘discovered’ it.
Pachauri sure does whistle past the graveyard with his latest conflict-of-interest proclamation…..