Throwback Thursday #4 – IPCC’s Pachauri says ‘2012 will be too late’ to stop climate change

The U.N.’s top railroad engineer sexual harasser “climate scientist” said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world.

Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said this in 2007 in a New York Times article

pachauri-action

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/world/europe/18iht-climate.2.8378031.html?_r=0

Well, it’s now August 2015, the world isn’t destroyed and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented, though there’s a lot of hullaballo ramping up for the Paris COP21 meeting this coming December. The only thing that’s changed since Pachauri’s 2007 pronouncement is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

And let’s not forget his smutty romance novel:

 

 


Throwback Thursday” is a regular WUWT feature highlighting past claims of climate doom made by scientists, pundits, and alarmist activists…that have not come true. It’s a bit of a take off from the “Throwback Thursday” on Facebook, where people post old pictures from their past, except here, it’s not just the age, it’s the fact that these lousy predictions really do deserve to be “thrown back” into the faces of the people that made them.

 

 

 

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “Throwback Thursday #4 – IPCC’s Pachauri says ‘2012 will be too late’ to stop climate change

    • …simply move the goalposts

      I respectfully understand the sentiment, but I don’t personally believe that applies in this specific instance.

      The point I believe this sad excuse of a person was making was that if we don’t get some strong climate policy to drastically reduce CO2, that we would soon (in 2012) pass a tipping point from which we couldn’t return. He was not saying that the world would end in 2012 or close thereafter like the lead post implies, for Pete’s sake. You can’t say the warmunist side is wrong based on this quote since you can’t prove we’re NOT past a tipping point now (i.e. trying to prove a negative).

      No, I do not believe the Pachauri prediction or in an impending tipping point in the slightest, but I feel this WUWT post is inane and does nothing to further our argument. It just feels a bit petty to me. Yeah, so what if they do it. My opinion–take it or leave it.

      Before someone accuses me of treason (or trolling)…
      1. I appreciate and applaud AW for giving us skeptics a voice here. This site may just save us from a disastrous slide into a world controlled by a strong climate policy.
      2. I believe there is ample evidence that it’s NOT THE ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 THAT IS CAUSING ANY SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE WARMING THAT SEEMS TO BE OCCURRING OVER THE LAST CENTURY.
      3. I believe CAGW is a political and “religious” argument, not a scientific one at this point.
      4. It appears to me that {lifted from a comment a few days ago where I failed to capture the screen name}, “there is no rational signal of CO2 in historic temperature nor any proxy evidence that CO2 EVER caused any warming on the planet.”
      5. Warming of the planet and the modest change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere seems to be doing us all a lot of good.
      6. I see plenty of evidence that the warmunists are really coming for my wallet and my liberty.

      This kind of post deserves an eye roll at best IMHO.

      However, I will ask this of the CAGW team members who happen by…
      Since 2012 has come and gone with no major climate change policy, and since we are past the Pachauri 2012 tipping point (i.e. since it’s too late), can’t we all just be done with this whole mess and move on to something important now, like localized land use issues that are drastically hurting local ecosystems, severely distressed fisheries, providing cheap power to the poor of the world, etc.?

      thanks for reading…

      • Boulder Skeptic:

        No, I do not believe the Pachauri prediction or in an impending tipping point in the slightest, but I feel this WUWT post is inane and does nothing to further our argument. It just feels a bit petty to me. Yeah, so what if they do it. My opinion–take it or leave it.

        I agree with you completely on this, except in that you’re being far too nice. This post is an attempt at playing gotcha games which completely missed the mark. There is no substance or value to this post. It’s just an embarrassing mistake.

      • if we don’t get some strong climate policy to drastically reduce CO2, that we would soon (in 2012) pass a tipping point from which we couldn’t return.
        =============
        if so, why continue to push for a climate treaty with trillions of dollars in expenses?

        the horse has already left the barn. adding a solid gold door isn’t going to bring the horse back.

      • @Brandon & Boulder:

        Couldn’t disagree more. Powerful people proclaim the world must transform itself (to the benefit of a very few – including themselves, natch – and to the detriment of the very many) based on predictions of certain doom if advice not heeded. When the predictions are shown to be ridiculous, how could it possibly be inappropriate to remind the world of same?

        Re Boulder’s point that the prediction theoretically could yet come true, this is easily dealt with. Just ask those who make and/or back the predictions if, in the current case, e.g., it is in fact true that it is now too late to do anything. I.e., 2012 has come and gone, and, since we did nothing, is our planetary fate therefore sealed? If they answer that, ‘yes, it is true, we’re done for,’ this means we should all just party out our last days – perhaps burning every last molecule of carbon-based fuel in the process, as it no longer matters.

        They of course will not say this; they will say there is still time to act. In other words, they will implicitly or explicitly admit the prediction was baseless. And, as explained in paragraph 1, this baselessness absolutely does matter.

        With all due respect, you guys are trying to play nice with people who laugh at you for doing so. Good luck turning the tide with that strategy. Others among us will continue acting on the assumption that Big Lies should be exposed and mocked at every turn. Expose this one. Expose the next one. Expose them all, every time.

        Best to you both,
        Brad Crawford

      • ferd berple

        if so, why continue to push for a climate treaty with trillions of dollars in expenses? the horse has already left the barn. adding a solid gold door isn’t going to bring the horse back.

        I agree. You might want to reread ALL that I wrote. That is exactly the point of my question in the last paragraph. It should cause exactly the same response from warmists that provoter argues (i.e. warmists will have to refute this Pachauri prediction of their own volition).

        Brad Crawford, respectfully…

        you guys are trying to play nice with people who laugh at you for doing so.

        Not at all. I prefer to hit them as hard with the actual data and science as possible at every turn, rather than turn to essentially Alinksi tactics of this WUWT post (in my opinion). My mind is unchanged. I prefer to see posts here that are hard hitting refutations of these ridiculous theories with science and data rather than, “nah, nah, nah, nah, you’re a ridiculous idiot.”

        So, while we may disagree on this topic and some tactics, I believe we’re both headed in the same direction in the end. Thanks for the considerate feedback.

      • “No, I do not believe the Pachauri prediction or in an impending tipping point in the slightest, but I feel this WUWT post is inane and does nothing to further our argument. It just feels a bit petty to me. Yeah, so what if they do it. My opinion–take it or leave it.”

        I quoted this entire paragraph, just to be clear about my argument. I think you have stated a good case, and I’m going to perhaps be a bit too picky with this snippet, but it is something I have been saying ever since the Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming meme has been appearing on the internet (yes, I’ve been following it a very long time), and in print before the internet became common. In particular, I will focus on your phrase in the above paragraph, that says “does nothing to further our argument”. I say that we have no argument. There is absolutely nothing we can say, no data we can point to, and no logic that we can employ, that will change the ultimate goal of the people that are using certain scientists and researchers to further their ends. We can employ a War of Words about this topic of CAGW, but ultimately the whole topic boils down to the ultimate goals of the people who are controlling the strings of research, publishing, and education.

        As John Brignell has so eloquently described it [ http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/fable.htm ], in his essay entitled “A fable for our times”, this is all caused by FATBOG. FATBOG stands for Fairies At The Bottom Of the Garden. That is, FATBOG and CAGW are one-and-the-same. Just as you cannot argue about whether there are Fairies at the bottom of the Garden, you also cannot argue about whether there is some catastrophic change of climate. And, to sweeten the pot, you cannot argue about whether this catastrophic change is due to a benevolent molecule we call carbon dioxide, or whether mankind has anything to do with the production of “excessive” amounts of carbon dioxide.

        I have always argued that it is not science we should be debating. The debate should revolve around who is gaining power, wealth, and position from this debauchery of “science”. We have no argument to further. There has never been a single person swayed from their religious trance of “believing” in CAGW, by using common sense and logical argument.

      • It won’t be Barack because it wouldn’t leave him enough time to play golf or hang out with the Hollywood idiots who believe in AGW but lead lives exactly opposite of what they espouse.

      • Nope Obama is going for UN President to implement Agenda 21. He’ll appoint Lisa Jackson to the IPCC chair

    • And – coincidence of coincidences, no doubt – a few days after this became public knowledge, Pachauri (and/or his coterie of PR advisors) found it necessary to appeal to the Delhi court for permission for him to travel to China* and Tokyo. Such permission was subsequently granted. Quelle surprise, eh?!

      *The purported purpose of this trip to China was to:

      deliver a lecture on a report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the International Ecosystem Management Partnership (IEMP) in China from August 22-28.

      I’m not sure what the purported “purpose” of the trip to Tokyo might be. Furthermore, YMMV may certainly vary, but at the very least one would have thought that the UNEP/IPCC could have found someone other than Pachauri to deliver such a “report” to such an organization.

      Not to mention that – as I had noted in a recent post on this very matter – there was absolutely nothing that I was able to find on the IEMP site which even mentioned such a planned gathering.

      Amazing, eh?!

  1. Are the global warmers aware it is three years too late?

    Why are they still wasting effort and annoying us? Why don’t they just go home?

  2. It’s too late then? We might as well throw another log on the fire and party while the ship goes down.

  3. I agree that we can’t stop climate change. So let’s concentrate our time, energy and resources on real problems.

  4. The only thing that’s changed since Pachauri’s 2007 pronouncement is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

    And let’s not forget his smutty romance novel:

    The two things are neither the same nor equal.
    Bad fiction is subjective and sadly ubiquitous. It’s not a crime.

    Sexual harassment is a crime.

  5. I’m still waiting for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to apologise for blundering so badly when it awarded that Nobel Peace Prize jointly to the IPCC and Al Gore… and we know it was for political correctness reasons. After all, it certainly could not seriously have been awarded for the IPCC’s sub-standard biased pseudo climate science that was promoted by the IPCC, and globally hailed, as “the gold standard in climate science”… a claim that now looks like a sick joke.

  6. Catastrophe is already baked in, so strap in for a bumpy ride.

    According to the Pentagon, the following will occur within the next 5 years…

    “global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters”
    “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas”
    “Britain plunged into a Siberian climate”
    “bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies.”
    “‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life”
    “Once again, warfare would define human life.”
    “widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

  7. They should put a sign above the entrance to the COP21 meeting in Paris that says, “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here. It is now too late to change our future. Go home!”

  8. To our host: You should consider providing balance (to avoid more of Brandon’s withering criticism) by doing a column on climate alarm predictions that have come true, on the second Thursday each week.

Comments are closed.