The UN IPCC – Influence Without Accountability

Source:  SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

Donna La Framboise has an excellent piece on Dr Rajendra Pachauri and highlights the emergence of a new UN body similar to the IPCC, but in respect of Bio-Diversity. This is of course another objective that was decided at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and is now being brought of the cupboard.

Mr. Chairman, Your Carriage Awaits January 28, 2011, Donna La Framboise

“According to some people the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a marvelous organization ? so marvelous it should be regarded as a prototype. A month ago, therefore, the UN General Assembly formally created the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

As the press release explains, this body will be an ?IPCC for Nature? which will:

?in many ways mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has assisted in catalyzing worldwide understanding and governmental action on global warming.

There?s just one problem. The IPCC model is utterly dysfunctional. It is a screeching, flashing, billboard-sized example of influence without accountability. For proof of this statement, one need look no further than the IPCC?s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.”

More here

Whilst I agree with Donna’s comments and admire the excellent exposés she has produced on the IPCC, I do not on this occasion, agree with her conclusion. Rather, I stand with one of the comments under the name of “cardigan”, which says, “While Dr Pachauri remains in post, those doubts will remain.”


Those doubts are totally valid and are based on real science and facts. If he goes, they will say they have put their house in order and everything is now hunky dory. I have no wish to to restore the IPCC’s reputation, (to what?) its mandate is to attribute any changes in climate or any weather events to human activity in order to help the UN impose global control of energy and finance via CO2 “emission control”. I would join a campaign to keep him in office, because he is their weak link.”

Last September, SPPI published my paper entitled “Is The IPCC Endangered by the  IAC Report?” I commented at the time:

“There are some who seem to think that this heralds the departure of the IPCC chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, or signals the imminent demise of the IPCC, but this is probably wishful thinking. We mustn?t forget that AR5 is already on the stocks and will continue with all the claims of the previous reports. Large sections are just cut and pasted from earlier reports and form the basis for the next one, with all assumptions, expert judgements and the like, carried forward as sound science.

In general, the report by the panel convened by the Inter-Academy Council has done what it set out to achieve:

1. Acknowledge the anger felt by sceptics and even some environmentalists, at the obvious mistakes, (in the plural, in spite of Dr Pachauri agreeing to only one), that were revealed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

2. Given the IPCC process a clean bill of health and a licence to carry on, albeit with some management recommendations that will require more funding for the IPCC, effectively as requested by Dr Pachauri last year.”

My point is that Dr Pachauri is not the IPCC, he is merely the face on the box. Removing him will not remove the IPCC, which will continue to dispense the same distortions that Pachauri has defended, albeit they had to concede on Himalayan glaciers. It will give them a new authority, which they do not warrant. The chairman of the IAC Panel, Dr Harold Shapiro, made the position quite clear when he said:

Our charge here was not to review the science, but simply to ask, ?Are their policies and practices set up in such a way as to minimize errors and generally achieve the authoritative nature they sought in the report?”

On its website the Inter Academy Council describes itself as “client-driven” and working on a project by project basis. On this occasion the IPCC were themselves the client. In spite of the general interpretation that the committee had called for the departure of Pachauri, Dr Shapiro made it quite clear in an interview that it was not the case.

?It was beyond our charter to even look at whether the current leadership was adequate or inadequate or super-terrific, and so we did not look. This suggestion [of term limits], from our point of view, does not come from any lack of confidence in the current director. It?s something we simply did not address.

We don?t recommend any change in the director?s position. We do propose a new position called executive director, who would head the secretariat in Geneva. We believe that should be a senior scientist, responsible for day-to-day operations of the secretariat and of the overall assessment.?

The IPCC is just one manifestation of the many-headed hydra that is the UN, chopping off the IPCC head will not kill the beast.