Posts Tagged ‘Rajendra Pachauri’

What Would a Bad Job Look Like?

Wednesday, August 14th, 2013

Source:  No Frakking Consensusdonna

A US official recently called Rajendra Pachauri’s leadership of the world’s most important climate body ‘extraordinary.’ But ‘inadequate’ and ‘inexcusable’ are more appropriate.

A few weeks ago, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, delivered a speech in India in which he publicly praised the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“I was just able to meet with my friend, Dr. Pachauri, Nobel Laureate,” he said, “and we thank him for his extraordinary work.”

Let us leave aside the fact that Pachauri is not a Nobel laureate. (He merely accepted the IPCC’s one-half share of the 2007 Peace Prize on behalf of that organization.)

The larger issue is that, according to the US government, Pachauri has done a great job. An extraordinary job, even. So let us review some salient facts. (more…)

Pachauri Pushes Emissions Reduction – Again

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Source:  No Frakking consensus

According to its website, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” organization. But it’s difficult to take that claim seriously when its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, continues to lobby hard for one policy in particular.

Today he delivered a speech at the inauguration of a sustainability summit organized by TERI, an entity he leads. Again and again, he referred to his favourite hobbyhorse: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But emissions reduction is merely one possible response to climate change (adaptation and high-tech fixes are two others; see more here). Nor is it a response that most parents, if they spent five minutes thinking about it, would care to embrace.

[see SPPI paper on Pachauri here] (more…)

How the IPCC Defines ‘Distinguished Scientist’

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011

Source:  No Frakking Consensus

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), appears to be on a media tour intended to rehabilitate both his own reputation and that of the organization he leads.

rajendra-pachauri

Yesterday’s article in the UK’s Telegraph may turn out to be one of a series of similar stories (backup link here). Unfortunately, there’s every indication that these accounts will be written by shockingly uninformed journalists who’ll continue to give Pachauri the benefit of the doubt.

In this instance journalist Peter Stanford falls for Pachauri’s claim that he’s being targeted in a shoot-the-messenger scenario. According to this narrative, the public doesn’t want to confront the danger of climate change so the person delivering the unwelcome news gets attacked.

Oh, please. Pachauri has systematically misled the entire world about how his organization writes its reports. He has insisted that these reports are based only on peer-reviewed literature when this is simply not the case. (more…)

SPPI Paper: Contraction and Convergence

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

Contraction and Convergence

Shut down the Developed Nations, transfer our Wealth and Technology to the Developing Nations

by Dennis Ambler | December 22, 2010

We are entreated daily that the West must cut its industrial base because the planet is in danger from our CO2 emissions and our politicians happily fall into line to impose draconian energy taxes. There is somewhat of a disconnect when we read that industrialisation is proceeding apace in developing nations, with money from the industrialised nations. The announcement from Fiat, Italy, is another example of global corporations moving their operations to the developing world where they can emit to their heart’s content without penalty and get paid by us for doing so, with money we give to the UN for “development”.

“Fiat announced this week that it plans to invest 3 billion Real (approx. 1.7 billion USD) to build a second plant in Brazil, the carmaker’s No. 2 market after its native Italy.” (more…)

Pop Went the Climate Bubble

Saturday, October 23rd, 2010
Source:  Human Events

by  Steven Milloy

The New York Times’ editorial writers have apparently spent the last 11 months in a Rip Van Winkle-like state of unconsciousness when it comes to climate change.

Monday‘s lead editorial, “In Climate Denial Again,” railed about the 19 of 20 or so Republican Senate candidates who do not “accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming.” The Times contrasted those deniers with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report, the group’s “most definitive statement on the human contribution to climate change,” and a 2000 promise by George W. Bush to cap carbon dioxide emissions

But nowhere in the editorial did the Times recall Climategate or the other related global warming-related “gates” that the November 2009 scandal touched off—all of which, no doubt, helped make skeptics of 95% of Republican Senate candidates. So here’s a quick recap of what happened over the past year to the legendary scientific “consensus” on global warming.

Last November, a host of private and candid e-mails between climate alarmist-scientists stored at the University of East Anglia (UK) somehow made its way into the public domain and history. Like a shot heard around the world, the e-mails instantaneously validated what the climate skeptics had been saying for more than a decade about the alarmists — that they had cooked the books on global warming science and then conspired to silence and belittle their critics. (more…)

Two Lies Make A Truth In Green and Liberal Views on Climate Science

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

Source:  Canada Free Press

by Dr. Tim Ball

In the dogmatically blind worlds of liberalism and environmentalism, the truth is irrelevant

In the world of green and liberal politics, where they practice extreme environmentalism, nothing bears examination: two lies make a truth. We now learn that Bjorn Lomborg, who was never a climate skeptic, has magically disavowed that status. As the entire mockery of human induced global warming collapses, it is a convenient conversion.

The Guardian tells us that Bjorn Lomborg, ”The world’s most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront”, in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.” The problem is it is completely false. His message on climate in his new book is exactly the same as it has been all along. (more…)

The meltdown of the climate campaign

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

Source:  WeeklyStandard

By Steven F. Hayward

It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago-changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more. (more…)

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Monday, January 18th, 2010

Source:   The Sunday Times

by Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings

January 17, 2010

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

“Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”

The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

The report read: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, said: “Even a small glacier such as the Dokriani glacier is up to 120 metres [394ft] thick. A big one would be several hundred metres thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300 metres thick so to melt one even at 5 metres a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”.

Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.

The lead role in that process was played by Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Ontario, Canada, who had long been unhappy with the IPCC’s finding.

He traced the IPCC claim back to the New Scientist and then contacted Pearce. Pearce then re-interviewed Hasnain, who confirmed that his 1999 comments had been “speculative”, and published the update in the New Scientist.

Cogley said: “The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report. The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose. It is ultimately a trail that leads back to a magazine article and that is not the sort of thing you want to end up in an IPCC report.”

Pearce said the IPCC’s reliance on the WWF was “immensely lazy” and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.

The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.

New Year’s Resolution: “Do not believe a word I say”

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Science is not a belief system. It is a rigorous, meticulous process of observation, enquiry, investigation, measurement, calculation, evaluation and checking, checking, checking. Therefore, anyone who declares that he or she “believes” – still worse “believes passionately” – in any scientific proposition that has not been rigorously proven has misunderstood what science is all about.

The father of numerical weather forecasting, Edward Lorenz, proved in 1963 that the the very long-run future evolution of the complex, non-linear, mathematically-chaotic object that is the climate cannot be reliably predicted by any method. “Very long-run”, in this context, means “more than a few weeks ahead”. In short, Lorenz proved that proof about the past, present, or long-run future behavior of the climate is impossible.

Yet the UN’s climate panel, whose case for alarm about the climate is founded almost exclusively upon numerical modeling rather than upon observation and measurement, invites us to believe, or even to believe passionately, that there is a 90% probability that more than 50% of the warming of the past half-century was manmade, and it presumes to tell us what the climate will be doing 100 years hence.

I am not as confident as the UN. Therefore, in my lectures on the climate worldwide, I always begin with the words, “Do not believe a word I say!” Many of my listeners find this approach rather startling. They are used to the Al Gores and Rajendra Pachauris of this world telling them that it is their duty to Believe. No, no, and thrice no. It is the duty of every “seeker after truth”, as the 11th-century Iraqi natural philosopher Al-Haytham called scientists, not to believe. It is the truth-seeker’s duty to be skeptical of all sides of any scientific debate.

The evolutionary biologist TH Huxley put it this way in 1860: “The improver of knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” The bed-wetters are beginning to realize that calling us “skeptics” is in fact a compliment, which is why they are more often using yah-boo words like “denialist” or “contrarian” these days. Of course, the term “bed-wetter” is a yah-boo word too, but sometimes even Homer nods.

So, do not believe a word I say. Everything that I say about the climate is rooted in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in the data, and in my own calculations. All of these can be checked. You can check any of them for yourselves. Be at least as skeptical of me as you are of the supposed “consensus”. But also be skeptical of the assertion that, on the climate, there is a “consensus”. This assertion was first promulgated by a Leftist think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, in the UK late in 2006. The Institute circulated like-minded institutions (many of them taxpayer-funded) and suggested that, in future, the Left should pretend that “the science is settled, the debate is over, and now we must act.” It was a simple, appealing, successful but entirely dishonest political strategy.

Science is not done by consensus. It is particularly important to understand this today, when 99% of all scientific research is funded by taxpayers. Science, these days, is a monopsony: there is only one customer, The State. The pressures on scientists to conform to whatever The State – their paymaster – finds expedient, congenial, or profitable are very great, and it is no surprise that the majority of scientists crumble in the face of these pressures.

A reader from Holland puts it this way -

“Dear Lord Monckton, – Your challenge to us, the public, to check the original data rather than believe in the new religion is compelling. However, I am not a scientist. I’m not even any good at math. But I know people.

“If we add up all dead scientists, and also add up the number of scientists alive today, subtract one from the other, and we’ll probably see that today more scientists are alive than have ever lived in all history.

“This makes for quite a number of mouths to feed. Their deceased predecessors already had a tough time securing funding, so it’s a huge challenge being a scientist and make a living out of it today. Huge competition, because the money needs to be funded by taxpayers, and that is limited.

“So imagine a young scientist in need of a salary. His options: Take a current topic, and scream: “It’s even worse than anyone thought! Give me your money, and I will prove it!”, or “No, it is not true. I know everybody thinks I’m bonkers, but give me your money, and I will prove them all wrong!” Chances are nearly all scientists will take the first option, and understandably so.

“This is what we see daily in the media. ‘Knife-to-throat’-type of statements on any subject, coined by someone who has an interest in us believing the statement and wanting to do something about it (a.k.a. ‘give us lots of taxpayers’ money.’).

“In the climate debate we now see that there are too many of them who jumped on the bandwagon. Not enough money to go around. So the collective need to team up and broaden the capabilities to generate more income. Further taxation, global governance … hmmm.

“So, although you tend to refer to the left side of the political spectrum, I don’t think concerted political forces are at the basis of the climate scam. It’s scientists trying to secure their share of ‘money for free’.

“Politicians like this a lot. Since the sixties they’ve been looking for anything that will regain their control over society. Control that was waning as religion went into decline, climate being the new religion with all the usual aspects – deny yourself all joy and you’ll be a saint. For politicians, the climate scare is a Godsend.

“By your own invitation, I don’t believe what you say either, but I thoroughly enjoy the points you make, and the way you make them. Keep up the good work!”

Bottom line: Do not believe a word I say, but do not believe a word They say either. The grubby network of senior climate scientists whose sheer malevolence is so starkly evident in the Climategate emails have gained power, status, influence, and wealth as a result of the scare they have manufactured and peddled: and they have only gotten away with it because they have been able to rely on the general public not to have the time, knowledge, or inclination to check what “Scientists Say”.

“Scientists Say”. Those two words exasperate me every time some dopey enviro-zomb in the media trots them out in support of whatever fatuous exaggeration some sinister environmental group has put out in its latest press release. As a rule of thumb, disbelieve every supposed fact or finding preceded by the words “Scientists Say”. Check, check, and check again. The alternative is to abdicate politically, as the UK Conservative opposition’s chief of policy has done. Oliver Letwin once told me: “We cannot question what the scientists say.” If so, Oliver, then get out of politics and let the scientists run things directly. I, for one, will not be voting Conservative at the next UK election: there’s no point, now that the party has half-wittedly, cravenly abdicated in favor of whatever “Scientists Say”.

A very happy New Year to one and all. We are firmly snowed in here in Rannoch, though an aristocrat from the next glen with a chauffeur, a shovel, and a four-wheel-drive Range Rover is going to try to rescue us this evening. “Global warming”? What “global warming”? If you find any, please send us some. In the far Highlands of Scotland, we could do with all the “global warming” we can get.

The unspeakable BBC: biased even when trying to be unbiased?

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

From Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen

  • We are honored to publish the following letter to the unspeakable BBC from Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen, one of the doughtiest scientists who have upheld scientific truth and integrity despite all pressures and temptations to subit to the New Superstition that is ‘global warming’. Dr. Boehmer-Christensen is the editor of Energy and Environment, a leading climate-science journal that allows scientists skeptical of the official ‘global warming’ theory to publish their papers where other journals have sold out to the money-men behind the scare. Dr. Boehmer-Christensen is here telling the BBC what she thinks of a programme by its political correspondent, Andrew Marr, in which – in a manner almost unprecedented at the BBC – he tried to allow both sides of the climate debate to be reflected.

Sir, – As an ‘expert’ on the science and politics of global warming since the late 1980s and the editor of a journal that has long given climate ‘sceptics’ a voice, I would like to complement the BBC for attempting, this morning on Radio 4 , an open-minded discussion of the science and politics of man-made global warming. Two sides were demonstrated. However, a number of outright mistakes and omission created enough bias to turn the programme into sophisticated  UK government propaganda.

Here are the main faults:

(more…)