Print 108 comment(s) - last by zengqunhai3.. on Jan 29 at 3:59 PM

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN IPCC is being called on to resign after a botched climate report which made alarming claims. Mr. Pachauri, who holds no formal climate training, won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and has been a vocal voice blasting climate criticism as "voodoo magic".  (Source: Mikhail Evstafiev)
IPCC's chairman under pressure to step down after embarrassing retraction

The United Nation's International Panel for Climate Change is supposed to be an objective international forum to discuss the possibility of climate change and its causation.  Some say that its reputation as an objective party has been compromised in recent years, by statements from its leadership indicating a clear pro-anthropogenic warming agenda.

At the center of the policy push is the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri.  Mr. Pachauri has no formal education in climatology, yet was appointed in 2002 to lead arguably the world's most influential climatology panel.  Since, he has stirred up much controversy, suggesting that people internationally give up meat to fight climate change and supervising the publication of alarming climate change predictions.

However, Mr. Pachauri's days as IPCC Chairman may be nearing an end.  Mr. Pachauri has been forced to retract an alarming publication in which he claimed Himalayan Glaciers would melt by 2035.  Many in the general public and research community are calling for his resignation in the retraction's wake.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, is doing his best to defend his boss's controversial remarks.  He calls them a "human mistake" and comments, "Aren't mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution and I do not know of any human institution that does not make mistakes, so of course it is a regrettable incident that we published that wrong description of the Himalayan glacier."

Mr. Pachauri's publication was made more controversial by his harsh criticism of those who questioned it.  He said that climate skeptics used "voodoo science" and urged the climate research community and international governments to ignore their concerns.

Mr van Ypersele, professor of climatology and environmental sciences at the Catholic University of Louvain defends these remarks.  He states, "I would personally not have used the voodoo science wording. I think humans can sometimes use words that are a bit too strong but it is certainly not a reason to ask for the resignation of a chairman who has done an excellent job. We are trying to do our best, we are going to reinforce the review procedures so the probability in the next report of such incidents happening is even lower. But to guarantee a zero fault product is probably not possible for any human enterprise."

Perhaps the more troublesome topic, however, is the report itself.  The IPCC 2007 report contained both the questionable glacier reference and highly questionable conclusions about global warming creating a bevy of natural disasters.  Before its recent retraction, the report was driving international climate legislation, including pending legislation in the U.S. that is estimate to leave Americans $9.4 trillion USD poorer.

The report was supposedly reviewed by the IPCC's 2,000 members.  Argues Mr. van Ypsersele, "We are trying to do the best job we can in assessing the quality information about climate change issues in all its dimensions and some do not like the conclusions of our work. Now it is true we made a mistake around the glacier issue, it is one mistake on one issue in a 3,000 page report. We are going to reinforce the procedures to try this does not happen again."

He claims the retraction will not impact the publication's credibility and stands behind the report's other controversial claims, including the prediction of natural catastrophe.  He states, "I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC not decrease it. Why is that? Would you trust someone who has admitted an error and is ready to learn from his or her mistake or someone who claims to be unassailable? The IPCC does not claim to be unassailable, when there is a good reason to admit a mistake we do it, but for the rest of IPCC conclusions we stand by it very strongly"

Mr. Pachauri, who holds advanced degrees in industrial engineering and economics, has blasted Westerners for leading an "unsustainable" lifestyle.  Curiously, though, according to the British newspaper, The Telegraph, "[Pachauri] enjoys a lavish personal lifestyle; his Delhi home is in the Golf Links area, the most expensive stretch of residential real estate in India, and he is famous for his '$1,000 suits'."

Al Gore and Mr. Pachauri were joint recipients of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their warming work.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wrong guy, wrong job
By Regected on 1/26/2010 10:39:14 AM , Rating: 4
Why does this guy hold this position? Shouldn't a climatologist be the head of one of the biggest bodies that steers world policy? It makes sense, if you are a conspiracy nut, to put an economist in the driving seat.

These guys have a long way to go to prove to me that human activity has significantly changed weather patterns. The world has been slowly warming since the last ice age. You know, that funky time when the great lakes were carved by glaciers that have since completely disappeared. I guess they will blame cave man fires on that one.

Also, they have not proven that CO2 is a one way green house gas. It can reflect heat, but that goes for heat coming from either direction. The largest producer of CO2 is by far volcanic activity.

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By The0ne on 1/26/2010 10:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
He's perfect for the position. He knows nothing about it nor have any experience on it. He's similar to the guy Al Gore used as an example in the Bush administration that resign and subsequently was hired by Exxon or whomever. Absolute zero experience and credibility puts in you the exec position :)

If there was only a way to dumb down and qualify for a higher paying job than my measly engineering career I would go for it. Obviously, I'm not doing things "right." Take my manager for example. He comes to work, does almost nothing, reads his bible and surfs the net while me and my technician stressed ourselves with work. Ah, the good life for you.

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By straycat74 on 1/26/2010 11:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
What is the job description of the manager?
I bet the guy cleaning the toilets thinks you do nothing all day too.

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By The0ne on 1/26/2010 12:08:02 PM , Rating: 1
my boss is the VP of manufacturing. I'm a senior engineer. You are a -- douchebag?

At least I can say with confidence of my comments, you on the other hand....HAHAHHAHAHA Don't tell me, you're a manager too? lmao

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 10:55:49 AM , Rating: 3
"Also, they have not proven that CO2 is a one way green house gas. It can reflect heat, but that goes for heat coming from either direction. The largest producer of CO2 is by far volcanic activity."

I'm with you in spirit buddy, but both these are wrong. Volcanic emissions are the largest source of many emissions-- but not CO2. And CO2 IS unquestionably a greenhouse gas. The problem is that, not only is it much weaker than water vapor, but its many thousands of times less prevalent than water vapor as well (and they both absorb in the same wavelengths). CO2 therefore only contributes a measureable amount of warming when its extremely cold and dry (no water vapor in the air).

The whole GW farce was based on some computer models that assumed (without evidence) that CO2 would "feedback" and cause massive increases in atmospheric water vapor.

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By Kurz on 1/26/2010 11:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
As much as I am a Skeptic of AGW
(Google what 'AGW' is) I am going to say we produce more CO2 than Volcanoes.
Still that alone does not make AGW true.
I've seen plenty of sources that say that.

There are plenty of Natural Processes that we as man don't understand yet. To Bet our entire economy on it is foolishness.

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By seamonkey79 on 1/26/2010 11:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
uhh... no :-)

Some more reading on the subject would be a good thing to do.

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By Kurz on 1/26/2010 1:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
Where can I read said information?

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By Suntan on 1/26/2010 1:26:22 PM , Rating: 3
Google what 'AGW' is

A l - G ore - W arming...


RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By tallcool1 on 1/26/2010 12:03:46 PM , Rating: 5
Why does this guy hold this position? Shouldn't a climatologist be the head of one of the biggest bodies that steers world policy?
Because its not about being scientifically correct, its all about politics and power.

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By elgueroloco on 1/26/2010 5:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. AGW didn't start to gain any significance as a movement until the mid 1990's after the USSR collapsed, and China started moving toward capitalism. They needed a new way to spread World Socialism -since neither of those two powers were going to do it now- and so they cooked up the global warming scare. It started with a few well-placed people, but then the entire socialist movement caught onto where they were going with it and joined in.

That's my personal hypothesis. I also feel there is a lot of validity to the idea of the "State of Fear" put forth by Michael Crichton in what I feel is one of the most important books since "1984."

RE: Wrong guy, wrong job
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 6:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's a known fact that when the Dutch Communist Party disbanded to join GreenLeft, their leadership said they "could more effectively work through the environmental movement" than in their old political structure.

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki