backtop


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

RE: Why stop?
By reader1 on 1/26/2010 11:20:26 AM , Rating: -1
Reducing C02 is trivial. In 100 years, modern civilizations will consume about 10% of the electricity they do today. Today's societies are highly inefficient.

Also, history shows that the standard of living invariably increases for a society as technological efficiency increases. Economists are all predicting green technology will play a key role in the upcoming economic boom. Unfortunately, it's China and India that are expected to prosper the most from their advances in green technology, not the U.S. The U.S. is expected to be held back by an over-dependence on old technology and a generally complacent population.


RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 11:26:01 AM , Rating: 4
HellOOOO McFly! You've forgotten the distinction between reducing CO2, and reducing CO2 emissions. Two different animals.

"Unfortunately, it's China and India that are expected to prosper the most from their advances in green technology, not the U.S"

China and India are both building coal and nuclear power plants like mad, while the US wastes hundreds of billions on the wind/solar boondoggle.

Standard of living is a function of energy the society produces. The industrial revolution brought about the first massive increase, when we replaced muscle power with steam power. The coal&oil age brought another increase. We were allset for the third major transition with nuclear power...then the enviros shut down the technology for 30 years.

Luckily, the Chinese are smarter than we are. They're building an average of 2 new nuke plants a year for the next 40 years.



RE: Why stop?
By jiminmpls on 1/26/2010 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 3
China is buidling wind power even faster than nuclear. By 2020, China's nuclear capacity will be 60GW, but their wind power capacity will be 100 GW.

Even with the nuclear expansion, China will only be producing 14% of their electricity with nuclear, vs 20% in the USA.


RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 12:17:53 PM , Rating: 3
That report is based of one Chinese official's offhand comments. I'll believe it when I see it. The cold hard facts are that right now, China produces nearly 3X as much power via nuclear as wind, and they have the world's most aggressive schedule for building new nuke plants. The project for 2030 is for 250GW of installed nuclear capacity.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/9088...


RE: Why stop?
By steven975 on 1/26/2010 12:26:27 PM , Rating: 4
Are those stated output figures Maximum or Typical?

Wind/Solar advocates usually only quote Maximum, as those are the numbers that sell public policy. Typical is on the order of 20% of maxiumum. It is also known as the "availability factor". Solar (PV) is usually 18-19%. Solar (thermal) is just over 20%. Wind is usually around 20% but it varies greatly by location. Putting a large windmill capable of generating 200KW will generate 0W if there is no wind!

Assuming what you stated is Maximum, Typical output from nuclear will be almost 3x that of wind.


RE: Why stop?
By General Disturbance on 1/26/2010 3:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
But you must also realize that Solar power is morally and intellectually degenerate, just like all the rest of green fascism.
The technological advances from using trees for energy, to coal, oil, gas, nuclear etc, proves that as man advances, he requires LESS biospheric energy to survive. An ounce of plutonium gives the energy of millions of trees - and those trees get to keep living. At the same time, the biosphere does not use coal, oil, gas, or nuclear fuels in ANY life processes. Man produces and subsides on energy totally independent of the biosphere - aside from eating food, of course, which I would grant is acceptable to most moral human beings.
Solar power, being much less than environmentally friendly, is actually one of the MOST biospherically destructive "technologies". The entire biosphere depends on solar energy. And the naive environmentalist thinks that it's a good idea to take that energy AWAY from the biosphere, not caring that you weight the atmospheric system further to ice-age conditions, which is really bad for life and the biosphere as a whole. And in using solar energy you choose an energy source as dense, essentially, as tree energy, instead of growing trees where those solar panels are, and allow life to flourish there, and use plutonium which is millions of times more energy dense and efficient.

Solar power is WRONG. It is wrong intellectually, it is wrong morally. The informed environmentalist realizes advanced energy technology is all about ENERGY FLUX DENSITY. Solar and wind are millions of times less dense, and hence less efficient, than nuclear and gas, etc.


RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 3:34:40 PM , Rating: 1
"The informed environmentalist realizes advanced energy technology is all about ENERGY FLUX DENSITY. Solar and wind are millions of times less dense, and hence less efficient, than nuclear and gas, etc. "

That's why environmentalists push solar. It can never lead to cheap, widespread energy, and thus a solar society is a small, non-industrial one.

As the famous enviromental professor Paul Ehrlich said, "giving mankind cheap energy is like giving a machine gun to an idiot child".

And yes, hardcore enviros do believe this tripe.


RE: Why stop?
By reader1 on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 12:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
"As soon as the Chinese moved toward socialism, their economy boomed"

This is a joke, right?


RE: Why stop?
By steven975 on 1/26/2010 12:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it isn't.

It is very easy to have prosperity for a few (their real system) by subjecting the many.


RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 12:29:10 PM , Rating: 5
The cold hard facts are that China's economy was the size of Rhode Islands -- UNTIL they abandoned pure socialism and moved towards the mixed model they employ today.

China's move to capitalism has given them the fastest economic growth in the world.


RE: Why stop?
By steven975 on 1/26/2010 4:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
But I wouldn't call their system capitalism...more of a twist on facism benefitting a few people. I kind of doubt someone who is not a party member has the opportunity to do well there.


RE: Why stop?
By SPOOFE on 1/26/2010 5:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
No, don't call it capitalism, but there have been a number of capitalistic changes from the '70s that have coincided with their impressive economic growth. For instance, one can own private property.


RE: Why stop?
By olafmetal on 1/26/2010 11:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Every economic system has elements of capitalism and socialism, although in the most oppressive regimes capitalism may only exist in the black market.

Finding the proper equilibrium between personal freedom and innovation found in capitalism and the common good and regulation associated with socialism is the key to a sustainable and successful society.


RE: Why stop?
By SublimeSimplicity on 1/26/2010 12:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
I suspected that reader1's first comment was said tongue-in-cheek, now I'm positive he's pulling your chain.

If he's not, then I've just been owned by my faith in human logic.


RE: Why stop?
By rcc on 1/26/2010 1:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
He's just a board troll, always has been. If you just assume he's trying his best to tweak people and ignore him it all works out for the best. : )


RE: Why stop?
By theapparition on 1/26/2010 2:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Holy Crap!!!!!!

His post rating is a .03


RE: Why stop?
By kattanna on 1/26/2010 4:19:02 PM , Rating: 5
yep, makes me chuckle every time some one responds to him.

i think it is actually jason mick under an alternate login trolling the boards for extra page loads and ad views.

LOL


RE: Why stop?
By myhipsi on 1/27/2010 9:09:53 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, I agree. He's clearly a troll, so please guys, stop feeding him.


RE: Why stop?
By kattanna on 1/26/2010 11:35:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
In 100 years, modern civilizations will consume about 10% of the electricity they do today


actually in 100 years i predict we will be using 10 times the energy we do today.

desalination will be on a planetary scale and we will have converted the worlds deserts into farm land and there will be no areas of the world that have to rely upon polluted ground drinking water. it will also allow farming to take a massive step forward in productivity as farmers will not be reliant upon rain fall.

as one "small" example of the benefits of increased energy usage.


RE: Why stop?
By Screwballl on 1/26/2010 12:57:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In 100 years, modern civilizations will consume about 10% of the electricity they do today.


wow talk about pulling something out of your ass.... It has already been proven that in about 20 years at the current rate of growth and usage, humans will be using 50% MORE electricity than we are today... and using the same exponential increase even accounting for technological efficiency increases, we are still looking at 300% or more within 100 years.


RE: Why stop?
By Screwballl on 1/26/2010 1:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
wow got marked down for repeating information stated elsewhere... thank you kind people

Here is a link to a report about how world marketed energy consumption is projected to increase by 50 percent from 2005 to 2030, according to a new report from the United States Energy Information Agency.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

some more quotes:

quote:
World carbon dioxide emissions will continue to increase steadily in the IEO2008 reference case, from 28.1 billion metric tons in 2005 to 34.3 billion metric tons in 2015 and 42.3 billion metric tons in 2030—an increase of 51 percent over the projection period.


quote:
China alone accounts for 71 percent of the increase in world coal consumption in the IEO2008 reference case. The United States and India—both of which also have extensive domestic coal resources—each account for 9 percent of the world increase.


There is a more descriptive story here:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/30/eia-predicts...


RE: Why stop?
By webdragon on 1/26/2010 3:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Text It has already been proven that in about 20 years at the current rate of growth and usage, humans will be using 50% MORE electricity than we are today... and using the same exponential increase even accounting for technological efficiency increases, we are still looking at 300% or more within 100 years.


does this take into account where exactly we plan to get the resources to accomplish this feat?


RE: Why stop?
By rett448 on 1/27/2010 4:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
Uranium and Thorium Fuel Cycle


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki