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

IPCC didn't retract the report
By dlapine on 1/26/2010 2:01:00 PM , Rating: 0
Just the paragraph:

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) 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. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."

The other 2999 conclusions are still "official", including the main concerns:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).[41]
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years

You can certainly disagree with the conclusions, but the facts are that these conclusions have not been retracted . It would behoove DailyTech not to suggest that they have been.

As for the resignation of the director, does DailyTech have any actual information about his potential resignation other the wonderfully vague statement "Many in the general public and research community are calling for his resignation in the retraction's wake." ?

A carefully reading of the article in the DailyTelegraph doesn't enumerate any facts either, just the same "...led to calls for his resignation."

Could we get a list of those climate scientists calling for his resignation? Perhaps a list of government leaders? An official publication? Anything other than a rumor? I mean, if your website is the sole source of these "calls for his resignation", does that really count?

This is a news site, right?




RE: IPCC didn't retract the report
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 2:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
Glad to oblige. Here's a few of the 127,000 Google hits talking about calls for Pachauri to resign.

Story in India's press about a "groundswell" of calls for his resignation, along with conflict-of-interest charges against him for making money off the AGW scare:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IPCCs-cre...

A demand for Pauchari to resign, from Britain's longest serving environmental correspondent:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100...

An interview with Dr. Richard North, calling for Pachauri to resign:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/pachauri-mus...


RE: IPCC didn't retract the report
By JediJeb on 1/26/2010 3:27:49 PM , Rating: 3
Some of those conclusions are pretty vague. Like this one:

quote:
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.


It can be true even if man is only causing 0.001% of the total increase in warming. They do not specify how much human contribution there might be.

quote:
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years


But does the increase really come from human activity or from the fact that the oceans are warming and these gasses are now less soluble and thus transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere?

quote:
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.


As was reported last week here on DT, it was mentioned that when looking at these temperatures this year was tied with seven other years for the second highest average temperature on record. If 7 of the last 11 years have the same temperature then that is a trend of stable temperatures not rising temperatures, also from 1940-1970 there was no warming evident and yet that included the post WW2 industrial expansion which would have caused a sharp increase in global concentrations of greenhouse gasses.

What people are finding with other stories associated with this one is that the very "facts" that these conclusions are based upon are now coming under question of their validity, which also brings the conclusions into question. A theory is only as good as its supporting data, and once that data becomes questionable so does the theory. The whole report may not be being retracted yet, but it is begining to not look so good for its future.

People above also posted as to why haven't more of the writers and committee members been investigated. Probably because so much global policy has been based on the report that if the government officials bring into question the whole report then they must answer for the legislation they have already written based on a questionable report. Once the legislators find a way to absolve themselves from any liability then they will probably go after those who wrote the report, which may take place once those currently in power are replaced by the next group of world leaders. It becomes easy for them to look back and say " look what they did" and propose a way to fix it.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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