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 SPOOFE on 1/26/2010 2:09:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The scientific thing to do in this situation is to reduce C02 emissions and measure the effect.

Really? We should enact the trillion-dollar legislation and THEN try to find out if we should? That's like saying we should launch astronauts into space without suits so we can measure how painfully they died from vacuum exposure.


RE: Why stop?
By Ticholo on 1/26/2010 2:36:24 PM , Rating: 5
You didn't get the point of his post.
He was being scientific about it.
He posted to see if it was the right opinion to have.
Hopefully now he knows better.


RE: Why stop?
By SPOOFE on 1/26/2010 2:52:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
He posted to see if it was the right opinion to have.

It sure looks like he was ASSERTING that it's the right opinion to have, and he's absolutely incorrect that it is scientific: You don't conduct an experiment to make observations if your hypothesis isn't complete.


RE: Why stop?
By reader1 on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 3:31:49 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, since reducing emissions won't reduce atmospheric CO2 (but raising emissions will raise them), the best way to test the hypothesis is to burn all the gas and oil we can.

Cool. Glad you agree with us.


RE: Why stop?
By SPOOFE on 1/26/2010 3:33:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Reducing C02 emissions is the best way to test it.

Best how? In terms of practicability? According to the UN's own reports, we'd need to drop CO2 emissions more than 80% (actually, 80% was the number they cited just to significantly SLOW DOWN the alleged warming). You think it's practical to just nix 80%+ of the plant's CO2 emissions?

The BEST way to test it is to compare historical CO2 levels - on geological time scales, which means a handful of centuries will NOT give you the proper sample size - to historically estimated temperatures. Oh, wait, they did that and found that CO2 and temperature changes were not always correlated.


RE: Why stop?
By reader1 on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why stop?
By FITCamaro on 1/26/2010 11:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing you win is a big bag o fail.

To reach the IPCCs goals we'd have to find a way to stop volcanoes from erupting, forest fires from starting, cows from farting and taking a dump, etc.

But since you're so adamant about it, get off your damn computer. You're using energy likely coming from a coal power plant. Move into to the woods and become a tree person. Walk the walk or shut the f*ck up.

I bet you don't wish for your own standard of living to go down. But then the way you talk you just might be that stupid.


RE: Why stop?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/27/2010 9:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
Checkmate I win???

Dude you are not even on the board to start playing. Do you know what the biggest producer of CO2 is? Answer Volcanoes... and supposedly more are going off now then 100 years ago, so should be plug them up, since in one year they do more damage then 100 years of human "damage"? Next question, do you know what creature produces the most CO2 (many times more than all humans)? Answer the termites in South American rain forest. So, should be chop down all the rain forest just the kill or stop these creatures from putting out so much CO2? Now the third question, Do you know the largest consumer of CO2? Answer, Plants... The increase in CO2 should be increasing plant life which will increase Oxygen levels... if we let the planet take care of itself and we do not screw it up... After all it's been doing a pretty good job for how many years now?? If you want to talk about not cutting down large forest, rain forest or to limit the cutting and replanting two trees for every one cut... then you would have a strong provable point. CO2 is something we need, getting rid of it (controlling it) is just stupid.


RE: Why stop?
By XIAOYI on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














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