Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Patchy is apparently staying on at the IPCC.
View Printer Friendly Version
Perhaps that's no bad thing. He will continue to make the IPCC look a laughingstock. When people laugh at things they can't really take them seriously.
Well if they'd given him the boot it would have undermined confidence in them, and been an admission that the accusations were true. Also, he knows where the bodies are buried. But in keeping him, he's become a figure of fun and he's hardly likely to add to their future credibility. His activities may have laid uncharted mines yet to be blundered over.
A difficult decision. I bet they tossed a coin.
Seconded. The man's a wonderful, blithering liability.
'A difficult decision. I bet they tossed a coin.'
Don't be daft man. They asked an institute to do a modelling study.
Defeat cannot be admitted so he stays... but forget about us looking in...
Those on the inside know exactly what this man is about. This is their General leading them into battle.
I predict the moral within the whole edifice will suffer considerably. That is the more thing.
I think this is good news. He has been endorsed by the IPCC, so the slate is now clean. But nobody is fooled by him any more.
With Pachauri, the problem the IPCC faces is exactly the same as the line about the PR man failing when he's become the story.
The IPCC cements its unchallenged position as a dignified, authoritative and whiter-than-white source of scientific integrity.
Next week's headlines: Richard M Nixon invited to replace Pres. Obama. Gerald Ratner becomes Head of the Institute of Public Relations (Deputy Franny Anderson) and Richard Dawkins humbly accepts new position as Archbishop of Canterbury. 'It is our job - with god's help - to spread the gospel throughout the World' he states in his first sermon.
Perhaps Patchy should stay to help the advance of skepticism.
. . . softly, whisperings in the darkness. . . of secret things and moist promises for whom no one shall name . . . then Patchy's secretary knocks on the door saying, "What are you doing in there Patchy? Open the door, we have a world to save . . . ."
With Patchy and Ward as PR spokesmen for CAGW, what more could we ask for before Climategate II?
R. I. P. CC?
I agree with Phillip Bratby and others. Best thing is for Pachy and Bobby to continue digging the hole deeper and deeper.
So Pachauri staying on in the IPCC is a good thing? Good for Pachauri, good for skepticism, but bad if you believe in corrective mechanisms in bumbling international institutions.
They managed to drop everything meaningful about Climategate between the cracks of the three, nay five inquiries.They fought to get the Sunday Times to 'retract' its Amazon story.They fought to get the Telegraph to retract its Pachauri storyThey fought to bury the African crops alarmism story.They got Monbiot to prop up Pachauri's personal integrity.They've TERI-Europe's accounts under wraps and with no consequences.They managed to shoo off Cuccinell in court.Now they've got Pachauri to hang on to his job and they are mudslinging hockey-stick nemesis Wegman.
I don't know... :)
I, for one, am pleased to see the former train engineer and pr@n merchant staying as head of the IPCC.
No one, with the possible exceptions of AGW supporters Charles Manson and Osama Bin Laden, better exemplifies the messianic kleptocrat standards of the organization.
Sorry to dissent but I think it would be better if he went. Lets face it, the investigations of "climate" so far leave a lot to be desired and it is an area by which humanity would benefit from having a better understanding. P should have gone as part of the old guard exposed for simply promoting a narrative without having maintained objectivity. What has he been shown to bring to the table? AFAICS nothing - so why is he staying? Who benefits? IMO nobody - the IPCC remains a disfunctional institution and a valid and valuable area of human inquiry is prevented from "clearing the stables" and properly putting its shoulder to the wheel. There are people who could head this organisation up and transform its work - all P's continuing involvement does is keep it locked into the "climategate era". If he had any integrity he'd walk.
not banned yet,
I beg to differ. The IPCC was set up to progandise a political agenda by dressing it up as science, not to present scientific findings impartially. It's far better that it struggles on pretending against the evidence, that it's a scientific body rather than a propaganda effort and be a laughing stock, rather than it has some sort of house clearing and continues business as usual under new a management of less maladroit charlatans.
Far better still would be to dissolve the IPCC, forget climate catastrophism and direct efforts and money to real problems, but there's too much political capital and too many hopes invested in CAGW to expect that to happen any time soon.
cosmic - yes, fair points, perhaps I should recalibrate my belief in human potential! FWIW as I was typing my comment above, I was thinking of the impact that Judith Curry, for example, could have if she were at the helm. I don't know if you visit her blog but IMO she is taking on board all pov with a genuine interest in inquiry and advancement of knowledge.
Thank goodness the IPCC has seen sense and fully endorsed the continuation, in office, of the Great Leader.This is an act of inspiration that will bring joy into the hearts and souls of future generations who will owe their very existence to this far-sighted judgement.Hail to the Chief. Gaia thanks you.
Not banned yet and others. Time for a little speculation. Who would you nominate to be the Hercules of the the IPCC with a charge to clean out their Augean Stables? My vote would go to Steve McI.
'Who would you nominate to be the Hercules of the the IPCC with a charge to clean out their Augean Stables?'
What about the bloke that wrote that HSI book. Monty Tony or something? He seems like a diamond geezer and knows a lot about most of the players. Failing him, I'd take a side bet on Douglas J. Keenan who has a very steely glint on him. Unlikely to be taken for a ride by the IPCC chancers.
Steve Mc is a wonderful guy, but most effective at working on things that really engage his interest..in another life I am sure he was Hercule Poirot. A senior political position is, I submit not playing to his strengths.
For an assistant, if he could be persuaded, Fred Pearce from New Scientist. Technical Adviser: Judith Curry, Enforcer: Bob Ward, Brain the Size of a Galaxy; Atomic Hairdryer, Hospitality Manager :Don Pablo, and person for reminding us why we're all here: Dung.
And lest I forget - Publicity Genius: Josh.
If the can;t sort out the Augean Stables of IPCC nobody could
The Pachauri has been saved - thank God ...... or even Gaia ....... for that!
Replacement for Dr. "Dead Man Walking" Pachauri? I think Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. would be rather good.
Talking about who could reform the IPCC is misguided. It hasn't drifted from being an impartial body to an activist body, it's always been doing what its sponsors wanted and telling people things the sponsors wanted them to hear. Under Pachauri, it's overstepped the mark and been caught out, but nothing else. Pachauri isn't a rogue who's taken the organisation off in a completely different direction off his own bat. He's been over enthusiastic and naive.
If you want to reform the IPCC, you need to have different people pulling the strings, and in that case they probably wouldn't see a need for it.
Dear Bish,I saw something strange over in Richard Tol's blog. Writing about the Pachauri stay, he notes:
Another day, another farce in climate land.Cheers in all the wrong places.
Cheers in all the wrong places.
One of the 'wrong places' that has 'cheered' Pachauri's overstay is apparently, this blog.
I thought his characterization to be unfair.
Ah, my bet is looking good! 'Tho I have to say Zeke's is looking even better right now.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.