Thursday
Sep232010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Yeo wants Patchy to go
Sep 23, 2010 Climate: Pachauri Climate: Parliament Tim Yeo, the deep-green chairman of the UK House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee has called for Rajendra Pachauri to resign.
"I’m afraid I think Dr Pachauri should resign. Firstly he personally has lost credibility, particularly in relation to his claim about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the next 30 years," he told the BBC.
He added: "It’s vital that this body is led by someone whose academic and intellectual credentials are unquestioned and I’m afraid that can no longer be said of him."
Apparently Sir Brian Hoskins has also called for Pachauri to step down.
Reader Comments (44)
We need a WWF like campaign to Save The Pachauri.
Expect more of this soon, as the reality of his financial arrangements starts to filter through to the mainstream media. We'll see a lot of people very quietly shuffling away from him. Then the hope will be that he will be a sacrificial lamb will distract the mainstream media who, in their usual blinkered way, won't look any further.
Unfortunately Rajendra is a very small tip of a very large iceberg.
When he falls, and he will, it will allow some of the mainstream media to start questioning the narrative. Then the dam will break.
...and which person "whose academic and intellectual credentials are unquestioned" will replace him? — Any suggestions, anyone?
JW: How about the self-selecting Phil Jones? After all, he has just been cleared by three reviews.
This story was high on the agenda on the BBC Today programme this morning (about 7.20-7.30 and in the news bulletins). Strangely, it does not seem to be on the website yet. Basically it seems that Roger Harrabin talked to various people and they all said Pachy should go.
But George Monbiot thinks he's OK
And Harrabin's still trying to face both ways:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9025000/9025702.stm
"academic and intellectual credentials"
Not to mention financial. Wonder why Yeo didn't draw attention to that..?
A bit of a straw man, yes? Because the IPCC will remain in business regardless of who's running it.
In Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC has the Chair it deserves, the best man that money can buy. He has led the IPCC, by example, demonstrating with his own skills how they should behave with tax payers money, taking the IPCC to a previously unimaginable level of confidence with the world's leaders, and general public.
It would be a sad loss if he goes.Who could replace him, and be even more successful? Someone from the original Hockey Team would be good, they would help finish the IPCC process. Any other suggestions?
I vote for Freddie "parrot face" Davies to replace Patchy, I can't imagine anyone else being able to pronounce "Climate Disruption" with the correct cadence. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07lPjhAMk50
I'll do it. I've always wanted a career in fiction. I kind of like the idea of keeping Pachauri in post for comedy value. Big Al might be a suitable alternative though, or there's our roaming climate ambassador, Prescott. Or Dr Gordon Brown, who has the academic, intellectual and financial qualifications, plus a proven track record in sustainable investment. Doubt any of those would get the job given the IPCC's really been a bit of an anglo-american stitch-up from the outset though.
I suggest Joe Romm...
If Yeo says 'go', I say 'no'. Pachauri has become a liability. It is best he hangs on in there for as long as he possibly can.
golf charley
I take your point but I also think that an ousted Rajendra Pachauri may not go quietly, especially as he has shown a propensity to wanting to write.
I am quite sure that there are cupboards full of skeletons and hell may have no fury like a Chair of the IPCC scorned.....
No carbon credits in there (well loads but no liquidity), think we'll stick to buying up acres of trees thank you very much.
On behalf of WWF
If he leaves, he'll have more time to write novels. I'm a bit conflicted on which outcome is worse, but it puts me in mind of a similar polymath
With a slightly less offensive interface, sorry.
Even the New Scientist have called for him to go by October before the next conference in Korea (I think?). That is why it is important to get the TERI Europe figures out now before he resigns. The story will be a dead story if it is not widely reported before he leaves office, and it will look as if he went with honour intact. His chairmanship will not look like the disaster it has been. Everyone can help by dropping the TERI Europe figures arround green blogs and not letting them pretend his tenure as chairman was not blighted with questions about Pachauri's conflicts of interest.
The same goes for his Voodoo science remark and the context in which the smears of a reputable scientist were made by the chairman of the IPCC
Pachauri going under a cloud with only Monbiot still going on about how good a chairman he is will also make Monbiot look dishonorable. Monbiot (almost alone in the green movement) has tied his reputation to Pachauri, that was a blunder and it should be highlighted. They are both in the dock together
If Yeo has realised that the IPCC is losing credibility and the 'gates' aren't just a media stir, things are getting serious for the IPCC, and the whole CAGW cardhouse.
The longer Pachauri stays and the more calls for his resignation and ridiculous defences of him, the better, as it draws attention to the IPCC and its shenanigans. The IPCC has provided the justification for the anti climate change we have in place and are going to have to pay for.
I nominate Yolanda Kakabadse, current WWF president, as the new head of the IPCC.
Her credentials are exemplary:
1. A member of the Environmental Advisory Board of CocaCola. (Is it or isn't it?)
2. A member of the Order of the Golden Ark. (Only a select number of humans get on one-by-one)
3. A former minister in the Equador government 1998 - 2000. (A period in Equador's history noted for its political corruption)
4. A Doctor in Science (DSc) 'Honoris Causa' from the University of East Anglia. (Everyone's favourite university)
"Yolanda For Chairperson/woman/thingy (delete as appropiate)"
Green Sand
I agree that his "voodoo science" remark, indicates a good chance of a destructive "bunny boiler" reaction to being pushed out. He did not like his judgenment questioned.
Clearly he will not survive, it is a case of timing.We are all paying for IPCC lackeys to have a party in nov (?) in Cancun Mexico (?). Whether he is pushed before or after, he becomes the distraction. India may take it personnally and reduce co-operation, taking other developing countries with her. Indian national pride is takng a bashing as I type over the Commonwealt Games.
Russia and China may again decde to stick 2 fingers up in the air, as there is nothing on offer for them, apart from the Government driven economic decline being demonstrated by the US and UK.
If the Cru Hack was timed for maximum damage to Copenhagen, going to Cancum without an effective and respected IPCC ;leader would be such a stupid own goal, that only a stupid organisation would do it. They wouldn't really , would they, no surely not.....
So who would want to reveal their AR5E (Assessment Report 5 Evaluation) on behalf of the IPCC, apart from Atomic Hairdryer? (Who has not demonstrated sufficient stupidity!)
"I’m afraid I think Dr Pachauri should resign. Firstly he personally has lost credibility, particularly in relation to his claim about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the next 30 years,"
The claim was from the IPCC. It was poorly defended by Pachuari when the error was noted. Yes Pachuari did discredit himself with the 'voodoo science' and other remarks. IPCC discredited themselves by the claim in the first place. Is Yeo confused or trying to confuse? However, the result of the statement from Yeo is nomination of Pachuari as sacrificial lamb to the IPCC altar simultaneously conflating the two issues of credibility of chairman and accuracy of claims. Why would he wish to do that? I believe the answer can be found on his own website;
http://www.timyeo.org.uk/issueshow.aspx?id=32&ref=10
What is this idiot talking about? When could it ever be said of Pachauri that his "academic and intellectual credentials" for this job could ever be "unquestioned"? The man's a railway engineer for goodness' sake, possibly a very good one for all I know, but he was totally out of his depth from the beginning.
The only cure for the IPCC is to widen its remit to consider all aspects of climate (change, anthropogenic or otherwise, included) and put someone in charge who does not have a socio-political axe to grind. There are plenty around, starting with Roger Pielke (père et fils) and going outwards from there.
It could have a role to play but it's been well and truly perverted by global political ambition and the malign influence of environmentalist groups with anti-science agendas.
Failing that, close it down, and spend the money saved on providing clean drinking water to the children of sub-Saharan Africa. That will do more good than any number of Inter-Governmental Panels.
Get rid of Pachauri and IPCC's credibility can be regained. Retain Pachauri (with his ego/financial dealings/etc ) and IPCC's credibility continues to drop like a brick. If you are a government with a green agenda what do you do?
Personally I hope they retain him until the whole IPCC edifice falls. Then can I have my tax back?
"It’s vital that this body is led by someone whose academic and intellectual credentials are unquestioned and I’m afraid that can no longer be said of him."
But his acedemic and intellectual credentials remain unchanged from the day of his appointment. Somebody is being lined-up for successor. I am sure that Yeo does not see that as a 'hospital pass' but none other than a true believer would see it as anything other than one.
Richard Lindzen would do a good job. Has the intellectual capabilites and the requisite knowledge of climate science.
In my view, the head of the IPCC need not be a scientist. They should cherish the scientific method, certainly, but there are so many relevant fields that play some part in "climate science" that it's impossible for any one individual to possess expertise in more than a couple of those fields. Thus, by choosing a scientist with a particular background, there's a danger of skewing things from the outset. The fact that Bert Bolin (the IPCC's first chair, who oversaw the first 2 assessments reports) was a meteorologist rather than a geologist seems to have almost assured that the meteorological perspective would dominate the IPCC process while geological (and other) perspectives would barely be taken into account.
What is needed is a competent administrator who is truly impartial, who has no interest whatever - and I'm not just speaking of finances - in a particular outcome. (This may, in fact, mean that the person has to be a non-scientist, since the scientific community has clearly become politicized and polarized on this issue.) That person would have to be behave professionally, remain above the political fray, and refrain from commenting publicly on anything other than her/his narrow remit. If such a person were to become the face of the IPCC, the rest of us might begin to believe that s/he is truly prepared to let the chips fall where they may.
If I were leading the recruitment process, I'd be looking for judges with a reputation for scrupulous impartiality (who'd also demonstrated administrative competence).
Donna Laframboise
That is a common sense driven, rational and logical suggestion. Clearly inappropriate for the IPCC..
The IPCC was put in place to further a political agenda, it hasn't been hi-jacked, but it has over-played its hand enormously and has been caught out. Pachauri looks a fool, but there's more to this than Pachauri.
I think it's highly unlikely that it will be re-purposed toward calm and sane appraisal and away from scaremongering. There's too much invested on the basis of the scaremongering.
Far better to scrap it completely.
Probably, Pachauri's replacement will be a safe pair of hands, not too high profile and with impeccable green activist credentials and enough sense not to over-egg the pudding, or lose it when put on the spot. Since the organisation is on its back foot, a lawyer would be a good choice.
As others have said, there's an invitation to associate the misconduct of the IPCC entirely with Pachauri and fall for the conjurer's trick of diverting one's attention from main issue to a side issue and jumping to a false conclusion.
Hell, why you are at it, why stop at Packy and the IPCC? Get rid of the UN. All it is nowadays is a collection of third world corrupt politicians.
Please leave patchy alone and in charge....This is advice from a once believer and now skeptic/denier LOL
Donna
How about Judge Easterbrook? Quoted here in the judgement in the Simon Singh case:
http://irishscience.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/a-quote-from-the-simon-singh-judgement-scientific-controversies-must-be-settled-by-the-methods-of-science-rather-than-by-the-methods-of-litigation/
The IPCC will not change regardless of the figurehead. It was set up to give advice to policy makers on future climate change. For this very reason it will always be biased towards any percieved consensus (even if only supported by 51% of research) because politicians don't want to be presented with an either/or scenario.
Patchy was a hired hand from a huge pool of management consultancies. There are plenty more where he came from. But I feel that both the UN in general and the IPCC in particular have behaved and performed so badly now for so many years that only the most ardent sentimentalists and the most corrupt politicians and other opportunists can want either of them to continue.
I think nation-states would be better served by making the best of those scientists and others involved such as economists and geographers and computer programmers, who did not sell their souls to the IPCC machines. Independent research institutes and conferences, and perhaps even some universities still clinging to some kind of academic spirit beyond an overwhelming desire to serve leftwing causes and governments, would have the potential to build our knowledge of climate and share results widely and without fear or favour. Just like it ought to be.
Donna you are perfect for the job. You individually know more about the fault lines in the IPCC process than the IPCC authors and contributers collectively have ever done.
We do not need the IPCC, Yeo and Hoskins both do. Yeo is on the electric vehicle gravy train and Hoskins is benefiting from the benevolence of Jeremy Grantham at Imperial.
Sadly Tim Yeo has replaced the late Ted Heath as my bell weather.
As formerly with Mr Heath I can if uncertain on what to think on an issue, I can find out what Tim Yeo thinks and dependably take the opposite view.
I think alarmists have now reached the "sauve qui peux" stage and wish to throw poor old Patchy out of the lifeboat in order to save the rest. I think this would be wrong. Better we save Patchy and let the whole boat founder.
We can then build a new and better boat built with more rigour on the science and less political or quasi-religious interference.
THE GRAVY TRAIN
Memoirs of a railway engineer
Rajendra K Pachauri
Reviewed by Peer Gimp
I don't want him to resign! The longer he stays there, the more the IPCC lose credibility (deservedly).
THE GRAVY TRAIN
Memoirs of a railway engineer
Rajendra K Pachauri
Reviewed by Peer Gimp
hahahah, Peer Gynt - "the story of a life based on avoidance" as Peer becomes more and more troll-like and selfish
Throwing patchy overboard is just a short term solution, the IPCC will continue on regardless. Too many underlings willing to hide the decline and too many carbon scammers relying on AR5 for even more government guaranteed OPM.
Lucy,
Quite, or Gimp: a submissive, usually male. You get to choose.
My original point was that sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity of this whole construction: from the original unproven theory through to the inept attempts to deal with its imagined consequences.
Cheers,
Darth