Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Whatdon'ttheyknowanymore | Main | So what about solar? »

Conjuring up the future - Josh 108

I can't believe the IPCC can pull this one off - can they?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (29)

At least AR5 authors will know they are really under the factual 'microscope' this time, maybe for the first time.

Jun 21, 2011 at 7:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob B

I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for the honest (if any) authors on AR5 who should be genuinely and justifiably upset by Pachauri's remarks

He has effectively said

'Look we all know that at least some of the authors for AR5 are crooks, but it would be too embarrassing for us institutionally to name them. So we're going to shut our eyes and hope it'll all go away till after I've retired'

The honest author might reasonably think that Pachauri is smearing his good name by association. And Pachauri must be very naive not to think that one or two blogdenizens with an hour or two to spare won;t be looking very hard to see exactly who the authors are and which ones are dodgy.

The man is a complete buffoon and his chicanery is destroying the institution he so ineptly protects. I shed no tears for that, but surely even his closest allies should suggest that he takes more time with his books and trainsets.

Jun 21, 2011 at 8:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

8:16 AM | Latimer Alder

Maybe the honest author might not contribute this time - unless he/she thinks there 'publically funded' grant depends on it.

Jun 21, 2011 at 8:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob B

Lying is the same as riding a tiger - you can't get off. They have to lie to maintain their position. O

Jun 21, 2011 at 8:37 AM | Unregistered Commenterferdinand

You keep ringing the bell, Josh. FYI, there is a wonderful photo of Huhne, looking as if he has had his rosebud mouth around a hot exhaust pipe, in today's Guardian.
Brings to mind the very old story about the mentally limited terrorist who burnt his lips attempting to blow up a bus.

Jun 21, 2011 at 8:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K


On balance, I think Pachauri should stay on for a long time. Liabilities are great as long as they're the other side.


Jun 21, 2011 at 8:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterpointman

According to WUWT, the US is getting more concerned.

Jun 21, 2011 at 9:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

We have already passed "the emperor has no clothes" moment. The internet is full of stories about IPCC chicanery of every kind. RP's denials get more amusing by the day. Every new "Scientific Paper" every IPCC press release is now analysed by crowdsourcing immediately. The treatment of Mann's "hockey stick paper" on rising sea levels over at WUWT is a classic case. All the PR techniques, all the statistical scams all the "peer review" tricks all the crony placements all the use of advocacy groups and public money all the basic scientific nonsense is immediately exposed. We have now seen all theses tricks used time and again and various parts of the blogosphere have become expert at detecting them and exposing them almost instantly.

We live in a new world.

I wonder what the warmists think about now when they plan to release yet another lie? Are they worried about exposure? Do they still think we won't notice the tricks they are using - honed to perfection over the last thirty years?

I sense that they think they can still swing it over us. They still have people in places over power (e.g. Huhne, Nurse etc) who try and cover for them. They still have their grants, their seats of learning, their salaries their pensions intact. So they WILL carry on.

When will this warmist wave be turned back? Perhaps somewhere between the doubling of our energy bills and AR5. Huhne is already fighting a rearguard action against "deregulation" , a Scottish local authority has already shut down a wind farm. I await the breakdown of the UK National Grid during a savage winter sometime later this decade after after the nuclear and coal fired power stations have been shut down. To quote HM the Queen over the global financial crisis in 2008 "Why didn't anyone see it coming?".

Meanwhile we have to keep crowdsourcing the analysis of this warmist propaganda in the same way as is being done at present and highlighting their cartoonish actions. They will keep giving us juicy targets to aim at.

Jun 21, 2011 at 9:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnOfEnfield

How much rope does the Flakey Fakir need before he hangs himself?

Jun 21, 2011 at 9:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterPFM

"the breakdown of the UK National Grid during a savage winter"

Will it be us or the Germans first? The temptation for them to quietly switch a couple of nuclear stations back on when the frosts come will be overwhelming...

Jun 21, 2011 at 9:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

@ John

Perhaps somewhere between the doubling of our energy bills and AR5.

Doubt it - they already have the energy companies lined up as patsies to take the blame for higher energy bills.

It's worked brilliantly for years with petrol, where thanks to tax, the price of a litre of fuel is about 275% of what it would otherwise be. The public have been trained, however, to blame oil companies and Arabs for this rather than their own governments.

Green power will be the same - the public will be encourage to imagine that it is as cheap as every other kind, and that it's solely because of the greed of EdF (etc) that they're being charged 10 times as much for wind power as for conventionally-generated power. I can hear the acusations now - "wind is free and coal isn't, so why is my wind power so expensive?"

Jun 21, 2011 at 10:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

I would like to take this opportunity to express my profound thanks to Pachauri, for hastening the demise of the AGW scam.

His ability to make pseudo scientific announcements, with such gravitas, without breaking his ribs with laughter is incredible.

I look forward to him being a guest presenter of "Have I got news for you"

Also, check out Joe Romm, for his efforts to destroy all credibility in AGW theory.

Good work chaps, no doubt you are being paid a lot of money for your efforts

Jun 21, 2011 at 10:38 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

@j4r. I cannot deny what you say is of great concern.

However, I can only hope that the equivalent of what the driving public did over petrol prices a few years back will happen again. We all heard what the Saudi response to Gordon Brown was when he asked for a reduction in the crude oil price. The government are right on the limit with petrol taxes.

All we can do about energy prices is keep calling out the fact that currently 15-20% of the price is caused by hidden taxes. The fact that wind energy only contributed to peak demand on 3 days out of 365 last year. The fact that wind farms cause noise pollution etc. Turn the politicking back on the "green" politicians - as the percentage of people in "fuel poverty" rises from the current 10% and the winter fuel allowance increases from £250 to, say, £500 (means tested of course) we need to point out their stupidity.

I would suggest the "greens" are also at the limit of their powers. Look at the reception today to the "Death of the Oceans" press release. Everyone is now a sceptic.

The government had to stop local council taxes rising each year above inflation - Ken Livingston raised the London precept by 15% in some years he was in power - just so we could have burning bendy-buses. Perhaps the solution might be a single issue political party a la UKIP. It will never get into power (pun intended) but it sure causes a great deal of angst in the traditional ones.

Blogging IS one of the ways forward - it does cause trouble to those in power - witness the impact of Guido Fawkes. We must continue to point out when the emperor has no clothes. Acting with dignity at all times.

Jun 21, 2011 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnOfEnfield

Of course they can pull it off. The UN has been pulling off frauds for decades. Practice makes perfect they say.

Jun 21, 2011 at 10:58 AM | Unregistered Commenterjoseph

The only solution is the bring the facts about the IPCC and its corrupt reports to all our MPs and asking questions about Governement policy based solely on the IPCC reprts. We need to put the pressure on them. I posted elsewhere that it needs someone (or a group of people) to write a concise document, highlighting the major failings of the IPPC that have been revealed over the last year or so, so that we can send it to all MPs. Sounds just like something a good author could do in his spare time as a precis to a book (anybody know one?). Donna Lafromboise, Hilary Rostrov, Steve McKyintyre and various others have fully described various bits of the corruption, but I haven't seen it all drawn together logically, tidily and concisely.

Any volunteers?

Jun 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

JamesP, at 9:26 AM:

Will it be us or the Germans first? The temptation for them to quietly switch a couple of nuclear stations back on when the frosts come will be overwhelming..

I'm not so sure it'll be the Germans. All the main political parties here in Germany are signed up, very publicly, to getting out of nuclear power. And doing so as quickly as possible - if not sooner. I think the future is far more likely to be coal and frakking gas (excuse my French).

Incidentally, a report in the Economist recently claimed that German industry is so successful because it's cornered the niche market of making all the boring, un-sexy machines which are actually used to make the products which everybody else wants, rather than making the products themselves. It pointed out that that the renewables area, though, had been something of a disaster. For example, most solar panels (which everybody and his dog seems to have got on their roofs round here) are made in China. But there was a silver lining! One area which IS booming is making and selling the machines which make the solar panels. The Chinese are big customers. They've got such a big market for their products in Germany, you see.

Just shows you how wrong you can be - here I was, thinking that all the increased taxes and ever-increasing power bills I have to pay to save the world from Climate Change were a complete and utter waste of money, simply going straight into the pockets of the Chinese! But apparently I was wrong, I think.

Jun 21, 2011 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Boyce

golf charley said

'I would like to take this opportunity to express my profound thanks to Pachauri, for hastening the demise of the AGW scam.'

Spot on. Me too with me then literally trading up my 1.4ltre car for a V8 6ltre beauty on the back of his rank hipocrasy amonst other things.. Honest.

There's nowt so devout as a convert I suppose. I swallowed the AGW scam whole until I began to research patchy.

Thanks patchy, I'm having a much better quality of life now and with about as much guilt as you must experience with a million or so first class air-miles...not to mention having a 'jolly' from a UN meeting in NY to go back to India for the weekend to watch your fave cricket team playing a match...then fly back.

Then again, 'austerity' is for the bottlewashers isn't it?



Jun 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterMcCoy

I'm with McCoy - I spent £10k on a 4x4 just over two years ago, when such vehicles were the very embodiment of eeeevil.
Two severe (in central Southern England, anyway) winters later, and I could get the same money if I sold it!

Jun 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterCharlie


"The Chinese are big customers"

I'm sure this will keep the Germans busy for a while, but the Chinese learn how to do things very quickly. I have a 10-year old Chinese-made fridge that came from a German-designed factory, but I'm sure they'll be designing their own next time round.

Jun 21, 2011 at 1:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Pachauri is directly responsible for the turtle's pace of reforms. Of course, it cannot be said that he is solely responsible.

In early may 2011, the IPCC held a plenary meet at Abu Dhabi (the one where they released the SRREN material). It was Pachauri's and the IPCC's turn to directly start addressing the IAC recommendations. What happened?

As the IISD bulletin noted, what Pachauri called for, instead of quick action to implement the reforms, was its exact opposite. It noted that Pachauri said, that the IPCC rather not proceed with 'haste' .

Pachauri noted that the InterAcademy Council (IAC) review presented a historical opportunity to prepare the IPCC for future challenges, but called for avoiding a fragmented set of actions taken in haste, stressing the need for a comprehensive view, careful reflection and dialogue.

It is pertinent to note here, that the IPCC commissioned the IAC precisely for the same purpose of "taking a comprehensive view" with "careful reflection", in the first place.

Pachauri's own words at the plenary are more damning. He interprets the overall recommendations of the IAC to the benefit of his own message.

We, therefore, must take a comprehensive view of the opportunity before us and avoid a segmented or fragmented set of actions. In other words, while it is essential that we take action as early as possible and demonstrate our commitment towards doing so, we must remember that the IAC report stated that “most of the Committee’s recommendations can be implemented during the Fifth Assessment process and should be considered at the upcoming Plenary”. However it also drew attention to “recommendations that may require discussion at several Plenary Sessions but that could be implemented in the course of the Fifth Assessment, include those related to management, communications, and conflict of interest”.

The IAC wrote the opposite of what Pachauri openly now implies:

Recommendations that may require discussion at several Plenary sessions, but that could be implemented in the course of the fifth assessment, include those related to management, communications, and conflict of interest. Because the fifth assessment is already under way, it may be too late to establish a more transparent scoping process and criteria for selecting authors.

The IPCC only seems interested in implementing 'reforms' which increase its budget or staff. Typical institutional behaviour (re Mary Douglas)

Jun 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

The significant thing is that those who fund them do not seem to care. Which raises some significant questions about the ethics of those controlling the purse strings.
How can an ethical person quietly fund something that is so blatantly out of balance?

Jun 21, 2011 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Bish: 'I can't believe the IPCC can pull this one off - can they..?'
Of course they can. They can do anything they damn well please - because its all done (I nearly said 'in the best PUSSIBLE taste') under the gravitas of the UN and governments around the world going: 'Well, if the UN/IPCC says its so, it MUST be so..'
Its the old adage: A lie travels round the world before the truth has got its boots on...

Jun 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid


Your congregation might like to have some sort of numeric basis for their CoI concerns and Hilary Ostrov has just reminded us of the shocking stats for AR4 at her blog

Jun 21, 2011 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

PUSSIBLE ought to be a real word. Being a reticent kind of guy, I'm not going to suggest one of the connotations it conjures up, though...

Jun 21, 2011 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Larkin


Mary Douglas on the IPCC: very little Purity and quite a lot of Danger.

Jun 21, 2011 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Although my current opinion on the membership of the House of Lords resembles some of the comments appended to this article,

....I must point out that it was the House of Lords Select Committee on the Economics of Climate Change, in 2005, prior to the infamous Climate Change Act, who conducted a wide ranging and detailed assessment of the topic, and finding much of serious concern regarding the IPCC conclusions and procedures, such as

' para 110. Dr Barker went on to say that government representatives can be very
sensitive to some issues. For example, wording that suggests costs of control
are large might upset governments whose policy stance is based on the view
that costs are small and easily bearable. Dr Barker concluded that:
“…what happens is that there is a political process which uses words which
can have different meanings for different people and the outcome is a
Summary for Policy Makers that everybody will sign up to”(footnote 90).
111. We can see no justification for this procedure. Indeed, it strikes us as
opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined,
at least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence.
Sound science cannot emerge from an unsound process.

Their report noted significant uncertainty in both the scientific conclusions and the economic scenarios, and made numerous recommendations to the House of Commons, which duly rejected them all..

And went on to vote virtually unanimously for the draconian policy we are currently saddled with, Labour, Conservative Liberal and all gullibly gripped by climate panic like flushed adolescents in bare scud in a steamy sauna. Only a handful of no voters, Peter Lilley I recall was one, and Ann Widdecombe another as a 'NO' teller another. While snow fell outside. And the press were silent as the grave. And we were mushrooms in the dark, none the wiser, except the nerd bloggers.

Jun 21, 2011 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

@Jun 21, 2011 at 1:52 PM | Latimer Alder

Your congregation might like to have some sort of numeric basis for their CoI concerns and Hilary Ostrov has just reminded us of the shocking stats for AR4 at her blog [link added as a public service -hro]

Thanks, Latimer ... What I find the most amusing/curious about this is that there has been a lot (well, certainly a lot for me, anyway!) of traffic on this post coming from the thread at JC's in which I had posted a link - and she had responded by saying "Nice work" (and, of course, I thanked her!)

Yet - and here's where the amusing/curious part comes in - not a single one of her detractors has challenged her assessment of my post (on her blog or on mine!)

This being the case, if I didn't know better, I'd be inclined to conclude that this traffic I'm getting is primarily from the army of JC detractors who've tried to (but cannot find) fault with my "big picture" - and have decided (wisely for a change) that the very last thing they want to do is draw any attention to it, so they silently slip away to nurse their wounds.


P.S. For those who haven't seen it, the post to which Latimer referred provides documentation of the pervasiveness of (in the words of the IAC) "the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work".

Jun 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

Nice work indeed Hilary! The numbers are quite shocking... And worth drawing attention to, as it were ;-)

Jun 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

Thanks, Josh! And if you were inclined to ... uh ... draw some attention to these numbers in your perspicacious and always admirable way, I'd be absolutely delighted ;-)

Jun 24, 2011 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>