Pachauri Continues to Disimulate and Equivocate

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continues to labor under a heavy cloud of mistrust as a result of (1) revelations that many of the sources it cites are not peer-reviewed scientific papers, but advocacy pieces done by environmental lobby groups and also (2) as a result of incorrect, loudly trumpeted predictions best labeled as "alarmist" in nature. For more on the various "gates" see here and here. For more on the lack of peer-reviewed materials in the IPCC 2007 report see here and here.

The resignation of the part-time head of this body (who is not himself a climate scientist), has been called for by a wide variety of groups and individuals, some of whom support the AGW alarmist narrative.

He is unbelievably cheeky and as slippery as a snake oil salesman. Just watch him twist himself into a pretzel in this Times of London story entitled: "UN climate change chief Rajendra Pachauri says sorry — and switches to neutral." [My comments in bold and in square brackets]

__________________

"The outspoken chairman of the UN’s climate change body is to adopt a neutral advisory role and has agreed to stop making statements demanding new taxes and other radical policies on cutting emissions. [This panel is supposed to be a digest of up-to-date findings of scientists from all over the world on climate change. It is actually a lobby group with a political agenda.]

In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, apologised for his organisation’s handling of complaints about errors in its report. [I think it is significant that he did not apologize for the errors. This is supposed to be the "peer-reviewed" "gold standard" of the scientific consensus. There are not supposed to be major errors in such a synthesis of scientific thinking. In view of the above comment, I wonder how they got there. You don't suppose that politics played a part?]

He also apologised for describing as “voodoo science” an Indian Government report which challenged the IPCC’s claims about the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers. [He tried to bluff on this even after he had been informed that it was an error. It was not until the Times of London picked up the story from the blogs and accused him of lying that he conceded it was an "error." He knew it all along and was prepared to lie his way through. Note that we are not talking about a scientific error, but a piece of propaganda inserted into a scientific document on the basis of a non-peer-reviewed article and then only retracted under fire. Science is not being questioned here - only the impartiality of the spokesmen for science: the IPCC.]

But Dr Pachauri, 70, rejected calls for his resignation and insisted he would remain as chairman until after publication of the IPCC’s next report in 2014.

He claimed he had the support of all the world’s governments and denied that, by remaining in post, he was undermining the IPCC’s chances of regaining credibility with the public. [He is in denial.]

“It is not correct to say there are people who don’t trust me,” he said. [Really in denial.]

He admitted it had been a mistake to give the impression, in many interviews, that he was advocating specific actions to cut emissions. Last year, he called for higher taxes on aviation and motoring, said people should eat less meat, and proposed that hotel rooms should have electricity meters to charge people extra for using air conditioning.

Speaking in London yesterday, he said he would focus in future on presenting the science on climate change rather than advocating policies. [He wouldn't know where the line is between science and advocacy because he does nothing but advocacy.]

“I will try to clarify tha[t I’m not prescribing anything as a solution. Maybe I should be more careful [in media interviews] in laying down certain riders. One learns from that and I’m learning.”

On the IPCC’s tardiness in responding to complaints and correcting errors — such as its claim that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — he said: “Our response has been much too late and much too inadequate.” [No kidding!]

Of his “voodoo science” comment, he said: “It was an intemperate statement. I shouldn’t have used those words. I have to show respect to people who have worked on a particular subject.” [But the point isn't just whether he was respectful; the point is that he tried to mislead the world on a point that, if true, could motivate governments to spend billions of dollars. He is grossly underestimating the seriousness of the situation. He doesn't get it.]

However, he said that the review of the IPCC announced this month would not consider his role or his actions. The review, by a panel drawn from the world’s leading science academies, will only consider the IPCC’s procedures. [If this is true, the IPCC is shooting itself in the foot.]

Dr Pachauri said he wanted more power over the IPCC secretariat and an extra $1million (£671,000) a year to fund its work, on top of the $5million it already receives. [As if!] The IPCC is planning to recruit more spin-doctors to help it promote its work and defend itself against attacks by climate sceptics. Dr Pachauri said that at present the organisation is “terribly ill-equipped” to communicate with the world’s media. [What kind of "scientific organization" needs more money for spin doctors? This is ridiculous.]

He dismissed suggestions that he was too old for the job and said he would be playing cricket for his institute’s team immediately after landing back in Dehli.

“I open the bowling and I swing the ball in both directions. I used to be fast, I’m gentle medium pace now. I work 16-17 hours a day, seven days a week. If you can find someone 40 years younger to do it, I would salute that person,” he said.

He rejected claims that he had personally profited from the many contracts he has to advise companies on climate change. All the money went to the charitable research institute which he heads, he said. He gave The Times a copy of his 2008-09 income tax return which showed earnings of £44,600.

A KPMG report into his financial relationship with The Energy and Resources Institute concluded: “No evidence was found that indicated personal fiduciary benefits accruing to Dr Pachauri from his various advisory roles that would have led to a conflict of interest."

_________________

The IPCC may as well just concede that Global Warming is a farce if it keeps this Elmer Gantry on the payroll.