Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Stern report doctored | Main | Who's on the select committee? »

Pachauri says he's staying

IBN LIVE: Rajendra Pachauri, president of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Saturday said he would not quit over the IPCC blunder of saying that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Climate Audit WUWT Richard North Bishop Hill Pielke Jr. James Delingpole Andrew Bolt The Times Booker - Telegraph That's enough for a start, Pachauri will still be in charge in six months time though, he is too involved to throw...

Reader Comments (55)

Dave Salk:

Wadard, you say "there is no peer-reviewed research in any respected climate science journal that supports these two theories you state as explaining the extent of the observed rise in average global temperatures, that hasn't been debunked", but I beg to differ....

Beg as much as you like mate, given that is all you demonstrate you can do... you certainly could not provide me with any of the peer-review literature. Not an iota.. just as I predicted. You can quote Lindzen, but you cannot point to any research of his that debunks AGW in favour of another hypothesis. Nada.

Looks like you have been caught peddling outright lies, and when that does not work, attempting deflection. That makes you a flagrant AGW denier, which is quite a nasty thing to have to wear.

Jan 25, 2010 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterWadard

Wadard, no answer to the so-many replies to your earlier contention? The WG II report peddles in soft-science, grey literature and numerous 'medium confidence' contentions. There is gratuitous switching between weather and climate as the situation demands.

You want to defend all these?

Anand, I promise I will reply to the intelligent responses when they come up. You know hat I mean, comments that are logic based and/or substantiated. The 4AR has been out for three years. In all that time critics have only beem able to dig up one passage that is demonstrably unsubstantiated. One passage in approx. 3000 pages.

Use your God given brain, Anand - assuming 10 paragraphs to a page, there are around 30,000 paragraphs in the 4AR. With an inaccuracy rate of 1 in 30,000 after three years of vigorous analysis by professional sceptics (scientists themselves) and agenda-driven critics, one that did not make it into the WG2 summary, or the Summary for Policy Makers, therefore any calls for the head of the IPCC over the inclusion are disingenuous at best, and betray an anti-intellectual, scientific-denialist agenda at worst.

Or unadulterated laziness in seeking to pounce on anything to shore up an ideological world-view. Shame it is so easily shot-up, but that is what laziness gets you.

So Anand, why don't YOU address my comment now... why should the IPCC resign over one inaccurate passage in 30,000? Pachauri is a Himalayan glaciologist who should have known better, is he?

Jan 25, 2010 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterWadard


"Now you are getting desperate mate"

Are you Australian?

"extremist deniers do not even have a scientific theory from which to contest AGW"

A counter-theory is not required to be sceptical. Your hypothesis needs some real, empirical, reproducible evidence even to be considered a theory!

Jan 25, 2010 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Wadard, Pachauri should resign not because of a simple error about when the glaciers may disappear, he should resign because this "fact" should never have been in the report to begin with. That it appeared demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the process the IPCC claims to follow.
The IPCC does not do original science, what it does is to survey the peer reviewed literature and tries to determine what all of it means in order to help the lay public determine policy. The IPCC failed miserably at this. Not only did they publish an error, but this error was merely hearsay, it was based on an interview, not on a published paper (and was an eight year old interview at that). The Glacier story is merely one example of this. The Telegraph has a list of articles from the WWF, a specifically non-scientific organization, that does not do peer-reviewed work. The IPCC should never have allowed this articles into the final work, that they did undermines the credibility of the entire organization. In that this HAS occurred, whom do you suggest should be held responsible?

Jan 25, 2010 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Sace

Wadard one additional point. We do not need to "debunk" AGW. You need to prove it. Something, it should be noted, you have done a very poor job at doing. After all, this is the second time the IPCC's "smoking gun" (in the 3rd Assessment it was the Hockey Stick, in the 4th it was the Glaciers) has been proven to be not only inaccurate, but revealed an extremely poor understanding of the scientific method. You, in your own small way, also show a similar lack of understanding of it.

Jan 25, 2010 at 6:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Sace

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>