Thursday
Feb112010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Only one error in IPCC reports
Feb 11, 2010 Climate: Pachauri A video of Rajendra Pachauri with some startling statements about the recent IPCC scandals. Apparently the Himalayan glacier melting thing is the only error in the IPCC reports. The other issues aren't errors at all. Oh yes, and it's OK to use non-peer reviewed literature in IPCC reports.
Reader Comments (20)
He is finished and will be gone much sooner than later.As we say in the states, 'what a maroon!'
I went to a debate between the four main candidates for Cambridge's MP last night and heard the Green Party's Tony Juniper speak. The irony was that he had lots of good ideas and stayed away from statements saying that the debate was over etc - but Pachauri casts a long shadow.
Pachauri is really making an idiot of himself, the IPCC is looking like a pack of jokers, and the politicians who rely on it as 'peer reviewed' are looking rather stupid now.
I've noticed that Pachauri says different things in India from when he is travelling in the West. That is how his lie about not knowing about the glacier case before Copenhagen was exposed. I found this out and referred the matter to The Times, see my post
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down/
and they ran the story 4 days later.
Is Pachauri really so thick that he doesn't realize that people can put together the different things he says inside and outside India and expose him as a liar?
This is what was reported in the newspaper 'The Hindu', New Delhi, January 22, 2010:
"Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Friday said the chances of the U.N. panel having made more errors in its benchmark 2007 report were “minimal if not non-existent..."
Hey, this guy's a railway engineer. That's like finding a major wiring fault in a signalling system and saying that "the chances" of another similar fault being found on the network are “minimal if not non-existent”.
People who behave and say such stupid things should be removed before they become responsible for a train wreck through negligence and incompetence.
So it is OK to reference a non-peer reviewed publication, provided it is "authentic". I've been trying to work out what that means. I've concluded that they think it is OK for them to reference a WWF or Greepeace publication, provided that they are sure it came from WWF or Greenpeace, and not from someone pretending to be WWF or Greenpeace.....
Does the rest of the IPCC really believe this?
The warming around IPCC is really accelerating. Personally I think is getting hot.
This obvious conclusion is based on the fact that the "boss" shows very identifiable symptoms of brain cramps.
The Nobel Swami, RP is irreplaceable. Who else could make Eddie the Eagle look like the President of the Piste, or Baghdad Bob the Guru of Gospel?
Let us not squander our time racking our brains looking for his replacement.
RP IS the IPCC!
Remove him from office and his office is moot.
And then we'd be truly DOOMED!
RIP RP, when will IpCC your likes again!
Chunka, chunka, chunka, chunka,chunka, chunka,chunka, chunka, chunka, chunka . . .
Dig Rajendra, dig, dig, dig.
Faster, faster, deeper, deeper.
Chunka, chunka, chunka, chunka,chunka, chunka,chunka, chunka, chunka, chunka . . .
Dig Rajendra, dig, dig, dig.
Faster, faster, deeper, deeper.
Fred, is that a straight quote lifted from RP's pot boiler or are you making a quote from the next IPCC report for policy-makers about how robust the pillar of MMCC actually is?
I think RP will be retained in a desperate attempt at damage control. Could the media ignore the resignation or firing of the head of the IPCC? Well, okay, maybe, but who in the UN would want to take the chance? This must end badly, make no mistake. There's that stairwell in the UN building in Vienna...
Technically speaking if the whole document is one big error then he's telling the truth.
Dead man walking ...
He is technically correct. They do allow themselves to use non-peer reviewed sources.
Throw this video in Ed Begley's face, like a pie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIl2gdDtbCg
OT
For last 1.5+ hrs I was watching debate Moncton vs Lambert in Sydney
Two points.
1. I’m speachless
2. I feel sorry,…. no, I feel very sorry, no, I feel extremly very sorry for Lambert
The man (Patchy) knows how to 'work his ricebowl'...
Oh boy.
I can't wait to see how he explains away when more 'boo-boos' start surfacing :
"Okay, so maybe we have made 5 errors, but it's only 5 errors among 3000 peer-reviewed papers."
"Okay, so maybe we have made 10 errors, but it's only 10 errors among 3000 peer-reviewed papers."
Okay, so maybe we made 20 errors, and 85 non-peer reviewed papers, but it's only 20 errors and 85 non-peer reviewed papers among 2915 peer-reviewed papers."
"Okay, so maybe...."
You just can't make this stuff up.
"They are not errors"
What, so 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level, as it says in AR4? (Netherlands government figure 24%).
This guy is living in an Alice through the Looking Glass world:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
I'm trying hard not to get personel about Patchy... but whats with the comb over, shades of Kinnock, never really trusted someone with enough vanity to try and conceal the truth under a dodgy hair cut, Bobby Charleton is perhaps an exception to the rule.I do hope that the issues at IPCC will blow over and then we can see what Patchy keeps under his hat so to speak.
sorry about the levity,I know that Patchy is a very serious man and should deserve our respect but.........
I find it a bit ironic that the IPCC thinks it's ok to use non-peer reviewed reports while the 'objective' scientists at the CRU were actively trying to keep skeptical science reports from getting published.
Obviously when Pachauri says 'error' he doesn't mean 'factual inaccuracy'. In his Looking Glass world there was only one 'error' because the glacier claim was the only factual inaccuracy that got into the media before the COP15 Copenhagen summit so could have policy implications. All other factual inaccuracies dug up since COP15 are irrelevant as far as Pachauri is concerned, so they are not 'errors' in his Alice in Wonderland world.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do, " Alice hastily replied; "at least I mean what I say, that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see!"
Of course, technically there IS only one error in the IPCC document; that a fractional increase in a trace gas will cause cataclysmic instability in the Earth's climate system.