Booker Vs Pachauri

In case, you’ve missed this – global warming has resulted in its fair share of lawsuits, around the world. So it was, that Rajendra Pachauri the UN’s bureaucrat who is heading the IPCC, hung the threat of a lawsuit over the Telegraph’s head. The sword would come crashing down, because Christopher Booker and Richard North, had overstretched their case accusing Pachauri a.k.a ‘Patchy’ of making millions of dollars arising from climate change mitigation.

Can you believe this nonsense that anyone can make any money off climate change? Just for thinking such thoughts, Booker deserves a few lawsuits going his way.

Look at this graph (what good is climate stuff, without squiggly graphs):

Chicago Carbon Index and Global Temperature anomaly – 2003 onwards (solid black line, temperature anomaly; dotted black line, carbon ‘financial instrument’ price at the Chicago Climate Exchange

It is pretty clear there is no connection whatsoever between climate money and the climate.

Nevertheless, Mr Booker and Dr Pachauri are at loggerheads with one another, about the ‘meaning of the IPCC’, and such things. But if we examine what they are saying (Booker here, Pachauri here), are their views really that dissimilar from one another? Take a look:

On what the IPCC really is,

Booker: It is invariably portrayed as a body representing the top scientists in the world, objectively weighing the complex forces that shape Earth’s climate. In reality, it’s nothing of the kind.

Pachauri: Let’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments….Unfortunately, people have completely missed the original resolution by which IPCC was set up.If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don’t see the light of the day because they don’t matter in policy-making

Once again, on what the IPCC really is,

Booker: The IPCC was, from the start, essentially a political pressure group, producing evidence to support the view that global warming was the most serious crisis facing the planet.

Pachauri: At the meeting, we dwelt at length on [Article 2 of] the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which says the central objective of the convention is to prevent the anthropogenic interference with the climate system…”

And, once again on what the IPCC really is,

Booker: Through all this the IPCC has been exposed for what it truly is: not a proper scientific body but an advocacy group, ready to stop at nothing in hijacking the prestige of science for its cause.

Pachauri: Some of things that are certainly going to be included this time are issues of equity….Certainly [the issue of equity is central to the next report], but not only equity, we have also used the word ‘ethics’. There are certain ethical dimensions, even of the scientific assessment of climate change which we are going to try and assess.

Gah! They seem to be saying the same thing.

Dr. Pachauri should seriously reconsider his anger directed at skeptics such as Booker. If they were to try to settle their differences some day, I doubt there would hardly be any differences of opinion to settle.

N.B. (h/t vern for Pachauri’s interview in the Times of India)

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. Oliver K. Manuel

    HOW WIDE-SPREAD, HOW DEEP?

    Climategate exposed deceit far beyond the wildest imagination of any conspiracy buffs – the UN’s IPCC, world leaders, Al Gore, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the International Inter-Academy Panel on International Issues (IAP), the International Inter-Academy Council (IAC), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, major research journals, major news media and public TV (BBC, PBS, etc).

    Since 1976 I experienced deceit in NASA and the space sciences community, but until the Climategate scandal broke and the coverup began, I had absolutely no idea how widespread the cancerous growth had become.

    I still do not know the full extent of the corruption, but the first half of this new paper documents the corruption in space sciences since 1976, . . .

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Neutron_Repulsion.pdf

    Corruption that had not yet taken control of Nature in 1983 when that journal published “The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System” [Nature 303 (1983) 286]: http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/swart-1983.pdf

    The operation of the Sun, is explained in layman’s terms is here:

    “The Sun: A Magnetic Plasma Diffuser That Controls Earth’s Climate”

    http://db.tt/wj4lCR3

    More technical explanations of Earth’s heat source are here:

    1. “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass” [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006):

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509v3

    2. “Earth’s heat source – the Sun” [Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0684

    Because of repeated failure of Nature to allow publication of dissenting opinions to these three misrepresentations of empirical observations:

    1. Man-made CO2 induced global warming;
    2. Earth’s heat source is well-behaved Hydrogen-fusion reactor; and
    3. Fusion is the nuclear energy source that powers the Sun and our best hope for meeting future energy needs; . . .

    I sent this open message on August 11, 2010 requesting the resignation of Dr. Philip Campbell as editor of Nature for failure to follow Nature’s own Mission Statement of 1869: ” . . . to place before the general public the grand results of scientific work and scientific discovery; . . . to aid scientific men . . . by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various scientific questions which arise from time to time.”

    http://db.tt/ozSkvEf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  2. Rajan Alexander

    If Pachauri did not exist, we climate sceptics would have had to literally invent him. He is in fact every sceptic’s dream. How could we have asked for more when he embodies the UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in all completeness? Interestingly, he also strongly epitomizes the typical climate activist and their organizations that they are attached. Did he mould both in his image or its vice versa is however for history to judge.

    Next month 194 governments of the IPCC are scheduled to meet in Busan, South Korea. This is where a plot to ouster Pachuari could be unleashed. Pachuari remains defiant: “At the moment, my mandate is very clear. I have to complete the fifth assessment” The Indian Government who Pachuari is their candidate is equally defiant, backing him to the hilt. If Pachauri goes, we leave the IPCC! And if India leaves the IPCC, it can trigger an exodus.

    We launch our “Save Pachauri Campaign”. This is the least we can do for a Patriot of our country. He accomplished what climate sceptics were unable to do by functioning as our Trojan horse that effectively destroyed the IPCC from the inside. Write your support to Pachauri/TERI directly or pressurise WWF to executive an Adopt a Pachauri Programme as envisaged by sceptics.

    Read More: http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2010/09/salute-this-man-pachauri-did-what-no.html