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):
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)