On the evening after the IAC’s critical report on the processes and procedures used by the IPCC was published, Roger Harrabin of the BBC made no secret of the precarious position that the organisation’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is now in. Describing him as ‘putting a brave face on it’ the BBC’s Environment Analyst introduced this outburst from the IPCC chairman:
Honest scientific discourse wilts under gross distortions and ideologically driven posturing. Sadly, such tactics have been a prominent feature of climate science for many years and they show no sign of letting up. My hope is that the accumulation of so many investigations into climate science will strengthen public trust so that we can move forward.
BBC Six o’Clock News, Radio 4, 30th August 2010
There is an extraordinary, and ironic, ambiguity in the first two sentences. Pachauri is, no doubt, talking about the IPCC’s critics, but surely precisely the same accusations could apply to that organisation under his leadership. Be that as it may, Harrabin’s verdict on Pachauri’s future prospects was that, ‘the full climate panel meet in a few weeks time in Korea. It will be a major surprise if Professor Pachauri is still running it after that.’ Harrabin usually seems to be well informed about what the warmist movement is thinking, so he may well be right in anticipating an attempt to oust Pachauri.
The chairman of the IPCC is elected by the governments that are signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and at present there are nearly 200 of them. In order to get rid of Dr Pachauri – if he chooses not to go quietly – would presumably require that process to be reversed in the form of a motion of no confidence. There would seem to be some indications that Pachauri will not go quietly, and that the meeting in October will be a very lively affair indeed.
The BBC website carried a report on 25th January 2010, when the Himalayagate scandal had just broken, which was headlined, ‘I will not go, says climate chief’. This included a brief, but very interesting, video interview with Dr Pachauri. Here is part of what he had to say, apparently in response to being asked whether he intended to resign:
My reaction is that I am not going to stand down, I’m going to stand up! I was elected – re-elected by acclamation – essentially, I imagine, because everybody was satisfied with my performance on the fourth assessment report. I am now charged with the responsibility of producing the fifth assessment report, which I will do faithfully to the best of my abilities and to meet the confidence that has been reposed in me. I want to tell the sceptics, I want to tell the western [or vested] interests, who see me as the face and the voice of the science of climate change, that I am in no mood to oblige them. I am gong to remain chairman of the IPCC for my entire term. [my emphasis]
I have quoted from this interview before, and at that time there was some discussion in comments as to whether the word in bold was ‘western’ or ‘vested’, as the recording was indistinct. While writing this post I made a new recoding which is much amplified and clearer. I am now in no doubt that the word was ‘western’ and what follows would seem to confirm this.
Perhaps the most damaging fallout from the fiasco that was the Copenhagen Summit is the deep divide, and very real hostility, that opened up between the developed and developing world over climate change mitigation. The majority of delegates were eager to hold the industrialised nations responsible for polluting the atmosphere with Co2 , a crime that they considered was now inflicting misery in the form of droughts, floods, famine and rising sea levels. So far as they were concerned, they were now victims of climate change phenomena that they cannot be held responsible for causing. From their standpoint it was reasonable to expect that the developed nations would not only mend their ways, and drastically reduce emissions regardless of the consequences for their economies, but would also finance mitigation of further climate change and also adaptation to the consequences of anthropogenic global warming that is perceived to have already taken place. Financially, they were talking in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars. Words such as ‘reparations’ and ‘compensation’ were being used in the run-up to the conference, with feelings running very high. The developing nations also wanted a carbon reduction regime to be agreed that would, in theory at least, limit future temperature increase to 1.5 oC or even 1 oC, while the developed world was not prepared to contemplate anything less than 2 oC.
The crusade against climate change, whether it is based on sound science or not, should surely be a unifying factor in global politics; everyone must be united against this common threat, or these were the expectations before Copenhagen. The real tragedy of that very strange summit was not the deadlock that prevented a global emissions control agreement being reached, but the emergence of new reasons for hostility and bitterness in relations between the rich and the poor nations.
The developing nations saw the outcome of Copenhagen as an attempt on the part of wealthy nations to avoid responsibility for the harm that they were perceived to have inflicted on their less fortunate neighbours. There were also suspicions, probably well justified, that an attempt was being made to stifle industrialisation in the developing world by limiting the use of fossil fuels as they attempt to expand their economies, while the industrialised nations were only prepared to commit to cosmetic measures that would have little or no impact on Co2 levels.
All this gives Rajendra Pachauri ‘s reference to ‘western interests’ a very interesting significance. It seemed possible, even then, that he was positioning himself as the champion of the developing world in advance of any attempt by the developed world to get rid of him. As the poorer nations are numerically the majority of the parties to the UNFCCC, that would seem to be a pretty shrewd move if his future is to depend on a vote.
Nearly nine months after Dr Pachauri shared his defiant message to ‘western interests’ with the BBC, the IAC has published a report that is highly critical of the way in which the IPCC has performed under his leadership. They make a quite specific recommendation that, in future, senior officers should only serve one term. Dr Pachauri is already well into his second term. If his position was precarious in January, with journalists asking him if he was considering resignation, his situation is far worse now.
So will the IPCC chairman do the right thing for the organisation he has led and go quietly? This would allow a successor can be found who will implement the recommendations in the IAC report and begin to rebuild the shattered reputation of an organisation which governments worldwide rely on when formulating climate policy.
Here is what he had to say in a an interview with The Times of India shortly after the IAC report was published. It is headed I am happy that the truth has come out:
TOI: What are the new elements in the next climate assessment report (due in 2014)?
RP: Some of things that are certainly going to be included this time are issues of equity. It’s yet to be accepted by the panel, so I can’t really say definitely. 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 which is in terms of ecosystem, ensuring food security and ensuring that development can take place. These are three central pillars. This is something that science can’t answer. Because what is perceived as dangerous, depends on value judgements. But science can provide as much information as possible by which the negotiators and decision-makers can decide what is dangerous and we are trying very hard to get this together.
TOI: Aren’t you treading on more dangerous territory with this, because this is the most contentious bit of the negotiations – the North South divide?
RP: It is but I also believe this is something the IPCC must do. And I must say I owe it to what has happened over the past few months that I have certainly shed any inhibitions or feelings of cowardice. I believe this is now my opportunity to go out and do what I think is right. In the second term I may be little more uncomfortable for the people than I was in the first. Maybe they realize it.
TOI: So the issue of equity is central to the next report?
RP: Certainly, 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.
[My emphasis]
The perils for the IPCC are multiplying, and the shock waves, if there is conflict within its ranks, are likely to be felt far and wide. If there are divisions over Dr Pachauri’s continued tenure as head of the IPCC, they are likely to be along the already deep and dangerous fault lines that exist between the industrialised nations and the developing world. The IPCC meeting next month at Busan, South Korea will be quickly followed by the summit at Cancún, Mexico, at the beginning of December. There is a very real possibility that rifts over climate policy that became evident at Copenhagen, and are likely to re-emerge at Busan if Pachauri does not resign, will poison the gathering at Cancún too. This would add a new and dangerous dimension to the already fractious tensions between developing and developed nations for years to come.
Salute this man! Pachauri did what no climate sceptic is able to do. A Trojan Horse that destroyed the IPCC from the inside.
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.
Read More: http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2010/09/salute-this-man-pachauri-did-what-no.html
Rajan Alexander is right.
The best thing that could happen to clean up this whole mess long term is for Rajendra Pachauri to hang in there by his fingernails as long as he can (as Nixon did many years ago).
He states that he “was elected” and therefore has the right to stay in office (so was Nixon).
I personally believe that (if he is not ousted next month in Busan) he will eventually stand down when the pressure becomes unbearable (just as Nixon did), but the longer he stays the more apparent the whole IPCC fraud will become to the general public.
The arrogant scientists, who were exposed by their own e-mails, the many falsifications in the IPCC reports, which have come to light, plus the blatantly obvious recent whitewash attempts, have all alerted the public to the fact that there is something rotten here.
But Pachauri himself is truly the AGW skeptics’ “dream come true”.
Max
[…] Committee, är båda överens om att IPCC:s ordförande Pachauri bör avgå. Se BBC-artikel . Tony Newbery gör en intressant analys av Pachauris strategi att underblåsa motsättningarna mellan i-länder […]
I think Pachauri is demonstrably damaging the IPCC ‘brand’ and appears likely to continue to do so in the future.
Consequently I think he will be asked to step down a decent interval after the Pusan conference so as to ensure that no one loses ‘face.’
tonyb
Some in China and India close think that the climate scare is an attempt at protectionism by western nations.
The theory is that the western nations are becoming less competitive on price alone in global (and their own) markets so are using the idea of carbon tariffs etc as a new way of keeping the poor countries off the top table.
The Chinese in particular just can’t see why a country would be stupid enough to banjax its own industries and its own comfortable lifestyle for some general benefit of all mankind so they are looking for a hidden and ulterior motive.
They would never do such an obviously stupid thing themselves so they don’t think we are actually doing what we claim to be doing.
He’s being defended by Monbiot, now. With friends like that… :-)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/9/18/george-monbiot-scrubbing-the-record-clean.html
[…] door gesuggereerd om zijn functie maar aan een ander over te dragen. Maar Pachauri wil niet wijken. TonyN schrijft daarover: Pachauri’s future in his own words: will he go quietly? On the evening after […]
It’s not looking good:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9025000/9025702.stm
Although even Harrabin can’t bring himself to believe that RP has had his fingers in the till. Unfortunately, the numbers say otherwise:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/9/21/monbiot-and-teris-accounts.html
James P, yes, and also from the Telegraph (via Bishop Hill) this morning, it does look as though the Grantham Institute’s Sir Brian Hoskins and Tim Yeo of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee are calling for him to go.
I found at least one sentence in Heidi Blake’s DT report a little strange: “The Indian government has swung its full support behind Dr Pachauri, but many of the chairman’s former allies now believe that he should resign in order to avert a clash between India and the IPCC.” Which, logically, would imply that the IPCC itself is not supporting Dr Pachauri (?)
Whatever happens in the meantime, the 32nd IPCC session in Busan looks as though it is going to be especially interesting. And it’s just under three weeks from now – 11th – 14th October, 2010; some dates for the diary, I think.
I understand TERI were consultants to the commonwealth games and were planned to have a part in the design of the green athletes village-see last slide. Whether this happened or not I don’t know.
http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/fea1c7804eff21c58892acb60aeecb21/greenbuilding.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=fea1c7804eff21c58892acb60aeecb21
tonyb
Perhaps the floodwater is meant to be part of a message about AGW, then…
Here’s Roger Harrabin’s report from Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday (and just realised I can now answer my own question in #9.) The audio on iPlayer will soon be gone, but here’s what they said:
BBC Radio 4: Today programme: 23rd September 2010
Roger Harrabin: BBC’s Environment Analyst
Sarah Montague: Presenter, BBC Radio 4: Today
Tim Yeo: Conservative MP, Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee
Roger Harrabin: Well, I should say to start with, any chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel is going to get flak. The previous chairman, Bob Watson, now a chief scientist for the UK Environment Department, was hounded out of the office by George Bush because he was too outspoken. And Professor Pachauri’s been smeared for several years about financial irregularities, which have not been stood up [sic]. What’s really upset people is the mistake he made around the – just around New Year – when it was pointed out that there’d been a dreadful blunder in his big Assessment Report, about when Himalayan glaciers would melt. And instead of dealing with it properly, he brushed it aside, and he got heavy criticism over that. And an enquiry was launched into the workings of the Intergovernmental Panel by the InterAcademy Council – I’m sorry about all these big names, but – that’s a sort of international grouping of learned societies, the top scientific bodies in the world.
Sarah Montague: And when they investigated it, they produced a report – because you were reporting on it quite recently – and it didn’t bode well for him.
Roger Harrabin: Yes, it said most – more broadly that there needed to be changes to the way that IPCC is run, and I think all those changes, or most of them, will go through. But there was a little bombshell in there, because it said no chair should serve for more than one term. It didn’t say anything about Professor Pachauri, but Professor Pachauri is well into his second term. Now I asked the British Government, did that mean they would press for him to go. And they said no, no, it’s not all that clear that he should go now, you know, we think he should stay. And I’ve looked into it further, and obviously what’s behind it is politics with only one – people not wanting to upset India. And I decided to phone round people who would be considered to be Professor Pachauri’s friends. And a lot of them are saying actually it would be best if he were to resign himself, to save a confrontation with India. Among the people I’ve spoken to is Tim Yeo, chairman of the Commons Climate Committee, this is what he said.
Tim Yeo: I’m afraid I think that Professor Pachauri should reisgn. Firstly, he personally has lost credibility, particularly in relation to his involvement in the claim about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the next 30 years. And secondly, because of the greater scientific controversy about the climate change debate that has emerged last year, it’s vital that this body is led by someone whose academic and intellectual credentials are unquestioned. And unfortunately we can no longer say that about him.
Roger Harrabin: And I should say that he’s by no means alone in saying this, Tim Yeo. I’ve spoken to Professor Sir Brian Hoskins from the Royal Society, an eminent climate scientist, Mike Hulme, climate scientist, leaders of environment bodies, all say the same. And what they’re saying is Professor Pachauri, in their opinion, ought to resign to save the embarrassment of confrontation with India. You can imagine the sensitivity of this, we’ve just been hearing about the Commonwealth Games, and the debacle of the Games, the last thing India wants is another high-profile casualty. So it will be really interesting to see how the politics of this one play out.
Alex Cull
Interesting Radio 4 report by Harrabin.
Looks like it’s “politics as usual” here, and Pachauri will most likely be the next victim.
The Himalayan glacier fiasco is mentioned, but other scientific blunders, exaggerations and misrepresentations of IPCC are not, IOW the “science” behind the “dangerous AGW” postulation of IPCC is still being defended (or accepted as correct).
Harrabin is clearly still sitting on the fence. But it appears that he may be positioning himself to fall either way when it becomes more advantageous to do so.
Smart guy. (Unlike Pachauri whose days are numbered) he sounds like a “survivor”.
Max
Flash forward to Busan, Korea, middle of next month.
Rachandra Pachauri resigns as IPCC chairman, citing personal and health reasons for his decision.
Ban Ki Moon expresses deep regret for Pachauri’s decision to step down and lauds him for meretorious service in helping to save the planet.
A new chairman is named – this time (unlike Pachauri) it’s a bona fide climate scientist (one not impacted by the Climategate scandal) but also a firm believer in and supporter of the IPCC party line on AGW.
He (or she) pledges to continue the good work of Dr. Pachauri in order to save world civilization from the greatest threat it has ever faced.
Everyone cheers.
Max
O/T for Alex, Max
Most environmental correspondents, like Harrabin, have been exposed to a severe dose of reality over the past few months. Not so Robert McKie in today’s Observer. He still doesn’t get it.
That”s right, global warming is nearly as dangerous as it was a few centuries ago, or in 200BC, or a few millenia ago. How will the human race survive?
I imagine it’s safe to say that elephants don’t like snow and ice. I now wish I’d had the wit to challenge this sort of picture when I was shown it at school:
http://theindustrymeasure.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/hannibal.jpg
JamesP
As Geoff says Prof Hunt is the leading expert on Hanibal and he believes they went over ice free passes that subsequently have become covered.
http://www.patrickhunt.net/arch/arch.html
Prof Hunt organises tours most years in the Alps exploring possible routes and tracing Roman High Level passes with which they were able to surprise their enemies
This article
http://web.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/gruenealpen.html
shows the likely position of glaciers in Roman times-much higher than today.
tonyb
Max, re Pachauri and your #14, I am inclined to agree that something along these lines is likely; basically, what we will probably see, in my opinion, is a face-saving exercise for all concerned. Who would the successor to Dr P be? I’m wondering whether it will be someone who is still relatively obscure (and thus un-controversial.) A climate science equivalent of Herman van Rompuy?
Geoff, it’s interesting to watch the journalists start to test the waters of non-advocacy, although just a little scary too. Roger Harrabin speculates about Pachauri’s fate, and blog comments like “BBC’s Harrabin falsely smears IPCC Chief Pachauri” start to appear. Richard Black writes an article about polar ice but neglects to mention man-made warming, and Joe Romm fulminates against this “dreadful climate story”. Your example, the Observer’s Robin McKie, is one who obviously wants to stay on board – for now, anyway.
James P, Geoff, TonyB , it’s fascinating to speculate about whether Hannibal and his elephants had to contend with much snow when crossing the Alps. Of course, no-one yet knows exactly which route he took, and I believe even the ancient historians were not sure, but apparently the time of year was early autumn. In his Histories, Polybius does mention snow, when describing the difficulties facing the army when following a narrow and treacherous route through the high-altitude mountain pass (Book III, available here at Google Books):
It has to be said though, that the story of the crossing comes to us via the Roman historians Livy and Appian, and before them the Greek historian Polybius who was born in 203 BC, 15 years after it happened, so it could be that over the passage of time, and in the telling and re-telling of the story, there’s room for errors to have crept in. This site mentions a common source for the various histories, an eyewitness account by one of Hannibal’s companions (Sosylus of Lacedaemon) whose own history of the event is now lost. Reliable or unreliable – who knows, really? TonyB, great links re Patrick Hunt and Christian Schlüchter. Here’s another link to a similar “Green Alps” article, in Der Spiegel and about the findings of Ulrich Joerin.
James P, whatever the truth of the matter re Hannibal and the crossing of the Alps, I think your point about received truths going unchallenged is an interesting and valid one. I saw the same kind of pictures in history books as you did, when I was at school, and never thought much beyond “must’ve been a bit cold for them”. There’s also the matter of whether or not these were standard African elephants (extremely difficult to tame, let alone get them to cross a mountain range in very challenging conditions) – some interesting articles about this subject here and here. Again, this was something I accepted without much protest, and I think we’re not generally taught to be critical or curious enough at school (definitely making up for lost time, now, though!)
TonyB, geoffchambers, JamesP, Alex Cull
Looks like we’ve all gotten interested in Hannibal’s alpine crossing (it is a fascinating story).
Hannibal’s route across the Alps in 218 BC (during the Roman Optimum warm period) has been recorded by historians. Some scholars today argue for a more southern route starting at the Drôme river, but most generally agree with the chronicle of the Greek historian, Polybios, who has described a more northern route.
This German study favors the northern route
http://www.g-geschichte.de/pdf/plus/welchen_weg_nahm_hannibal.pdf
While this English language study concluded that the southern route is more likely
http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hannibal/alps.html
All historians agree that it occurred during the second half of September.
The northern crossing described by Polybios started near what is now Grenoble (in France), and followed the upper Isère valley past Chartereuse and Montmélian. The route then followed the Arc river, passing Aigebelles, Termignon and finally across the Mont Cenis Pass across to what is now Italy near Susa. The other proposed routes have him crossing into what is now Italy over the Little Saint Bernard or the more southerly Montgenèvre Pass between what is now Briançon and Susa. In any case the route involved crossing alpine passes of between 2000 and 2700 meters elevation along the way.
According to the record, Hannibal encountered a Gallic tribe known as the Allobroges (who lived in the Isère Valley) along the way (who were not too enthusiastic about an army with elephants crossing their territory).
As mentioned, this all is said to have happened over a 16-day period in late September.
Alex Cull mentions encountering ice and snow. The Polybios account apparently does not mention encountering any ice or snow until the final descent into Italy. As TonyB mentions, the alpine glaciers were a few hundred meters higher then than today.
This has been confirmed by studies by Swiss glaciologists.
http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/de/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004_06_12.pdf
Hannibal could not have made the trip today with his (four leg drive) elephants or even with (four wheel drive) vehicles over a paved road, which did not exist in his day. Alpine passes and valleys (down to around 1500 meters altitude) have been snowed in for several days now, according to the local weather report.
This proves nothing, of course, except that the IPCC claim of “unprecedented 20th century warmth” is an unsubstantiated fabrication.
Both history and science tell us that it was warmer in the Alps during Roman times, as well as the MWP, than today (despite what IPCC claims), without human CO2 emissions.
But then, the IPCC “climatologists” are not very strong on history (just on questionable model simulations and bogus tree-ring studies).
Max
Didn’t the Romans also value our grapes? I doubt they’d have bothered invading the UK now…
“I lit the fuse under Patchy’s chairmanship eight months ago. Now, I say he should go.”
Booker in the Telegraph? No – Fred Pearce in the Daily Mail!
Dr Pachauri’s name came up in the House of Lords yesterday (Hansard link here.) Some interesting exchanges:
And another one:
A few points:
1) Lord Marland’s response to Lord Pearson is similar to his response to Lord Lawson earlier (on Bishop Hill here): it’s a put-down, and he does not answer the question.
2) Baroness Smith and the July 2001 study: and what year is this now?
3) Lord Marland: “…the role that the Labour Government played in sorting out the problems that the IPCC had got into…” What role was this – anyone know?
Nice one Alex.
Seems like Lord Lawson has been chatting people up in the House of Lords tearoom. So who are these unknowns who are giving a government minister such a hard time?
I looked up Baroness Noakes: “She’s been a top accountant, overhauled the NHS’ finances, demystified the cost of ID cards and helped decloak audit inspection reports for the public”.
Sounds like just the person needed to demystify the cost of green energy. It was accountants who did for Al Capone …
Alex and Geoff:
I seem to remember that Rahmsdorf has had some rather embarrassing problems with his sea level predictions. Perhaps not the most appropriate name to pull out of the hat.
To Alex Cull‘s 22
The good Baroness Smith of Basildon has apparently told us that “projections in temperature and sea level have risen higher than the top of the range predicted by the IPCC in its Third Assessment Report of 2001”.
The Third Assessment Report painted a scary picture for the future. Average global temperature was modeled to increase between 1.4 and 5.8°C by 2100, with the first decades of the 21st century warming at 0.2°C per decade. Predicted sea-level increases under the new scenarios ranged from 14 to 88 cm by 2100.
OK
Since 2001 the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” construct reported by HadCRUT and favored by IPCC has shown a linear cooling of 0.07°C, as compared to a projected warming of 0.2°C per decade. (The comparison is even worse if we use the “top of the range” forecast.)
Oops!
The Proudman Institute has been measuring global sea levels at various shorelines using tide gauges. A 2007 report by Simon Holgate tells us that the most recent rate of rise was 1.6 mm per year. A study by Carl Wunsch et al. has confirmed this rate. Curiously IPCC has not stayed with the traditional method of measurement in its latest (fourth) report, but has switched both the method and scope of measurement from tide gauges at various shorelines to satellite altimetry over the entire ocean (except polar regions and near shorelines) to get almost twice this rate at 3.1 mm per year.
The upper range forecast of IPCC TAR was 8.8 mm/year, so even comparing the forecast with the “rigged” IPCC number, it is off by a factor of 2.8 to 1. If we compare it to the more realistic number reported by Wunsch and Holgate, it is off by a factor of 5.5 to 1.
Ouch!
The noble baroness should check her figures before throwing out silly statements.
Max