Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chair Must Go

|

Pachauri must go

Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian engineer who has headed up the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for 8 years, has failed as a leader of this important scientific and policy organization. The IPCC is tasked with putting together periodic comprehensive reports of the best climate science. In the last year, the world was treated to the unedifying spectacle of the press uncovering ridiculous mistakes in the IPCC's reports, e.g., Himalayan glaciers supposedly melting away by 2035, 40 percent of Amazon forests drying up, and African farm production reduced by 50 percent by 2020. It also didn't help that leaked emails from the prominent Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed climate scientists apparently attempting to exclude less alarmist views on climate change from the IPCC reports and trying to circumvent Freedom of Information Act queries.

Of course, it's possible for mistakes to creep into such massive reports, but the right way to handle them is to immediately admit to them and correct them, not stonewall as Pachauri did. In August, a report from the InterAcademy Council, an Amsterdam-based organization of the world's science academies, reviewed the IPCC leadership and processes. The report noted that the IPCC processes are less than transparent and needed to be made more open and more rigorous. The IAC report also recommended that the IPCC chair, and the heads of the various working groups be limited to participating in just one five year assessment "in order to maintain a variety of perspectives and fresh approach to each assessment." Translating the mild language of bureaucratic science: For the good of the IPCC and climate science, Pachauri should either gracefully step down, or if he refuses to go, he should be fired.

There is a rising tide of sentiment for Pachauri's departure as the head of the IPCC. In a scathing op/ed in this Sunday's Daily Mail, science writer Fred Pearce reviews Pachauri's sorry tenure and argues:

If governments won't fire [Pachauri] when the IPCC meets at the Korean seaside resort of Busan next week, he should fall on his sword. For the good of the battered reputation of climate-change science. For the good of the planet, 

See Pearce's whole op/ed here.

NEXT: ObamaCare's First Major Casualties

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. when the IPCC meets at the Korean seaside resort of Busan next week

    Seaside, so all the participants can row there on rafts made from recycled plastic bottles. Right? Or I suppose Al Gore will planepool them all on his private jet, right?

    No no, obviously their emissions are exempt from any restrictions because saving the planet is such important work…and the need for seaside resort settings is so blindingly obvious I should go turn off my lights as penance for even questioning it.

    1. Yes, I believe I would take IPCC meetings more seriously if there were video conferences and all participants had to log in on computers powered by bicycle generators that they had to pedal themselves. 🙂

    2. They’re trying to save the world from the devastating effects of Global Climate Disruption. They’re simply trying to make it so that in ten years they’re not meeting at the American seaside resort of Kansas City, Nebraska.

      1. Kansas City, Nebraska?

    3. Maybe they just wanted to see the seaside city one last time before the evil corporations and governments that do not bow down to them cause the glaciers all to melt and the city becomes Atlantis. Duh.

  2. Won’t someone find a Bond movie that Pachauri can guest-villain in? That might get him out. All he’s missing is a fluffy, white cat and hair and wardrobe can take the day off.

    1. He is too fucking ugly for visual.

    2. Doesn’t that big white pussy standing next to him count?

  3. Uncharacteristically sloppy editing. Science writer Fred…who?

    1. Thanks for saying “uncharacteristically.” Fixed.

      1. There’s still the “Freedom of Inforamtion Act” and two links that missed the first letters. Uncharacteristically.

        1. Very uncharacteristic.

          1. That’s quite alright Ronnie-boy old chap. Now let me push this red button right quick and BOOM! RON ASPLODE!

  4. That guy on the right looks like Man Bear Pig! Conspiracy, ahhhh!

  5. For the good of the battered reputation of climate-change science.

    See, that’s the problem right there. It’s not “climate-change science”, it’s called “climatology”.

    1. No, “climate change science” isn’t climatology. “Climate-change science” is the study of how to reap funding by providing a pretext for power-grabbing.

      -jcr

  6. But! But! The Climategate perps were investigate by their universities (which reaped massive financial rewards from their notoriety) and exonerated! Surely, they must be on the up-and-up if the institutions that helped them spend all the grant money say they’re clean, right?

    -jcr

  7. The summary report is a POS full of inaccuracies, distortions, and unverifiable claims, but the science is settled, right?

    Hmm. I’ll have to try this at work when people question my results.

  8. Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian engineer who has headed up the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for 8 years, has failed as a leader of this important scientific and policy organization.

    That’s not true – the shaggy one has done exemplary work for his real job: pitchman.

  9. The entire freaking panel needs to go. It’s time to stop wasting the world’s precious time and money on this bullcrap.

  10. In August, a report from the InterAcademy Council, an Amsterdam-based organization of the world’s science academies, reviewed the IPCC leadership and processes. The report noted that the IPCC processes are less than transparent and needed to be made more open and more rigorous.

    It doesn’t have to be more open if it’s based on settled science! SETTLED SCIENCE!

    Those filthy deniers!

  11. Why is the IPCC important? I can’t think of anything it could do that won’t result in freedom being taken away from us.

    1. I think you just answered your own question, James.

  12. If governments won’t fire [Pachauri] when the IPCC meets at the Korean seaside resort of Busan next week, he should fall on his sword.

    MY take is that he will have to be LEAD OUT ina straight jacket, screaming hysterically “The science is settled! You heathens! You unbelievers!” before he resigns or falls on his sword or commits sepuku or drinks hemlock or whatever.

  13. Ron, can’t you outsource your image captions? Sheesh…great science writer…weak (when you even bother to do it) caption writer.

    “2007 Nobel Prize Winners for Literature”

  14. he should fall on his sword. For the good of the battered reputation of climate-change science. For the good of the planet,

    Not because it’s bullshit, but because it will be easier to paper over the fact that it’s bullshit if we can get a different guy in there.

  15. It amuses me that people are still talking about this shit. Everyone–everyone–knows that it’s a load of crap at this point. But I guess there are still grants to be given; conferences to go and have lobster at; fleecing still to be done.

    1. Not everyone knows.

      I mentioned the Climategate thing to some leftist friends and they’d never heard about it. (Nor did they want to; their response was “Yeah, what’s your source for that? Glenn Beck? HAHAHAHAHAHA”)

      1. The fact that they feel the need to dismiss it means they also know.

        At this point, all the chumps who bought in are going to do everything in their power to forget about it. But we know who the chumps are.

      2. Agreed. When I mentioned it to a “believer”, all he could do was scream about polar bears dying and shit.

        They stopped listening to the science when it was announced that it was supported by leftists, and never even bothered to begin questioning the scientists or their methods.

  16. You all need to read some of his other fiction.

    This shit reads better than any Harlequin romance ever could.

    1. “She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed? Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.

      “May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.

      “Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’.”

      More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: “Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before ? He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”

  17. It was a nice headline, but some idiot added “Chair” in the middle. Take that out and it drastically improves everything.

  18. Holy crap! Al Gore is in cahoots with the Klingons!

  19. It was a nice headline, but some idiot added “Chair” in the middle. Take that out and it drastically improves everything.

  20. I have this theory that after Al lost his bid for POTUS he hatched a long-shot but viable plan to build and be acclaimed leader of a super-governmental world organization that make him effective Emperor of the World. Or he just couldn’t bear people not kowtowing and catering to his whim. But the first one is a fun conspiracy to throw around.

  21. It was a nice headline, but some idiot added “Chair” in the middle. Take that out and it drastically improves everything.

  22. That’s weird. What’s “Chair” doing in the headline?

  23. Dear diary,

    Today I met the inventor of the Network Node. It was the best day ever. Tomorrow I’ll hand over chairmanship of my panel to Ms. Skye and start prepping for my upcoming spacetravel.

  24. The Chair MUST GO! And that Patchy dude probably needs to be fired, also.

  25. 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.blo…..at-no.html

  26. It was a nice headline, but some idiot added “Chair” in the middle. Take that out and it drastically improves everything.

  27. The IPCC should not give an inch to the deniers. Evolution did not win the debate over creationists by conceding that there are flaws in the science and appointing a neutral person to oversee it. They crushed them with the evidence they had on their side. Of course deniers are impervious to evidence, but that’s okay because you’ll just be relegated to the dustbin of history alongside the creationists, a sad joke.

    1. Yeah, actually the scientists conducting research into evolution did win the debate by conducting good science (i.e. producing transparent and reproducible work). How nice of you to admit that you’re the one who is actually anti-science.

    2. Re: Tony,

      The IPCC should not give an inch to the deniers.

      How dogmatic…

      Evolution did not win the debate over creationists by conceding that there are flaws in the science and appointing a neutral person to oversee it.

      No, it won because the Creationist side was forwarding question-begging arguments and appeals to ignorance.

      However, Natural Selection did not require The Shaggy One to write flawed and sloppy reports with cutouts from hiking mags and undergraduate term papers.

  28. [Evolution] crushed [creationism] with factual and correct evidence […]

    Which is an important correction when we’re talking about a supposedly authoritative report which had multiple no-one-did-any-fact-checking type errors in it.

    Getting every last thing in a big report like that right is hard. Really hard. Heck, it’s a tough job on a paper a tenth that long.

    But when you’ve touted it as being chocked full of only the very bestest-of-the-best, peer-reviewed science there is no excuse—none—for including speculative propaganda that has never been near a peer to review it. Which is what the Himalayan glaciers bit was.

    Oh, and a little advice on the side, Tony: using anthropomorphic language to describe either scientific doctrines or belief based isms doesn’t make you sound unbiased. Not even a little bit.

    1. Did I claimed to be unbiased? I’m biased in favor of science. I know what conclusions you’d draw if you were actually aware of the evidence on this issue, but you prefer crackpot conspiracy theories from right-wing websites.

      1. Tony- you expose your lack of awareness of this evidence every time you make your absurdly hyperbolic claims of DOOOOOM.

        You, and the other screeching winged monkeys of the “Defend AGW theory at all costs” crowd are such perfect dupes- so convinced of your superiority by people who feed you little tidbits of science to confirm your massively speculative worldview that humanity is evil and needs to be saved- not by technology, innovation or individual effort, but by sacrifice.

        Go find yourself a whip and self flagellate with the rest of the eco-penatentes.

        You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You do not know the science. You do not know what it means. You do not understand the economic projections that the science advises, and you don’t know what policy that should inform. You are clueless. You winged fucking monkey.

        1. You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You do not know the science. You do not know what it means.

          Exactly, and neither do you.

      2. I’m biased in favor of science.

        Oh good then you support taking out the Greenpeace leaflets and Sierra Club pamphlets from the IPCC reports.

  29. I’m a major cause of global warming. I’d shoot myself, but that would contribute even more Gaia-killing pollutants to the commons.

  30. the world was treated to the unedifying spectacle of the press uncovering ridiculous mistakes in the IPCC’s reports

    “Mistake” is a bizarre word to use for lies made in the service of propagandizing for state control of everything.

  31. My problem with the debate is that although the IPCC is giving us just what I expect out of a UN panel – dishonesty, politics, and corruption, but the fact that they’re corrupt doesn’t mean we don’t have a climate problem.

    Global warming is a credible risk, and just the kind that I’d like the gummint to look into. Even spend some money. I’d like some real science on it – with open data and code to all, until we can accurately monitor and predict what is going on.

    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Credible satellite observations show a warming trend. Spending tens of billions to get the science right is probably worth it, IMO. I don’t want to waste untold hundreds of billions on mitigation until we understand the problem and can make accurate predictions, but I’d like those accurate predictions sooner rather than later.

  32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chair Must Go

    Fixed.

    Of course this is basically true anyway as the IPCC is essentially working on auto-pilot and the world has rejected its findings and recommendations.

    1. I forgot to state my point.

      Why replace him?

      It would only reform the surface image of an inherently flawed UN agency. Might as well keep it obviously flawed.

      1. Crap. I started reading the comments and apparently everyone and their dog already made this point.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.