Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Mr. Pachauri Is Not Pleased.

In an interview with Science published January 29, Rajendra Pachauri speaking from New Dehli made a few subtle points

Q: A statement from TERI lists the number of companies you are associated with, the money which has flowed back to you and the organization: {euro}100,000 from Deutsche Bank, $80,000 from Toyota, and so forth. You don't think this is conflict of interest?

R.K.P.: Where is the conflict of interest? I am a paid employee of my institute, not of the IPCC. I don't see why I shouldn't advise anybody anywhere in the world ... as long as I am not making money out of it. [The money] is going to my institute.

Q: Some people disagree; they believe that you have to be cleaner than Caesar's wife.

R.K.P.: Yeah, but Caesar was also murdered by Brutus, wasn't he? Caesar was murdered by a group of people for their own interest,all right? So I cannot possibly be held accountable for all the lies that the media are writing about in a certain section of the U.K. press. I mean, if they are going to influence public opinion, I can assure you it is not going to last forever. I am absolutely convinced the truth will prevail in the end.

Q: You put up a brave face, but some in the scientific community feel let down. They say that you are carrying too much baggage, that it's time for you to move on.

R.K.P.: I certainly have no intention to quit. I will continue as the chairman of the IPCC till I have completed the fifth assessment report.

Q: Are you becoming a thorn in the side of vested interests—a thorn they wish to eliminate?

R.K.P.: No question about that. But I have no intentions of backing off. I am not going to tailor the truth to suit the vested interests of those who would like to continue with business as usual.
and he had a few comments on glaciers
Q: The big issue dogging IPCC this winter is the inclusion of a prediction in the fourth assessment that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. IPCC has offered regret—but not an apology.

R.K.P.: We have made a mistake and we have admitted that. Our job is essentially to bring the science into our assessments from the best sources that exist. Look at the extent of the glaciology work that has been done in this country. It is pathetic. I mean, that is really where we need to come up with an apology.

Q: In a 20 January statement, IPCC still says that India's glaciers are melting away. Isn't that a tall claim?

R.K.P.: Our glaciers are under the same influences, the same temperature changes as other glaciers in the world. So you know we cannot possibly assume if all the other glaciers are melting, that for some reason we are insulated from those influences. The lay public ... can see with their eyes what is happening to our glaciers.
Eli does not recall having seen this much commented on elsewhere? Has he become dyslexic?



Michael Tobis said...

Whether Mr Pachauri is the best possible leader for IPCC is no longer the question at hand.

The question at hand is whether the purveyors of paranoia will succeed in ruining the career of a decent and competent person on the basis of a typographical error. Allowing this to take place is enormously destabilizing on a scale even bigger than IPCC.

I cannot imagine what Murdoch is trying to achieve, frankly. Perhaps he just thinks his publications thrive best amid an environment of paranoid lunacy. At some point, though, this needs to stop.

Pachauri must stay on as long as he is capable or until AR5. Anything less will be a disaster whose impacts reach far beyond IPCC.

guthrie said...

Of course Indian glaciers are still melting. At the panel discussion I attended a couple of weeks ago at the Royal Institute, one elderly Indian gentleman was quite firm in stating that the glaciers had lost around a third of their mass and this was continuing.

Anonymous said...

If you cannot attack the message attack the man. It is so much more comforting to believe the lie, easier than facing reality.

They (Faux news and co)would have you believe that every climate scientist has a vested interest in keeping the lie alive. They would have you believe that Prof Rabett is only in it for the grant money.

They would have you ignore that there are many interesting questions that remain beyond climate change. They would have you ignore that that climate change is multi discipinary and that atmospheric studies are just a part of those fields.

They would have you ignore that Proff Rabett would make much more outside the academic halls. Academia is seriously underpaid. Somehow the next generation of scientists are supposed to teach themselves.

The world owes you a debt of gratitude for speaking out. Little Mouse thanks you.

EliRabett said...

It ain't just Fox, and it ain't just Chris Monckton, there are some well know academic hyenas playing Cassius here.

Anonymous said...

I like little mouse. I also like what little mouse says. Little Mouse is IMHO smart and has great insight.


PS: DeepClimate and Deltoid are hammering away at the rogue press, which seems to be pretty much all media outlets nowadays.

Anonymous said...

Hi Eli,

"there are some well know academic hyenas playing Cassius here."

Could you elaborate please?

Anonymous said...

Andy Revkin confuses me, now he posts this:


What Dr. Weart describes what seems to be a very likely outcome of what has and will happen on this file. Andy, though is silent on whether or not he agrees, but chooses to cite Hulme who makes some uber vague philosophical statement.

Kevin Meaney said...

Watson who had been head the IPCC during the Clinton administration was intensely disliked by Exxon. They lobbied the Bush administration to have him removed and replaced with someone who would be seen to be less authoritative. Pachauri was his replacement. Interesting the Pachauri is now being slammed for the very qualities that made him more attractive to Bush and Exxon than Watson.

See the fax from Exxon to John Howard. http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf

John Mashey said...

Kevin: yes
And who might the author Randy Randol be?
Why we've seen him before: he was one of the team from GCSCT 1998 project, which also said:

"Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal."

One can conjecture:
Ebell=>McKitrick, plus McIntyre=>Wegman Report (2001-2005)

and possibly GMI(Sproull) => Knox (1999), plus Douglass later, all at University of Rochester the latter two suddenly switching domains into climate.

David B. Benson said...

"And Brutus is an honorable man."

Anonymous said...

"IPCC still says that India's glaciers are melting away. Isn't that a tall claim?"

About as tall as the claim that the atmospheric CO2 level is rinsing at an accelerating pace...

or the claim that methane levels are again rising...

or the claim that the arctic sea ice is disappearing...

Or the claim that the oceans are becoming more acidic...

Or the claim that Greenland is melting...

or the claim that sea level is rising ...

or the claim that the permafrost is melting...

David B. Benson said...

Off topic, but yesterday shortly before sunset there appeared a double rainbow. What was unusual was two-fold.

First, the red band was wide and brownish, then narrowly red just before the narrow orange and yellow.

Second, the green band was very wide and there was no blue-indigo-violet to be seen. A younger viewer (with better eyesight) confirmed that.

These effects were visible in both the primary and secondary bows.

The first effect I suppose is due to the long optical path at near sunset which often gives reddish effects. Indeed, I checked that right after sunset clouds generally to the west and far away had pinkish undersides. But the second effect? If just blue through violet were missing I suppose I could reason that out. But the wide green?

Informed opinions are sought, please.

Hank Roberts said...

David, you might find it described, or ask, here. Best place on the net for atmospheric optics:

Anonymous said...

You guys are truly fucking an amazing bunch.

This guy is as radioactive as anything you'd find in the Yucca Mountains any you’re still whining about the "deniers".

No kidding, but are you all this fucking crazy?

And to top it off Eli offers no opinion other than acting like the some honest broker.

Dr. Pachy has singlehandedly screwed up climate science and some of you act as though nothing has happened.

Eli, even though you're from Crooklyn my respect has dropped approximately 3 inches. If you came from the other side you would have been at the bottom of East River by now. If it was New Jersey I wouldn’t haul you up.

As for Mashey
Mashey, you're from California, the most (financially) degenerate state in the union. You have no business offering any opinion on these matters.

Anonymous said...

Shorter Kevin Mean:

It's all Exxon's fault.

guthrie said...

Anonymous 5:10 - what, you mean PAchauri was working for Exxon etc all along? He single handedly screwed up climatology by secretly inserting an error into a report on glacier melting? Or maybe he sabotaged the US temperature record by making sure that it was set up wrongly?

As for CA, the reson its in a mess is broadly similar to the problem with communicating climatology - people voted for tax cuts, voted for legislation to make getting new taxes harder, then complain when the state runs out of money...

EliRabett said...

Obviously from one of the beggar states. NY and CA pretty much support our friends in the brain drain that starts somewhat south of Washington, and goes west.

Frankly it gets real old listening to them when they are sucking our money out of the Federal Budget without contributing their share.

Anonymous said...

The GOP candidate could win 12 by making it policy to throw California out of the union. In fact it could a reverse civil next time. Who gets thrown out.

Yeas Guthrie:
California is a very low tax state, which is why it's in such rotten shape.

Hi Eli.

Are you going one better than Doc. Pach's soft porn and write us a hard porn novel with Jemma Jamison in the lead? Go on.

guthrie said...

There is a difference between the federal taxes a state pays, the state taxes which people in that state pay which pay for schools, roads or whatever else they do over there. (I assume also law and order and executing people)
And there is a further difference between the taxes people pay for local government and the actual GDP of the state. Someone with actual knowledge of the US money system feel free to correct me.

Also Jenna Jamieson is years past it on the porn scene. Try finding someone newer.

EliRabett said...

So is Eli

David B. Benson said...

Hank Roberts --- Thanks for th link!

Anonymous said...


Thanks for reminding me of all the taxes people are forced to pay.

Two things to add to your little summary of the US tax system.

A person with normal IQ would see I was talking about state taxes which means all the taxes collected within the state. California's are about the highest in the country and those deadbeats are still broke.

Jenna will always be young, as far as Eli and I are concerned. Eli is writing a hard porn novel, so he'll be able to create a younger version of her character. Wake up. It's a novel, Guthrie. We're not filming it yet.

Anonymous said...


I get the impression that you don't really know or care much about the science, but care deeply about interpreting human emotions. Your prose is reminiscent of trashy novels. A successful trashy novelist makes a wonderful living. I've seen too many friends end up as accountants or angry blog commenters that have no intention of serving the common good. I say, Go for it. Don't let anyone hold you back. No regrets, man.

Ardipithecus ramidus

guthrie said...

Successful trashy novelists also spend a great deal of time actually writing, rather than annoying people by posting fact free rants.

Anonymous said...


I care deeply about science which is why I want to see the soft porn novelist out of there before he ruins the entire gig.

I don't know what else to say to the rest of your rant as it seems as incoherent as Guthrie's very last comment.

Are you two referring to Doc. Pach with the trashy novel shtick? Surely you are.