In the UK, The Guardian – not unlike the CBC – is not exactly known for being fair and balanced when the subject happens to be “climate change”. Monday was no exception (notwithstanding the exceptionally cold – and contra IPCC generated predictions – weather that the U.K. seems to be experiencing).
IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri predicts lobbying will intensify to impede progress to agreement on binding treaty in Mexico City
Climate change scepticism is likely to surge in 2010 and could exacerbate “hardship” for the planet’s poorest people, one of the world’s leading authorities on climate change has told the Guardian.
Writing on environmentguardian.co.uk today, Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also dismisses suggestions that he is personally profiting from policies to tackle global warming.
Pachauri predicted this year would see further scepticism. “Powerful vested interests are perhaps likely to get overactive in the coming months, and would perhaps do everything in their power to impede progress towards a binding agreement that is hoped for by the end of 2010 in Mexico City,” he said. “Those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible.”
After a weak deal in Copenhagen, Pachauri warned that allowing scepticism to delay international action on global warming would endanger the lives of the world’s poorest people. “In the end, knowledge and science will undoubtedly triumph, but delay in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases would only lead to worse impacts of climate change and growing hardship for the most vulnerable regions in the world, which are also unfortunately some of the poorest communities on Earth.”
On the stolen emails, Pachauri said the contents did not impact on climate science, adding that “the allegations made on the basis of the stolen emails have proved incorrect.” [emphases added -hro]
Consdering that the “investigations” into the emails have not even been completed yet, I suppose we are supposed to take his word for this, simply because he said so! However, since providing “evidence” in support of such pronouncements has rarely been the forte of experts in IPCC circles, this is not particularly surprising.
But that aside, one Pachauri-related question occurs to me, from my reading of the emails: 1019513684.txt is dated Apr 22, 2002, i.e. just after Pachauri had been elected as Chair of the IPCC, Subject: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote.
Not sure what “SSI” stands for, but there seemed to be some concern that at EXXON’s urging [to the Bush administration] the former Chair, Robert Watson, an “atmospheric chemist” was to be replaced by Pachauri, an “engineer and economist” . From the “Executive Summary” of this alert (asking people to monitor and send letters to the editor of their local newspapers, if they saw the announcement):
This development threatens to undermine the scientific credibility and integrity of the IPCC and may weaken the job this extraordinary body has done to bring the world’s attention to one of the most pressing environmental problems. [emphasis added -hro]
I’m also not sure why SSI (whoever they might be) should have had any concern. EXXON obviously had no objections to the vote result! I wonder if Pachauri could shed some light on this. It would be really interesting to know how he succeeded in allaying these apparently lurking fears for the future of this “extraordinary body”. But I digress …
Oh, my … as if the failed Copenhagen Carbonfest wasn’t bad enough, there’s another one planned for Mexico City! If Pachauri (aka the Dismisser-in-Chief) is so concerned about the “poorest communities on earth” you’d think it would occur to him to cancel the CarbonFest II – and redirect the funds saved to those communities!
Looks as though Pachauri didn’t bother to heed the warning offered by Joseph Alcamo, at Bali in October – before those dastardly “skeptics” got their hands on the Climategate emails – that he should “expect a sharper questioning of the science behind climate policy.” Then again, perhaps he missed that session because he was too busy looking after his … uh … other interests.
The Guardian article further notes that :
Pachauri, a vegetarian, has previously described western lifestyles as unsustainable and advocated a diet including one meat-free day a week. He singled out lobbyists in the US for attempting to delay America’s climate legislation, which is crucial for a global deal but is currently stalled in the Senate. […]
[followed shortly thereafter by:]
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said Pachauri was right on the level of sceptical activity. “We are already witnessing extraordinary efforts by powerful lobbies, in the US and Australia in particular, which are opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. […][emphasis added -hro]
Methinks Pachauri doth protest too much. But, perhaps for reasons known only to himself, he does seem to be trying to conjure up a scapegoat. In doing so, he and his personal PR team appear to have taken some pages directly from the playbook of the Israel-bashing crowd: evil skeptics – and their supporters – in his eyes are obviously to be disdained, and any success they might have achieved can only be attributed to “powerful lobbies”.
In any event, I’m fairly certain that Pachauri is probably none too thrilled with the The Hindu – and particularly the Russians, these days, either! And, I’m inclined to think that even if the SSI concerns about Pachauri’s election as Chair did not materialize, they’ve probably got a very good reason now to issue another alert to the effect that the actions of Pachauri (and his cadre of fellow Climategate “experts”) threaten “to undermine the scientific credibility and integrity of the IPCC”.