Chairman of the United Nations’ IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri a scientist from India, is being pressured to resign his position because he is accused of putting advocacy in front of the scientific method. His lack of scientific protocol has led to a loss of face for the global warming moonbat committee.  The UN’s latest report on climate change was mistaken when it said the Himalayan glaciers were melting, it was wrong when it said other mountain ranges were losing their snow tops, and it was wrong when it claimed that global warming was damaging the rain forests. They didn’t even get their data from scientific studies, but used anecdotal information from advocacy groups such as the WWF and from mountain climbing magazines.

Financial Times published an interview with Pachauri today, and judging by his responses the guy is buckling under the strain, he blames some unnamed conspiracy perpetuated by people who still think that smoking isn’t harmful, instead of “owning up” to his mistakes.

FT: In recent weeks, many articles in the British media have questioned aspects of the IPCC reports and criticised your conduct personally as the chairman. Do you think there is an organised effort to demolish your reputation and the reputation of the IPCC?

RP: It doesn’t take a genius to arrive at the conclusion that apparently this is carefully orchestrated. These things are certainly not happening at random. The one unfortunate thing that has happened is the mistake that the IPCC made on the glaciers. We have acknowledged that; we have put that on our web site.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But there is absolutely nothing [else] but I would say [there are] nefarious designs behind people trying to attack me with lies, falsehoods [alleging] that I have business interests. I have clarified that in very precise terms. Once I did that, they shifted their focus on my institute, which, may I say – with all humility but some degree of pride – is an institution that the world now looks up to and admires. We function under the laws of this country. We are looked up to by everybody in every section of society, including the highest levels of government not only over here, but in other parts of the world.

What they are indulging in is skulduggery of the worst kind. I’m reasonably sure that very soon people will realise the truth and they would also question the credentials of some of the people who are behind them.

I don’t want to get down to a personal level, but all you need to do is look at their backgrounds. They are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – I hope that they apply it to their faces every day – and people who say that the only way to deal with HIV/Aids is to screen the population on a regular basis and isolate those who are infected.

Holy Cow, I believe that?

There is clearly a very obvious intent behind this whole thing. I’m certainly not going to be affected by it. I’m totally in the clear. I have absolutely nothing but indifference to what these people are doing.

FT: Who exactly is the “they” that you are pointing to, and what do you think is the purpose of this campaign?

RP: They are people who deny the existence of the human influence on the earth’s climate. You can look at the names of the authors of these articles that have appeared in the Sunday Telegraph. These are the persons I’m referring to.

OK so everyone who doesn’t believe the global warming myth believes that you can substitute asbestos for talcum powder (while smoking a pack of Marlboro).

FT: Do you think they have other backing? In the past, you have talked about big business interests that you believe are trying to create confusion over the issue of climate change.

RP: It’s only a surmise. I have no evidence. But there is enough documentary evidence to show that, for instance, in Washington DC, the number of lobbyists (trying to influence US climate change policy) has increased many fold and from what I read from the Centre for Public Integrity, 770 companies are supporting some of these lobbyists. And certainly some of them are active on the other side of the Atlantic as well.

The presumption is since these people are spending so much time trying to write all kinds of malicious articles and indulge in invective, there would probably be some resources that are flowing to them. It’s all part of a pattern. But let me clarify. I have no proof. I can only presume something like this is at work.

The new definition of maliciousness, pointing out mistakes in data and proceedure.

FT: So you suggest that some of this criticism may be orchestrated by those working on behalf of business interests that don’t want to see global action on climate change?

RP: Undoubtedly. And let’s face it, these forces have been very effective so far in blocking any action on climate change. You go back to 1992 when the UN Framework on Climate change came into existence. We are now almost 20 years after that landmark agreement, what has the world really achieved in that regard? …

FT: Why would such a campaign come now after the disarray of the Copenhagen Climate summit?

RP: They regard this as their moment of triumph and their moment of opportunity. They feel as if they can strike a body blow to whatever happened in Copenhagen, they can be sure that for several more years they can bask in the benefit of the profits they have been making for all these years, and they don’t have to worry about any change from business as usual.

FT: You have acknowledged that the IPCC report’s prediction of glacier melt by 2035 was a mistake. Are there other mistakes, or other inaccuracies, that you now acknowledge may have crept into the report?

RP: No. Let me say that prediction about the glaciers vanishing by 2035 is itself an aberration. We never make predictions like that in the IPCC report. We only give ranges, we only give probabilities and we give scenarios of what may happen, what is likely to happen. This in itself was an aberration. It’s unfortunate that it went all the way through.

I really don’t think our procedures – being as strong as they are – would have permitted any other such error to go through. Wherever we do make projections of the future, we provide a range, and that range is something that is totally defensible. This, to my mind, is the only place where we have made the mistake of making a very specific prediction. It’s totally out of kilter as far as the IPCC style is concerned.

Well not quite, there are other instances (mentioned above) where the IPCC used the magazine of the advocacy group the WWF as the source for reports, for example the report claiming that global warming is causing the rainforests to disappear.

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

Just like the glacier report the IPCC is relying on unsubstantiated data,that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. In this case it is even worse, they took data meant for a different purpose and applied it to climate change.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at Leeds University who specialises in tropical forest ecology, described the section of Rowell and Moore’s report predicting the potential destruction of large swathes of rainforest as “a mess”.

“The Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall,” he said.

“In my opinion the Rowell and Moore report should not have been cited; it contains no primary research data.”

One definition of Insanity is when you can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction, UN climate guru Rajendra K. Pachauri is fast approaching that point.