Pachauri: hopes sceptics "apply asbestos to their faces"

Nothing like a bit of asbestos for the complexion

To all those commentators calling for Pachauri’s resignation from the IPCC: please stop. The longer this loony remains in charge, the more damage will be done, and the less chance of it ever recovering. From a recent Financial Times interview:

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.

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 [to] 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.

And are you all sitting down for the best bit?

I don’t want to get down to a personal level [but I will anyway – Ed], 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.

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 [Ha, ha, my aching sides – Ed]. I have absolutely nothing but indifference to what these people are doing.

Excellent work, mate. All I can say is “Keep it up”.

Read it here (subscription may be required) (h/t Tom Nelson)

Comments

  1. Rick Bradford says:

    Interesting to see Pachauri drifting from psychological defence Stage 1 (Total Denial) to Stage 2 (Paranoid Anger). How long will it be before he reaches Stage 3 (Negotiation, trying to hang on to something of his structure)?

  2. to find the truth,look under stones,thats where the snakes live.
    follow the links.
    http://euro-med.dk/?p=11956

  3. Charles Higley says:

    It is not a carefully orchestrated (conspiracy) process. People are simply waking up and realizing that they trusted the IPCC and should not have. They now want to see how far the lies and misdirection go.

    As the planet is cooling, it is impossible for the observations from the real world to show warming. Simply impossible. Thus, the IPCC reports must be riddled with falsehoods and misrepresentations that they hoped would never be examined too closely.

    So what if is it is a conspiracy? Is it any worse than Pachauri and IPCC’s conspiracy to dupe the world? Nope! We want the truth – he does not. Seeking truth trumps a fraud.

  4. Pachauri and Jones are being set up as scapegoats by Monbiot and the true believers of the orthodoxy. They believe that if they can only eject the “tainted ones”, that the underlying movement will still be sound.

    But it’s too late for that. If you take away all the tainted papers by Jones, Briffa, and Mann, then take away all the papers based upon those tainted papers, there is nothing left for the orthodoxy to support.

    Science will get a black eye from this debacle, but the green movement will receive a deep and hemorrhaging wound.

  5. Yes. And I am wondering about what our public broadcaster is going to receive from all this fiasco for their gutter journalism. For the life of me, I fail to see any justification for maintaining public funding to such a morally and professionally bankrupt warmist propaganda outfit.

  6. Rick Bradford says:

    “Pachauri and Jones are being set up as scapegoats by Monbiot and the true believers of the orthodoxy. They believe that if they can only eject the “tainted ones”, that the underlying movement will still be sound”

    That’s the Stage 3 I was talking about; negotiate by throwing a couple of bodies to the wolves while trying to hang on to the “science is settled” dogma.

  7. I agree with the first paragraph, quit trying to get rid of these people, keep them in the limelight where they are visible. This guy does more damage to the global warming hoax than almost anyone else can. Let him keep talking, let him keep doing what he is doing. He is a monkey sideshow, let him keep going…

  8. John Smith says:

    I’m with Al Fin…. what is going to happen to that creep Monbiot???? Why should that foul excuse for a man, an anti human Marxist who turned on his [snip] mates as soon as it got tough, get away with his [snip].

  9. Even with his arrogance Mr. Pachauri should know :
    The essential difference between those who support the idea that CO2 must strongly influence the greenhouse effect, and those who doubt the size of its effect, is the following. The first group is of the opinion that the climate system is very sensitive to changes in the composition of the atmosphere. The alternative view is that our water planet has developed regulatory mechanisms, which keep the surface temperature within certain limits. In other words, the climate system is rather robust and cannot easily be pushed out of balance.

    Doubts about the (AGW) paradigm arose because there is as yet little evidence from observations in situ which sustain the frame work that has been built up from model studies. This alone should be sufficient reason for the scientific world to consider alternative paradigms, e.g. the one described above as the weather water thermostat which, incidentally, originates from long standing views in classical climatology and meteorology.

Trackbacks

  1. […] warming. IPCC goofs AGAIN, Nothing to do with CO2, Cap & trade – all pain, no gain, Pathetic Pachauri, Constitutional […]

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: