IPCC: Pachauri stays, credibility goes

Subtracts credibility

As Shub Niggurath puts it:

“Here is an organization that cannot tackle its own internal issues, but yet expects the whole world to take advice from it for solving a supposed global problem.”

But I for one am not complaining that Pachauri is staying on – as I have said before, every day he remains in charge subtracts credibility from the IPCC, and that can only be a good thing. The recent meeting in Busan has deferred a number of key issues for later discussion:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has adopted new guidelines on dealing with scientific uncertainties following criticism of its 2007 report.

But the panel’s meeting in South Korea closed with many other reforms proposed in a recent review being passed to committees for further consideration.

Chairman Rajendra Pachauri confirmed his intention to stay in post until the next assessment is published in 2014.

In its recent review of the IPCC, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) – an umbrella group for the world’s science academies – highlighted a case in the 2007 assessment where studies projecting rapidly declining crop yields in Africa were given more weight than they merited, in the absence of supporting evidence.

The revised guidance emphasises that in future, authors must assess both the quality of research available and uncertainties within that research.

It urges authors to be careful of “group-think”, but maintains that it “may be appropriate to describe findings for which the evidence and understanding are overwhelming as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers”.

Enhanced guidance on the use of “grey literature” – material not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals – has also been drawn up, and will be finalised by chairs of the IPCC’s working groups in the coming months

I can bet you that all the grey literature they use will plug the alarmist cause. There won’t be any that challenges the consensus, will there?

Read the rest here.

UPDATE: Must read – Donna Laframboise’s summary of the madness here.


  1. The Loaded Dog says:

    So Pachauri is staying..

    after all his incompetence.

    Hmmm, VERY interesting…

    I am thinking he is too dangerous for them to move from the top job. He knows too much and has something on them.

    Imagine the damage a fellow like him could do to the AGW cause if he was jilted.

  2. I reckon if the IPCC were to sack Pachauri he would make public all the corrupt goings on within the whole AGW camp, He has already proved how arrogant he is & this is probably what they are affraid of so will continue to tolerate his ineptitude, After all he would have made his money so no skin off his nose is it?.

  3. When the first calls for Pachy to resign went out earlier this year, I thought the most damage to the corrupt IPCC processes would be done if he were to stay as long as possible. I didn’t think he would last this long though.
    First the sceptics wanted him gone, now the alarmists want him gone. Yet he is determined to stay. His position at the trough must be incredibly rewarding, and the longer he stays, the longer he enables other snouts to remain there, and the more compromised AR5 is looking.

  4. The Loaded Dog says:

    @ froggy

    we’re onto them froggy…

%d bloggers like this: