Pachauri Interview

You can read it but you won’t believe it. Sounds like the reporter and Pachauri are in total denial. It also smacks of nepotism. Think not? Here’s the first question.

You have emerged unscathed out of the accusations about your role as chairman of the IPCC…

OK, we’ll ignore the 2035 glacier melt, the politicizing, the scare-tactics, the use of non-peer-reviewed information, the use of magazine articles (where the 2035 melt idea came from), not to mention the fact you knew about it before COP15. Nothing going on here….please ignore all of this. He’s “unscathed.”

Here’s another doozy.

Anything in the UN probe report you completely or partly disagree with?

They have talked about quantifying uncertainties. To some extent, we are doing that, though not perfectly. But the issue is that in some cases, you really don’t have a quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms. And there, let’s not take away the importance of expert judgment. And that is something the report has missed or at least not pointed out.

OK, so shoot me and call me stupid if you like, but if you don’t have a “quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms” should it even be in the report to begin with? Does “expert judgement” belong in science? Science is now a guessing game? Is this how a magazine article was used to promote the thought that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. What ever happened to using real data and arriving at real conclusions? Must be too old school these days.

You can read the whole interview (what there is, which isn’t much) at the source below. The denial seems to be one good reason the IAC is suggesting that the IPCC put a new sheriff in charge.  Frankly, I don’t think the man gets it.

Source: The Times of India

Advertisements

Comments Off on Pachauri Interview

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IAC, IPCC, Science

Comments are closed.