Pachuari: Obama should unilaterally determine U.S. climate policy

Pachuari also whined that “nobody over here [at COP 17] is paying any attention to science.”

From Democracy Now:

One of the world’s most prominent experts on climate science, Rajendra Pachauri, is criticizing negotiators at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban for not paying enough attention to science. Pachauri is chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. “What we have done is we have increased the concentration of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere far beyond what has taken place over the last 650,000 years,” Pachauri says. “As a result, during the 20th century, we had average warming of about 0.74 degrees Celsius, sea-level rise of about 17 centimeters, and a whole range of impacts, as I mentioned, on human health, on agriculture, on ecosystems… The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report had clearly brought out that if we want to limit temperature increase to two degrees or thereabouts, two to 2.4 degrees Celsius, and if we want to do it at least cost, then emissions will have to peak no later than 2015. And we are now talking about 2020. That means the world will incur a much larger expense in reducing emissions. And in the meantime, we’ll also suffer far more serious impacts of climate change.” When asked about the position of the United States in the negotiation, Pachauri says, “I would also ask President Obama to listen to the voice of science. And he has an absolutely outstanding science adviser in John Holdren. Maybe he should get John to organize a meeting of the scientists soon after he’s re-elected — if he’s re-elected — and then determine U.S. policy, as should be the case with every country in the world, based on the scientific evidence that’s available.” Pachauri continued, “Actually, to be honest, nobody over here [at COP 17] is paying any attention to science.” [includes rush transcript]

6 thoughts on “Pachuari: Obama should unilaterally determine U.S. climate policy”

  1. what would a railway engineer know about climate? The truth is the Pachauri is not a climate scientist. As a railway engineer he has very limited abilities in the field of science. However, he is a good liar.

  2. Asking John Holdren to advise on science is like putting Jim Jones in charge of the refreshments. Doesn’t end well.

    This has NEVER BEEN ABOUT SCIENCE, folks. Science has always been nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual cover for the advancement of an anti-capitalist, anti-industrialization, global government agenda, nothing more, nothing less. That it is exposed as such now is fitting, and was always the ultimate outcome.

    Don’t believe me? Same thing happened with Copernicus, Galileo, and the Catholic Church (with no offense meant to Catholics). The present AGW “consensus” is the modern equivalent of the Catholic “consensus” that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and all the planets revolved around it. Only the “consensus” wasn’t fact, it was FAITH (faith at the end of a bayonette with punishment for blasphemy, no less). Turned out the minority scientific opinion turned out to be the fact, and the faith was WRONG.

    The same thing is now playing out 400 years later. Those shouting “scientific consensus” the loudest are a) the least scientifically literate (e.g. media, polticians, etc.) on the subject, or b) scientifically literate but the least interested in actual science.

    This is faith and politics, not science. You want science? See Christy, Spencer, Svensmark, Shaviv, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and about a thousand others.

  3. Rajendra Pachauri a world expert in climate science? NO HE IS NOT! He is a railway engineer with a PhD in Economics, probably because he was a bad railway engineer, and neither of these qualifications give anyone the right to pontificate on climate science. He is after lining his pockets with our money.

  4. Pachauri is as qualified as any climate scientist. He deals in fiction, makes money out of it, he can’t understand the scientific method and he believes that any weather event is evidence of global warming climate change climate disruption. I think it is unfair to be elitist…

Comments are closed.