Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored - Michael Duffy
Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]".
Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.
So it's disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri's presentation was so erroneous, and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university.
Later that night, on ABC TV's Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those who disagree with his own views on global warming are "flat-earthers" who deny "the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence". But what evidence could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself had fudged only a few hours earlier?
In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is shrinking, a curious claim he was unable to substantiate when questioned about it on Lateline. Still, there's no doubt a majority of climate scientists agree with the view of the IPCC.
Posts
3 comments:
Hopefully Rajendra Pachauri has done science a service. His blatant lies will allow people to more clearly see the IPCC as the political scam that it is.
How do we reconcile the different views on the science? How does such a reconcilition gain public visibility?
This is at the heart of the issues between those who say mankind's GHG emissions are excessively warming the global atmosphere, and those who say the opposite.
Because Pachauri has some measure of credibility, it will require someone (better yet, a group) having at least as much credibility to garner media attention for publicizing these factual differences.
Perhaps this would begin the long overdue debate on all AGW "facts". Allowing Pachauri to present the erroneous information without challenge by responsible members of the scientific community amounts to capitulation to the IPCC, environmentalists, and government cohorts.
Jeff
Al Gore meets Klingon ambassador
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/12/al-gore-meets-klingon-ambassador.html (great pic @ link)
Well it was a momentous occasion as Al was lauded by the United Federation of Planets for his work to save planet Earth. He's shown here with the Klingon ambassador, Lord Koloth. (The V-shaped green emblem is the mark of his rank.) They're both holding menus from the dinner. Later Al was beamed aboard the Klingon mothership for a tour. He says it was absolutely fantastic, and he swears there were no rectal probes. "Well," I said, "none that you remember. They give you drugs that erase your memory. ... They gave him some big award for tech innnovation, and took him up to the mothership. Honestly, I can't believe you fell for it. It's like the oldest alien trick there is."
Post a Comment