Unter dem Titel "Pachauri soll den Hut nehmen" findet sich auf www.zeozwei.de ein Interview mit Klimaforschern mit dieser Einführung:
"Wo steht die Klimaforschung nach „Climategate“? Die drei führenden Klimawissenschaftler Stefan Rahmstorf, Guy Brasseur und Martin Claußen diskutieren die Folgen des Desasters von Kopenhagen. Das Ziel, die Erwärmung des Globus unter zwei Grad zu halten, wird mit dem drohenden Scheitern einer globalen Klimapolitik immer unwahrscheinlicher. Wegen der Managementfehler nach den Angriffen auf den Weltklimarat und die Klimawissenschaft fordert Claussen den Rücktritt des Vorsitzenden des Weltklimarates Rajendra Pachauri."
"Wo steht die Klimaforschung nach „Climategate“? Die drei führenden Klimawissenschaftler Stefan Rahmstorf, Guy Brasseur und Martin Claußen diskutieren die Folgen des Desasters von Kopenhagen. Das Ziel, die Erwärmung des Globus unter zwei Grad zu halten, wird mit dem drohenden Scheitern einer globalen Klimapolitik immer unwahrscheinlicher. Wegen der Managementfehler nach den Angriffen auf den Weltklimarat und die Klimawissenschaft fordert Claussen den Rücktritt des Vorsitzenden des Weltklimarates Rajendra Pachauri."
Posts
23 comments:
Der Artikel stammt wohl aus der ersten Jahreshälfte 2010, auch wenn im Kopf des verlinkten Interviews 11.4.2011 steht.
Nun hat sich der Staub etwas gelegt, die Gemüter etwas beruhigt, es wäre interessant zu erfahren, was die Beteiligten heute denken.
PS: Was wurde eigentlich aus der interessanten Idee, die Veröffentlichungen der Arbeitsgruppen zeitlich zu staffeln?
Andreas
Stimmt; laut Filenamen ist das Interview vom 24. Juni 2010 - wurde mir so von Martin Claußen bestätigt, der auch dazu sagte "Meine Aussagen sind noch aktuell."
Zu Pachauri:
Auch da hat sich der Staub ja etwas gelegt: Da gab es die vom Telegraph lancierten Korruptionsvorwürfe (Stichwort TERI), die nicht haltbar waren und vom Telegraph zurückgezogen worden sind (gab es da nicht eine gerichtliche Auseinandersetzung?).
Zu Fragen, ob Pachauri die Reformvorschläge des IAP beherzt genug umgesetzt hat, könnten Insider wie Prof. von Storch mehr berichten als ich. Mein laienhafter Eindruck ist eher nein.
Der mediale Umgang während des "Gletscherfehlers" war jedenfalls nicht gerade professionell ("voodoo-science").
Aber im Grunde zählt nur eines:
Wichtigstes Gut des IPCC ist eine Währung, die "Vertrauen" heißt.
Und die Frage, ob das IPCC mit einem neuen Mann dieses Kapital "Vertrauen" nicht mehren könnte, überlasse ich in bewährter Manier lieber den anderen Lesern ;-)
PS:
Wir können ja schon über mögliche Nachfolger diskutieren für die nach AR5-Zeit. Ich bin für Helmut Schmidt oder Barack Obama, ein renommierter Nobelpreisträger - gerne auch fachfremd - wäre aber auch nicht schlecht.
Andreas
Was hat der Herr Brasseur mit dieser Bemerkung gemeint: "Das ist eine politische Reaktion von Herrn von Storch, ich bin Wissenschaftler. Ich rede nicht wie er."?
Ich hatte bislang den Eindruck, dass für politische Statements eher die interviewten Personen, vor allem Rahmstorf, zuständig sind, dieser Vorwurf aus dieser Ecke also völlig daneben ist.
@ quentin quencher
Ja, man hört die Luft förmlich knistern, als der Name von Storch fiel. Genau das meinte ich auch, als ich mich fragte, wie es heute, also ein Jahr später aussieht.
Wer weiß, vielleicht war es in der aufgehitzten Stimmung von damals auch eine Retourkutsche für das hier
http://www.zeit.de/zeit-wissen/2010/03/Forscher-Klimaschutz?page=2
wovon sich der eine oder andere möglicherweise provoziert gefühlt haben könnte - damals halt.
Ich selbst war damals auch etwas irritiert. Heute verstehe ich den Standpunkt, frage mich aber immer noch, ob das damals der richtige Zeitpunkt war, ich wünschte mir klarere Aussagen zum Thema "climategate" und etwas mehr Solidarität.
Andreas
Dear Andreas,
My apologies for switching this thread to English here, but I need to correct a very, very common misconception:
The "voodoo-science" remark by Rajendra Pachauri was not related to the IPCC error. It referred to a report by one scientist, on behalf of an Indian Ministry, which made attribution claims without doing any attribution analysis. Add to that an almost complete and apparently willfull ignorance of a lot of published literature. In short, its own conclusion (no evidence that global warming affects Indian glaciers) was not supported by its own data, and ignored many "state-of-the-art" publications (despite the report claiming to be a "state-of-the-art" report). Verily "voodoo science".
It was a bit unfortunate for Pachauri that soon after the 2035 error came out, resulting in people conflating the two.
Bam
@ 6
Bam,
your account is not totally accurate. Glaciergate indeed became public after the voodoo-science comment by Pachauri in January 2010, but Pachauri had been previously informed by Kaser, already in November 2009, that the 2035 figure in the IPCC report was wrong. It took him 2 months time and Glaciergate to acknowledge this in public. So it seems that in January 2010 he chose to criticize the report commissioned by the Indian government, perhaps rightfully, but not to set the IPCC error straight.
Eine Unsitte dass die Webartikel oft nicht datiert sind.
Herr Rahmstorf ist, wie immer, ein guter Rhetoriker.
Etwas mehr Offenheit würde der Sache immer noch gut tun. Manches aus dem Lager der "Guten" ist schlicht überflüssig:
http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2011/04/ende-eines-klimaskeptikers.php
Zitat Georg Hoffmann :
"Skeptiker zu diesem und jenem werden leicht zu Verschwörungstheoretikern und die sind bekanntlich nur noch einen Spatenstich von der Psychopathologie entfernt. Das Klimaskeptiker-Sein ist zwar keine hinreichende Bedingung um auf diese schiefe Ebene zunehmender Verwirrung zu geraten, aber sagen wir mal so: Es hilft."
Yeph
Dear Eduardo,
Could you please provide evidence that Dr Kaser informed Pachauri? The only information I have is that he contacted "the IPCC" in 2006 (before the publication of AR4), which, as you probably know, is a rather vague description. There is an Indian reporter who claims he informed Pachauri at the Copenhagen Summit.
Not that it matters much. Whether Pachauri knew of the error or not, public dissemination of the 2035 error was not until after his comment about the Raina report. This causes people to conflate the two issues, which is what I claim and provide evidence for.
Dear Bam,
yes, you are right, thanks for the correction, I have indeed mixed up different things.
Andreas
Dear Bam,
the Indian journalist you are referring to is Pallava Bagla, a science journalist that writes for Science and had written about his discussions and emails to Pachauri before Copenhagen.
http://www.economist.com/node/15473066
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
Pachauri says he does not remember
Kaser himself says he had informed the Technical Support Unit of the IPCC. he indicated 3 errors to the TSU, two were acknowledged and reported further, the one about the Himalayan glaciers was not.
Pachauri says that ' he does not know nothing about glaciology', and yet was confident enough to qualify the Indian government report as voodoo science. I do not think that it would be a fair account to say that Pachauri was criticizing a bad report as voodoo science. Closer to truth seems to be that he had no clue about the topic, failed to inform himself with his own TSU, and thus criticized a report solely on political, not scientific, reasons
Dear Eduardo,
As I already suspected, Kaser did not inform Pachauri (contrary to your initial claim).
Regarding Pachauri dismissing the report solely for "political" reasons, I consider that a unsubstantiated claim. In particular because of this interview:
http://www.economist.com/node/15473066
This appears to be your source for the "knows nothing about glaciology", and yet it also contains an explanation, from Pachauri itself, why he dismissed the report.
He may argument it poorly, but it IS a scientific argument he uses.
Dear Bam,
my recollection about Kaser informing Pachauri is perhaps wrong - we will never know as Kaser apparently hasnt affirmed or denied this. But Pachauri was indeed informed in November by Science journalist Pallava Bagla. Pachauri , according to Bagla, answered him dismissing his claim.
Now, my interpretation about Pauchari's political motives is not based on the simple scientific argument he uses. It is based on the fact that he considers himself authoritative enough to dismiss the report of an Indian glaciologist, but when he is confronted with the IPCC error he evades with ' I know nothing about glaciology'. If he was arguing scientifically, not being a glaciologist, he would have consulted his Technical Support Unit and then they would have informed him that the Kaser had previously brought the error into IPCC's attention.
The only argument I have heard supporting Pachauri as head of the IPCC is that his resignation would give support to the skeptics - also a political argument. Watson, the previous IPCC chairman, at least knew what he was talking about. Fortunately, Pachauri has kept silent in the last months, but this is not a sustainable situation.
zeo2: Herr Brasseur, auch innerhalb der Forscherszene gibt es Spannungen; Ihr Hamburger Kollege Hans von Storch spricht von einem abgehobenen »IPCC-Adel«.
Brasseur: Das ist eine politische Reaktion von Herrn von Storch, ich bin Wissenschaftler. Ich rede nicht wie er.
Das ist schon eine lustige Verdrehung im Interview. Wo fiel denn der Begriff "IPCC-Adel"?
Ich hätte das nun so verstanden, dass dieser Adel eben über den Fehlern steht - und damit die Glaubwürdigkeit untergräbt. Insofern ist das doch kein politisches Statement, sondern eher berichtigte Sorge eines Wissenschaftlers?
Vielleicht hätte man statt Adel eher "spätrömische Dekadenz" sagen sollen? ;-)
Dear Eduardo,
The "I know nothing about glaciology" is related to Pachauri pointing out he never used the 2035 number, that he would consider using such a number out of character with the IPCC, combined with the Economist journalist asking him whether he ever discussed this with Hasnain and Pachauri noting he didn't (essentially because he knows nothing about glaciology).
This is a rather different picture than you try to paint; moreover, it still does not contradict in any way what I pointed out, which Andreas in a way also acknowledges: two issues were conflated due to the timeline of two events:
1. a really, really bad report came out.
And seriously, Eduardo, you would have considered the report bad, too, if you read it; you don't need any knowledge about glaciology to see the most important conclusion drawn is not supported by the data: there is something crucial missing)
2. The 2035 error was made public a week or so thereafter.
With your last remarks you are putting me in a position where I can draw no other conclusion than that your comment to me was borne out of a dislike of Pachauri. You are free to have this dislike, but I don't think my remark on the conflating issues was even remotely the right place to vent your frustration.
Bam
@Bam
Nobody on PLANET EARTH would expect Himalayan glaciers to melt before 2035. This is just ridiculous.
"Pachauri: To tell you the truth, I hardly interact with Professor Hasnain. He is out in the field most of the time. I know nothing about glaciology, and there are 900 people working in TERI and particularly with the time I’ve been devoting to the IPCC report, I’ve been delegating most of these things to people at the next level. So, I’ve never discussed this situation with him at all."
Some activists try to distort everything about these things. And you call us "deniers"!
Yeph
Yeph, your Pachauri quote - where is it from?
Hans
Only one part of the article for a start:
To the zeo2 article by Marcus Franken
The article states (my highlights):
"In dieser medialen Gefechtslage geht völlig unter, dass die Untersuchungen zum EMail- Einbruch an der Universität von East Anglia schon im April mit einem vollständigen Freispruch der belauschten Forscher beendet wurden: Die Vorwürfe der willkürlichen Auswahl von Daten und tendenziöser Interpretation seien nicht gerechtfertigt, schreibt der Vorsitzende des Untersuchungsausschusses, Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool, Geophysiker und Mitglied der Royal Society. Nur den Ton der elektronischen Konversation rügt er sehr britisch als »höchst informell«."
My translation and highlights:
"In this media-battle the fact get lost completely, that the investigations to the email break-in at the University of East Anglia were – with a full acquittal of the overheard researchers – finished already in April: The allegations of the arbitrary selection of data and of biased interpretation are not justified, writes Chairman of the Committee, Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool, a geophysicist and member of the Royal Society. Only the tone of the electronic conversation he animadverts very British as 'very informal'".
My comment:
For example the inverstigation of the police-office wasn't finished at that time and is still not finished yet.
Furthermore the police seems to be better trained in communicating probabilities than a lot of climate-scientists or journalists. They uses – in contrast to Franken's word "break-in" (Einbruch) – "much more cautious phrasing, leaving open the possibility that no crime has actually occurred [cf. f.ex.here]."
Those *journalistic* articles like that one in zeo2 and those "investigations" by universities and also some results of other panels have shown to me, that we, participants in the public sphere, still need more information and transparency in the case of "climate science" and that journalism is a vague term.
Do we, the public, cannot exspect from PIK's Stefan Rahmstorf that he criticizes (at least) this (sentence about) "investigations" or that he criticizes this journalist? Maybe we can't exspect from Rahmstorf or his colleagues appropiate reactions to (some of) his/their colleague/s, f.ex. with regard to PIK's John Schellnhuber's reiterated Himalayan "voodoo-science"-30-Year-(if I may say so) "Propaganda" (cf. for Himalaya also above and elsewhere on Klimazwiebel)? Is f.ex. PIK's Anders "Catastrophe" Levermann, lead author of the forthcoming IPCC assessment report for the chapter on global sea level, somewhere critisizing these kind of "investigations", such as Oxburgh's "investigation" (search besides this zeo2 article for instance for Oxburgh f. ex. also here or here)?
I am - although there are often good parts into it - disgusted with this kind of investigations and journalism. And most people (especially scientists and journalists) seem to "continue as before" ("continue as before": cf. for this phrase also publications of the United Nations).
namenlos
Hans (to your question in comment # 17) - although I'm not Yeph - (One tip: Let me google that for you!),
the quote you asked for is in an article of the apparently pro-"globocratic" newspaper The Economist; that article with an interview with Pachauri was mentioned above by eduardo. Also an unnamed user claimed afterwards in comment # 12 that that article contains "an explanation, from Pachauri itself [sic!], why he dismissed the report". There is another explanation from Pachauri himself, documented also on a YouTube channel of pallavabagla (the channel itself seems unfortunatly to be not available): "Himalayan Blunder on Glacier melting unravelled and Dr. Pachauri's `voodoo science' 9 Nov 2009" (Pachauri in an interview with the Indian TV-station NDTV):
[The famous "IPCC forecast" is read loudly and written clearly on the TV screen for every New Delhi TV news viewer in the intro of that interview, stating: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continous [cf. also comment # 18 above - namenlos], the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate".]
After that intro the TV anchorwoman asks: "Dr Pachauri, what is your first reaction to the environmental ministery's report?"
Pachauri: "Well. I would like to [Pachauri laughs] ask where is the basis for this report? I mean in a short period of time, largely with one scientist, whoever he may be and, you know, however distiguished he might be, the ministry comes to a conclusion of this kind, particularly when the sample is so small and you know there is reciding of the glaciers. [...]"
Anchorwoman: "[...] This is the government's own findings based on apparently a lot of research done with various institutes and it does have the goverment stamp on it. Are you questioning the credibility completly then of this report?"
Pachauri somewhat misleading: "[...] I am questioning these findings. They are totally wrong. This is one government. The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change uses thousands of scientists, it uses peer reviewed literature. I'd like to see how these findings are beeing arrived at on the basis of literarture that has been published in prestigious, credible journals. This is, if I may say so, voodoo-science. This is not science. [...]"
Anchorwoman: "But the environment minister Jairam Ramesh says that the IPCC is alarmist."
Pachauri: "Well, I mean he is entitled to his views. [...] So, you know, he is entitled to his views, but I don't think he has any business questioning a body that has established it's credentials over the last 21 years and whose reports are accepted by every goverment of the world, including the Indian goverment."
[...]
Pachauri: "So I question these findings completly. I mean they don't make sense at all."
(My comment (# 18) from today (4:34 PM) is still not displayed at Klimazwiebel. Please check the spam filter.)
namenlos
Again and again: Nuisance with SPAM filter
namenlos
Thanks Namenlos (19) for the link to the Indian TV interview. I wonder if Mr. Pachauri had a chance to speak about the issue prior to the interview with IPCC experts, say Prof. Kaser. I would consider it prudent practice, to refer back to people, who are cognizant about the issue (somebody here claimed that he would have no competence in this specific field), before making such broad statements.
Namelos,
I liberated your two comments from the spam pen yesterday evening
-> Hans Von Storch
I found the interview with Pachauri in one of the links provided by Eduardo in his post Nr 11.
Yeph
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)