IPCC Teams Up with WorldWatch to Attack Obama
January 19th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The “policy neutral” IPCC is once again making a mockery of its role of an arbiter of scientific information, in favor of all out political advocacy. EurActiv reports the details:
If the world is to tackle the climate threat, the US President-elect must beef up his country’s emissions targets, the head of the leading intergovernmental organisation of climate scientists said last week (15 January).
“President-elect Obama’s goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 falls short of the response needed by world leaders to meet the challenge of reducing emissions to levels that will actually spare us the worst effects of climate change,” said Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), at a Worldwatch Institute event.
In a new study on the state of the world in 2009, the institute argues that global CO2 emissions must be reduced to negative figures by 2050 to avoid a looming climate catastrophe.
It calls on the US, a major polluter, to assume leadership by passing national climate legislation and engaging with the international community to achieve a new agreement on halting emissions at next December’s talks in Copenhagen.
“The world is desperately looking for US leadership to slow emissions and create a green economy,” said Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute. “With the Copenhagen climate conference rapidly approaching, this will be a crucial early test for President Obama.”
Pachauri warned that there may not be an “adequate global response” unless the US steps up to the plate. “He ran for the presidency of the United States, so he assumed the responsibility,” the Nobel Prize recipient commented as to the weight of Obama’s task.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:55 am
LOL. I hope IPCC and the environmental-wackos keep pushing and repeating their ridiculous “death of the planet” nonsense. Maybe it will finally make Obama and some other leftists suspicious (deep-down they have to be, anyway). These “saviors of the planet” dont’ seem to notice (or more importantly, don’t seem to care) about humanity and the current devastating economic crisis. They just want to kick the wounded humans, as usual! All based on the completely undemonstrated presumption that it will do some good for the Planet (just like all the unrealized scares of the past). The only positive thing I can say about the current economic crisis is that many more eyes will be watching Obama and these IPCC-type socialistic charlatans. Even Joe six-pack, perhaps.
It’s my guess that Obama and his socialistic friends don’t DARE do much about the impending end of the Earth, caused by CO2, at least until the economy improves. If they were people of true grit and principle, then maybe they would try, but alas, they are clearly just politicians trying to get re-elected.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Pachauri talks an awful lot of rubbish, so I wish he’d shut up along with ‘4 years to save the world’ Hansen. The fact is that CO2 can’t be legislated away and ultimately the public won’t accept social engineering, restrictive laws, or high taxes in the dubious name of climate control. Technology is the answer to a question we didn’t really need to ask just yet.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:39 am
If he’s not making a specific policy suggestion, but merely sais that the problem needs to be addressed more vigorously, than what’s the big deal?
If a medical scientist finds that there is a serious side effect to a certain medicine or treatment, isn’t it his or her responsibility to communicate to society that its use should be diminished/abolished? Sure, at that point he or she is taking the role of moral individual rather than archetypical ‘objective’ scientist, but perhaps that’s all for the better.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:50 am
bverheggen-
By taking issue with Obama’s targets Pachauri is making a very specific policy suggestion, about the form of policy and its goal.
Your analogy to a medical scientist is a very good one, but medical experts play very different roles in different contexts. If the IPCC wants to be an advocacy group, then it should not advertise itself as “policy neutral”.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:28 am
Roger,
In the quote above I read Pachauri making suggestions on the goal, which I think is perfectly fine; he didn’t make specific policy suggestions about the form of policy (as in, ‘you should install this many windturbines in PA’).
Bart