How do you deal with ignominious defeat on a global scale?
If I were a sit-com writer, I’d scoff at the idea of a fictional character as preposterous as Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC. This is the man who refers to skeptics as “flat-earth-deniers who use voo-doo science“. He graciously hopes we skeptics will rub asbestos on our faces (and daily), and in his spare time he writes soft-porn novels.
Six months after the credibility of his favorite lauded scientists was shredded with climategate, and after his own agency was slogged with more scandals than anyone can number (we’ve run out of -gate prefixes), he’s finally realized the pain won’t go away.
Feb 3 this year, he said: Skeptics “are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – I hope that they apply it to their faces every day…I’m totally in the clear. I have absolutely nothing but indifference to what these people are doing.”
So this was it, a few days ago, the big BBC moment when he does some damage control, but as far as big moments go, it’s pretty weak, positively half-hearted. The skeptics that embarrassed him? He’s “not deaf” to them, but “there will always be skeptics”, and what must have been a dog-of-a-year for him is referred to as “momentous”. (This is “spin” spun burlesque.)
This is the damage control you do when you are not serious. Kind of baseline support for his followers rather than a message to the world. A soothing chant with ritual familarity.
And of course, he’s trying to rewrite history (or at least confuse us):
Another myth is that the IPCC was founded as a climates science organisation alone, publishing up-to-date science on the subject and nothing more.
Another myth…? (The strawman cometh.) The myth is that the IPCC might be doing anything rigorously scientific. The oxymoron is that a political organization (an intergovernmental panel) could be apolitical… Pachauri points to the IPCC mission “to provide an assessment of ‘realistic response strategies’, as well as addressing socio-economic concerns”. Which if you follow it through, only goes to prove how conflicted and confused the whole organization is — see “Response Strategies”? Which begs: Responding to… what? Man-made climate change. Of course, that’s the assumption underlying the whole kit and caboodle.
So his point about the mission statement inevitably leads to phrases that suggest that the IPCC was set up with a predetermined outcome… to find a crisis, mark it out, create support, and craft a response.
Notice I use “deniers” in the title, but Pachauri didn’t use the term in the BBC piece? (Maybe even he can see the incongruity?) Of course, I couldn’t have done that if Pachauri had apologized for his past baseless namecalling…
This is part 1b in a long chain of unwinding positions as the news of their collapsing credibility spreads like a slow motion shockwave through the populace and related institutions.
How are the politically-correct science-corrupting spinners with spent ambitions for world-government going to back flip or segue out of this, and will they ever be held responsible for a scam that wasted billions?