Diederik Samsom (p), erstwhile spokesperson for Greenpeace and MP for the PvdA (Labour), has said Rajendra Pachauri should go (NL):
The PvdA is afraid that the trust in climate research is vanishing now that the UN-panel is seen in controversy after controversy. That is why the head of the IPCC-boss Rajendra Pachauro should roll, according to PvdA member of Second Chamber Diederik Samsom. (…)
Samsom seemed unimpressed at first over the growing criticism with regard to the climate panel. Climategate, in which the IPCC was revealed to have manipulated research results, meant nothing. The glacier blunder (the statement that the ice masses would have gone in 2035) turned out to be based on nothing: that was just a small error in an otherwise large and reliable research project, according to Samsom.
Now that it appears that Pachauri has earned millions of euros from the climate hype, through subsidies for his own company and researchers have admitted that they have been lead by politics, not facts, it is time for damage control for Samsom.
That is why Pachauri must quit his job. His leaving would ensure a return of the reliability of a ‘value-free’ climate-panel, according to the PvdA member of parliament. He wants Pachauri to do the honourable thing and so make way for the recovery of trust in the climate panel.
The Elsevier item linked to above uses ‘bedrijfje’, the diminutive for ‘company’ when describing Pachauris employer, which is a bit puzzling. TERI is by no means a ‘small company’ as followers of the Pachauri saga (most notably on EURef) will know.
In and of itself this is significant. Samsom is the first politician to speak out on the position of Pachauri in the Netherlands (and as far as I am ware in continental Europe). Moreover, Samsom is the most warmist warmist among the The Hague clique of legislators. He is the spokesperson for environmental matters for the PvdA which in turn is very dedicated to warmist ideals (our minister for the environment, Jacqueline Cramer, is of the same party). But the PvdA is also a coalition partner in the current government, which does give the statements by Samsom some additional weight.
Samsoms about-face with regard to the IPCC and Pachauri are unfortunately not evidence of new-found light and realism on Samsoms part. Rather, it may described as an exercise in damage limitation: Once Pachauri is gone the IPCC will magically transform from the intensely politicised and corrupt institution that it is to a beacon of scientific virtue and independence, grant moneys be damned. As the Americans are wont to say: Fat chance!
Samsom is trying to frame the narrative, playing up the Pachauri angle, scape-goating the man in the process. Once that bad, bad man is gone (and he IS a bad, very bad man) all will be well again. But this bit of trickery completely ignores the evidence of large-scale malfeasance revealing itself from the climategate emails.
And what about Amazongate and Glaciergate? There were many more besides Pachauri involved in the realisation of the chapters in the IPCC report involved in these scandals. If Pachauri goes, and all the others remain in place: What have we won?
Of course Rajendra Pachauri should go. But that should not, must not be the end of it. One has to agree with Dr. North that :
the IPCC itself – like its chairman – is fundamentally corrupt and completely beyond redemption. What is startling is the belief that any body spawned by the UN – of “food for oil fame” – could be anything other than corrupt.
However, so closely identified with the IPCC is Pachauri that his enforced departure would not only confirm his lack of credibility but fatally damage the IPCC itself. In a sense, the “environmentalists” are engaging in damage limitation. But the damage is already too severe. The whole edifice must go.
Samsom calling for Pachauris head on a platter is all well and good. But it is not enough. Not nearly.