Nobel winner to head Yale institute

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will lead the new Yale Climate and Energy Institute, University President Richard Levin announced Tuesday at the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Denmark.

Pachauri, who accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC, is a renowned economist and global leader in the policy debate on climate change. He will work half-time at the YCEI, a collaborative initiative launched by 100 Yale scientists, social scientists and policy experts, which will fund and support research on a variety of climate-related topics.

Rajendra Pachauri speaks at a seminar in Madrid last May.
Philippe Desmazes
Rajendra Pachauri speaks at a seminar in Madrid last May.

“No one has a more comprehensive grasp of the science and policy of climate change or has done more to bring attention to this urgent issue,” Levin said in a statement Tuesday.

Pachauri will continue to serve as chair of the IPCC and director general of The Energy and Resources Institute, an Indian-based organization that addresses energy, environmental and developmental patterns.

YCEI will promote interdisciplinary research and advance knowledge of climate change by providing seed grants, supporting postgraduate study and sponsoring conferences and workshops, according to a University release. Initial YCEI projects will include searching for alternative fuels, forecasting climate variability and studying the spread of infectious diseases.

In Denmark on Tuesday, Pachauri said it was up to politicians to act on the research that scientists around the world are doing.

“I am afraid that it is something that involves value judgment on the part of policymakers, and I am afraid that they shied away from it,” he told the conference. “It is time to take action.”

Pauchauri told The Guardian on Tuesday that he was skeptical of the United States’ ability to enact any sweeping change, though he also said any global climate pact would be ineffective without America’s participation.

“[Obama] is not going to say by 2020 I’m going to reduce emissions by 30 percent,” Pachauri said, according to The Guardian. “He’ll have a revolution on his hands. He has to do it step by step.”

Besides having held numerous positions at academic and research institutes, Pachauri played an instrumental role in the process leading up to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The Associated Press contributed reporting.


  • Yale'08

    Nice. Too bad global warming is kinda false these days, though. Hopefully this guy isn't too attached to his precious theories.

  • Recent Alum

    Does the Arafat, I mean Nobel, Peace Prize still have any credibility? With Al Gore and Jimmy Carter as fellow winners, the prize tells me a lot about Pachauri's politics but little else.

  • Recent Alum

    #1: I wouldn't keep my hopes up on this…

  • to Yale '08

    "Too bad global warming is kinda false these days."

    Gradual change is the hardest to sense and the hardest to combat. In an age of uncertainty and skepticism, I am happy that his so-called precious theories may actually improve the world.

  • Yale alum

    @1, what a cutting and effective attack. I bow before your expertise and insistence that this important and extremely well-supported scientific theory is secretly "kinda false these days." Yeah, if all you read is a few blogs by unhinged right-wing wackos and non-scientists.

    Please, @1, do some more reading for yourself. The IPCC reports are all available online, for a start ( Better yet, take a class on this topic. Go to Yale; get an education! Oh, wait… you are about to graduate. If you are are really a Yale student in the class of '08, that is very, very depressing. Hopefully not too many of your classmates are so flippant about dismissing reality. Yikes.

  • Yale alum

    This Nobel laureate has already demonstrated proficiency in the difficult skill of coordinating huge groups of scientists to conduct complex and difficult work on this politically sensitive but hugely important topic. I am glad that a scholar and leader with this kind of experience has been appointed to this important new post at Yale.

    Frankly, this will be one of the more essential areas for Yale's scientific work over the next few decades. I'm pleased that this work is proceeding rapidly -- and rightly without regard for the meaningless, vapid, transparently politically motivated carping of those who still have their heads planted firmly in the sand, such as those who left the first three comments on this thread.

  • alum

    From a cost/benefit perspective, Global Warming should be last on Yale's list:

  • sad

    It's sad that when Yale makes a great hiring coup like this, and it's reported in the daily news, immediately more than one person gets on the comments to bash the science and pretend that global warming is "kinda false." Awesome! Good job! You really made your point! Convincing!

    Maybe it's time to beef up science requirements for undergraduates. This is pathetic.

  • Observer

    For someone who is truly interested in finding out about global warming and climate change, you should read Bjorb Lomborg's scholarship. His book can be purchased here:

  • Scott Johnston

    Will he personally be ladling out the Kool-Ade, or will that be delegated?

  • Anonymous

    Well I, for one, would like to defend #1. Hasn't anyone else noticed that the weather in the past few months has been much colder than it was in, say, July and August last year? Clearly the shift towards global warming has taken a sudden and decisive turn backwards. Scientifically speaking, we have nothing to worry about, unless of course in the next few months the world begins to warm again. But I certainly wouldn't anticipate that happening.

  • SY'11

    global warming might get top billing int he press and celebrity movies done about it, but the real problems of the future are going to be much less glamorous. for example, homelessness and the planet of slums that we currently live in. i wish yale would work on problems like that, setting up a global institute to destroy poverty and institute to make people realize why they should have an interest in less glamorous issues like this.

    if only bradd pitt came out and criticized the fact that congress/Obama just voted to give billions of dollars so americans can get tax credits on SUV purchases and suburban mansions, instead of billions to address poverty and failed education. just to name one example

  • yale 2011

    oh please. I'm sick of people dismissing those who dare to question global warming as uneducated.

    Am I educated in science? Yes, I'm a science major. I actually interned at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    Politicians would have people believe that there is absolutely no discussion on global warming because it's fact. In fact, in the scientific community, there is just about the same number of people on both sides of the debate (in my experience, there's even more on the neg side) Of course, we never hear from the scientists against the theory… it's too inconvenient for the politicians' agendas. In fact, some of the data that Al Gore used in his documentary has since been shown to false… well, accidentally miscalculated.

    oh wait… it was initially called global warming. When recent data showed up proving to the contrary… they changed it to "climate change". Gotta cover all of your bases.

  • yale scientist

    @5 -- The 'science' behind global warming is, unfortunately, quite pathetic. If all the money thrown at climate science was used to actually research the systematics behind climate change instead of political posturing, we might actually get somewhere in terms of understanding of the environment.

  • climate change researcher

    OK poster #13, lets have some peer-reviewed evidence of your claims. Where is the published evidence? Dont tell me that the science is suppressed, because you know, if you know anything about how science works, that novel observations will get published, as long as they can stand up to scrutiny. If you could prove that the climate isnt changing due to human influence, Nature would put you on the cover.

  • Yale '00

    To all you amazingly independent-minded, subversive heroes who "dare to question" global warming, I say: everyone should question everything. But then you should answer your questions. You should do so based on the best available data.

    Question: is the best available data:

    (a) sticking your neck out the window and noting a bit of recent cooling in your local area;

    (b) reading popular books exclusively by the error-prone Bjorn Lomborg (who is not a bad prose writer, but see for an entire website devoted to the task of debunking this guy's many mistakes);


    (c) how about we convene a huge, international group of scientists, of varying views and disciplines, and have them assimilate a huge body of evidence from many studies using different experimental methodologies, and then ask them to publish their results in great detail so that anyone can scrutinize all the relationships between the data and the conclusions. Oh wait: we've already done this. It's the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change,, headed by Rajendra Pachauri, who by all accounts did an excellent job.

    You take your pick. But from everything I've read so far, I'm with Pachauri.

    As @15 says, if you have some kind of serious evidence pointing the other way, then submit it to Science and Nature immediately! If your evidence holds water at all, you will be the cover story. In the meantime, please try to take seriously the project of "questioning" and being "skeptical" -- and keep in mind that this is not actually the same thing as ideological denial in the face of all evidence.

  • @ #15

    The problem is that when you are talking about the climate, it's like pinning down cloud with a pin. True, it's impossible to "prove" that the climate isn't changing due to human influence; however, nobody has been able to "prove" that climate IS changing due to human influence either. No matter what people say, it's far from being remotely conclusive right now.

    In addition, another problem is that researchers only follow where the money is. Nowadays, scientific research is driven by grants, not by aristocratic nobles who pursue it as a hobby as it was 300 years ago. There's a lot of cash going around for global warming research. But when was the last time you heard of the government giving funds to research proving otherwise?

  • @ #15

    I just want to add that in order to get grants, scientists have to prove that their research has an extreme level of significance.

    What sounds better?
    * Please give money to Arctic cap research because we're proving that the world is in danger!!!


    *Please give money to Arctic cap research because… eh it's going through its regular ups and downs.

    What kind of "data" do you think scientists will go after?

  • Yale '00

    @17, You fundamentally misunderstand that nature of climate research.

    Government and Yale funding only goes to _scientific_ research, which always involves hypothesis-testing. There is no funding from the government or yale for slanted research with predetermined outcomes. If government-funded or Yale-funded research winds up altering the current scientific consensus about some aspect of this complex process, so much the better.

    It is completely ridiculous and defamatory to assert that our researchers, in an effort to "follow where the money is," are slanting their conclusions toward some particular account of global warming.

  • @16


    Done. Thank you. Return my tax money immediately.

  • M. Sacras

    The brave few who dare to question the so-called "science" of "climate change" cannot submit papers to journals like Science and Nature because of course those science journals are part of the global conspiracy -- of governments, universities, scientists, journalists, and Al Gore -- to convince normal people that the climate is changing when in fact there is no evidence. I have seen the cooling this year with my own eyes. Also, there are sunspots, natural cycles, and numerous other explanations one might point to to explain the warming.

    The "science" of climate change is a bunch of articles full of numbers and long words that nobody can understand. Who can make sense of them? And there are too many to read anyway. Obviously "climate change" is a plot by a conspiracy of social engineers to force us all to use public transportation or drive tiny, unsafe, purple, European cars.

  • Anonymous

    he looks like something out of lord of the rings…

  • Yale Science '10


    To second what #19 said:

    Research grants are being given prmarily in two areas. A) To research whether and how much carbon could influence climate, and B) To assess what the impact of various levels of warming would be on ecosystems, populations, etc.

    The research, #18, is all being given because it is an important issue, but models (from funding type A) that showed now warming would not be suddenly dropped from the funding spouts. The NSF and otehr government sources provide grants, and continue to provde them as long as data is being published.

    Everyone here who is attacking climate change research is clearly concerned about the ideological and economic repurcussions of dealing with possible climate change. Fine. Argue that, and cost-benefit; bring up moral and ethical trade-offs about slowing certain forms of economic output.

    But simply ignoring (or being ignorant of) scientific research is merely dishonest.

    Let's use an analogy: should we build a resort underneath a stunning island vocalno that might erupt catastrophically? Well, the answer is maybe, depending on the future risk and the current rewards, but sticking your head in the sand isn't going to help.

  • Y09

    Sacras, if European cars are so "unsafe", how come Europe's traffic fatality rate is a fraction of ours (even adjusting for factors such as urbanization and use)?

  • @ #19

    Climate research is far different from biology or physics. In physics, when your research yields a fundamental constant, there is rarely any debate about it. Unless the experiment was carried out wrong, a constant is a constant. However, in something as unpredictable as climatology, you need evidence from every single aspect to draw a somewhat reasonable conclusion. A certain ice cap is shirking… but another one is growing bigger (yes, I studied this topic. This is how it works). You take in all of the conflicting data as a whole and make a conclusion. But you only hear about the shrinking ice caps rather than the growing ones… wonder why.

    In addition, it is delusional to think that some of the institutions giving out grants, whether public or private, are not hoping for some kind of outcome. A lot of research nowadays are driven by private companies hoping to find benefits to their products. Oh yea… there HAPPENED to be a research showing the health benefits of pomegranates just as POM started to market its product. I'm not questioning the results of the research at all; in fact, I believe it completely. However, there are other (less expensive) foods that have the same benefit. Why are we not hearing about it? Well, there is nobody funding that research yet. Scientific research are mostly driven by politics and corporations whether you like it or not.

    I am not in any way asserting that researchers purposely alter their data to slant towards a certain conclusion. However, scientists do have to make their research sound sensational one way or another. I have worked in 4 different research labs for the past 5 years. Trust me, if someone spent 35 years of their life researching something very specific… his vision get little cloudy and he gets very attached. I have previously gathered information for a grant proposals. To the best of my knowledge, nobody lies about any data…. but boy, we can sure make any data look very pretty and sound VERY important.

  • yale scientist

    @19: The main problem is self-selection of those going into climate research. People who are predisposed to believe a result supporting global warming are more likely to study the phenomena. The predictive power of climate models has never been shown (surprise! they match the data they were trained on…), and the systematics inherent in climate reconstruction pre-1970s is completely ignored, nor have proper statistical analyses been done to show that recent temperature fluctuations have been abnormal compared to the temperature record. Linear regressions applied to temperature trends make me laugh.

  • David in Davis

    This is better than Slumdog Millionaire. India Railways engineer cum international political hack snags Nobel and takes over Yale!
    Bet the Purdue Boilermakers are bummed they didn't get this guy.

  • M. Sacras

    Y09(#24), The global environmentalist conspiracy has made you THINK that European traffic fatality rates are low. But where is the proof. It is like climate change. The "scientists" or "experts" may say it, but have you conducted experiments yourself, driving around in a car in Europe and America? Why do you trust "science" and "experts"? I can see from just looking at those little purple cars, they do not stand a chance against a truck or SUV. So, they are unsafe.

    I say, be bold. Question everything. #26 is right. Only people who are "predisposed" to study global warming study it. Because if you do not think something exists, why then would you study it? Good argument.

    So just because a bunch of "scientists" at the United Nations make a "conclusion," does not mean you should trust it. What about all the science research that was not done because those who would have questioned "climate change" did not go into the field because they didn't think it exists, so there was nothing to study? You have to weigh that in the mix and it is just too hard to tell whether there is climate change or not.

    I say, until there is definitive PROOF of global warming, so that we can all see it with our own eyes, it is too early and too sketchy a theory on which to base radical changes that will destroy our civilization and wreck our way of life.

  • to "yale scientist"

    Hey "yale scientist" at #14 and #26 -

    You seem to have pretty strong views. Care to back them up with anything? Like a link to a peer-reviewed survey article or something? I'm looking specifically for some support, in some peer-reviewed publication, for your general argument that the science behind global warming is, in your words, "pathetic," or for some of your more specific claims, such as that no one has yet done "proper statistical analyses" of whether temperature changes have been "abnormal."

    Sweeping statements like those could really do with some support beyond your say-so. Otherwise, your argument sounds a little desperate, and you don't sound much like an actual "yale scientist."

  • BR10

    People bash number 1 for questioning climate change. They tell him to get a Yale education. If anything, I think a Yale science education should teach you to be skeptical.

  • ct lover

    I think # 25 is right. This is just like pomegranates. A few studies being done by run-of-the-mill biologists who can only get their funding from POM (or are in-house scientists) are completely comparable to world-class scientists from all continents who have no restrictions on funding.

  • read it yourself

    @ "yale scientist",

    I hope you actually don't think the entirety of climate change research is just a "linear regression." You are in for a surprise, then.

    Here, look for yourself:

  • impressive

    All carping from global warming deniers aside, this is a fantastic hiring coup for Yale!

  • M. Sacras

    BR10, at #30, has it right. Be skeptical. Think for your self. Do not accept the idea that the climate is changing just because "scientists" and their "data" say so.

    It is striking how many skeptical people who think for themselves all come to the identical conclusion: that climate change is an unproven hoax!

  • @#31

    You know, world class scientists once thought there was something called "ether".

    Here's something for you to look at.

    Here's the full minority report. YES, it consists of world-class scientists too… if you count Nobel winners. Interesting, they don't just talk about melting ice caps. They brought together clues and data from a wide range of disciplines, just like how conclusions SHOULD be drawn (especially something as sporadic as the climate)

  • Scott Johnston

    My area is finance, not climatology, but I feel I can make a couple of observations:

    1. Ideas, particularly those found in academia, can experience "bubbles" just like markets. In finance, the notion of efficient markets was held as an absolute truth in academia for decades even though any rookie trader knew it was garbage. And yet, to suggest otherwise was to risk flunking your doctoral thesis. That bubble has burst, as will the climate change bubble. Ten years from now, everyone will have moved on to some other stupid idea.

    2. Almost everyone on this issue has a derivative opinion. The science comes down to a relatively small number of incredibly complex and opaque computer-based climate models. So everyone who mouths off is basically just trusting someone else's model that they can't possibly analyze themselves. This has become a de facto faith.

  • Alum'81

    I hope this new fellow is scientist enough to admit if and when his theories are wrong. It does pay to be skeptical, particularly when it comes to the UN. Anyone who accepts the UN conclusions as being free of political motivation needs to rethink their belief system. We won't even know if any of these theories are true until we(as a species, if we are still here) look back from 1000- 10,000 years from now.

  • @#5 and ALL

    What's truly pathetic is that a single troll can set off a 37 comment deluge with this: "Nice. Too bad global warming is kinda false these days, though."

    Come on, people. Stop taking yourselves so seriously. I know it's spring break and all, but there must be something else to do besides getting wading into this crap.

  • M. Sacras

    Alum '81 @37 has it right. We will never know whether climate change is happening until 1000-10,000 years from now, when we will all be dead. Our descendants will see with their own eyes whether these "scientific" theories were right or not. They will just look around and see if everything is under water or not. Until then, it is too early to take any action.

    The evidence for climate change is even more pathetic than the evidence for that other politically correct "theory," evolution. If we wait 1000-10,000 years, we will see if evolution is happening or not. We will see it with our own eyes, or our descendants will. But for now, climate change is just a theory. Not a fact! So I say, think for yourself, be a climate change skeptic.

  • yale scientist

    #29 -- The statement that the state of climate science is pathetic is my personal opinion as a physicist evaluating climate science as I'd evaluate a physics experiment; I can certainly provide support for that opinion in specific cases, if you'd like. Hundreds of climate papers have been published, a forum like this is hardly a place where I can detail a list of mistakes in even a handful of these papers. Give me an example of a paper you consider a good analysis of recent temperature changes, and we can talk about why or why not that particular analysis is valid.

    #32 -- Never made the claim that this was all there was to climate science, but it isn't at all infrequent that these sorts of graphs are passed off as 'proof' of global warming. If you'd like to talk about a specific analysis and why it is or is not deficient (instead of linking to the IPCC report I've already read without mentioning any specific sections of it), I'd be more than happy.

  • My Head Hurts

    Actually, we already know the climate is changing… the phrase 'climate change' shouldn't scare anyone. The questions are how pronounced the change is, whether it's cyclic or going in one direction, how much of an influence people have on it, etc. Maybe that's semantics and when people say 'climate change' they actually mean catastrophic change linked to people, rather than the changes that are inherent to a complex system. That climate changes shouldn't need to be debated.

    For an analogy, look at Mt. Everest. To most of us, it's a big mountain and doesn't really change. Except if plate tectonics is correct, that's not true, and estimates range from it growing by a few millimeters a year to shrinking a bit each year. Yes, opinions vary, but nobody studying the tectonics thinks it stays the exact same year after year. That is, we have change, even in a system which appears to be the same day to day.

    Now, with climate change, the question is whether that change is severe enough to warrant action, and what that action should be, and these are all very good questions. That climate changes is a fact. The dominant factors behind that change, the direction it's going in, and how fast… there are many theories behind all of those, and they SHOULD be studied.

  • yale alum

    Studying global warming is akin to studying distant planets. Interesting for scientists, but there are literally a million other serious problems that present a far more significant threat to the state of humanity.

    From a wider economic and social impact perspective, Yale should have an institute to study how to reform the corrupt government of Chad before it has an institute to study global warming.

  • echo

    Adding to the points made by #36 Scott Johnston, the financial world has most recently been dominated by really cool models which, oversimplifying, said that there wasn't much risk in the financial world. Believing those models (and perhaps financially incented to do so), an entire industry was created to develop and sell products based on those models. Hundreds of billions of dollars were invested on the basis of belief that those models accurately reflected reality. And why not, a really brilliant person came up with the basics of the models - even talk of a Nobel for him - and a bunch of other really smart people signed on, refined, supported it. The "scientific" consensus was that it worked. Naysayers were marginalized or dismissed a weak minded Neanderthals.

    Much to the world's chagrin, it turns out those models were, uhh, wrong. Investment decisions made on the basis of those really cool models have turned into massive losses which resulted in major financial services companies to be brought to their knees ultimately spilling over into the real economy turning perhaps a minor economic slowdown into a rout (one might actually debate what triggered what in the economy but, as with all complex systems, it is difficult to pin down with certainty).

    While not a "peer reviewed paper", the link (scroll down the link) provides interesting reading. Perhaps not completely analogous, it is a cautionary tale on making important decisions on the basis of models created and supported by Nobel prize winners. If you haven't noticed the financial markets or the economy, just reflect on Yale's endowment or the current job market for Yale graduates to see the impact of the "consensus belief" in what proved to be a false theory.

  • not a yale alum

    In principle, I agree with some of what you say - there are pressing problems that are real, known, and deserve attention.

    That said, I would argue that studying climate change is not so much like studying planets, but rather studying possible other celestial objects that have the potential to impact our planet. Basically, it's something which we hope doesn't happen, but it is potentially cataclysmic, so studying it is certainly warranted. Climate change is very much like that. Some people (and I'm certainly not implying you're one of them) feel that 'global warming' just means they feel a little hotter, without consideration of what it does to water sources, weather patterns, crop yields, animal life, etc., etc. The potential is certainly there for 'cataclysmic' effects, albeit ones which manifest themselves over longer time-scales than something like a large meteor strike.

    (And if Yale had top experts on Chad, I imagine they would form such a study… but in the meantime, they DO have some top experts on climate modeling and theory.)

  • wow

    This thread is full of supposedly smart people who really seem to believe that simplistic critique and "skepticism" is a good approach to a problem that really may well be the largest current threat to human civilization.

    Scientific estimates will change and evolve as evidence comes in. But given the state of data right now, it's the time for major action -- even just based on prudent precaution-taking. To suggest that we should stop focusing on this issue is extremely irresponsible.

    But luckily, Yale and other institutions do not make policy based on a few cranks on the YDN comment thread.

  • Yale '00

    I'm proud of Yale for taking the step of creating this new institution and hiring Pachauri. Precisely unlike the study of distant planets, pace #42, this huge project will address a set of scientific questions of pressing, immediate importance to public policy. This is direct, applicable, useful science.

    I find it sort of humorous and sad, more than anything else, that someone would suggest that this is like studying "distant planets." Even if you take the implausible position that all the current science is dead wrong, and global climate change is not happening at all or is not a problem at all or whatever, you should then be EVEN MORE supportive of more study of the issue. After all, every government in the world is working on making huge public policy decisions to address this problem (or not) over the next few years. If these governments are acting unwisely, then surely it is very important to do research to find that out! And unless you believe Yale is part of some great conspiracy, devoting many more resources to studying climate change at Yale will be a great way to help further the project of doing that extremely necessary research.

    So, arguing that all the current climate science is wrong is one thing -- maybe it's just contrarianism, maybe it's objections to science and experts in general, maybe it's more specific complaints about current data that you can't spell out fully here, but that we'll charitably assume you people actually have. On the other hand, arguing against further study of the sort that Yale will be conducting -- now that is just breathtaking idiocy. There is no coherent argument for it whatsoever. Still, I'd expect nothing less from the YDN comment thread. Good job, guys!

  • M. Sacras

    Yeah! "yale alum" (#42) is completely right. Climate change presents no threat, and so we should not study it. We should study other problems, such as Chad, but not this problem. I already know that there is no threat; so what will more study do? It is a waste of time.

    Some of you say we should study climate change more to find out just what kind of threat it presents, if any. That sounds right at first glance. But what you don't understand is that Yale is part of a global conspiracy of scientific experts and universities, liberals, Europeans, Asians, Al Gore, Hollywood, and others. Because of this conspiracy, any science we undertake will just automatically support the politically correct idea that there is climate change and it is dangerous and we can stop it if we replace all our light bulbs with annoying fluorescent ones and if we all drive small, purple, European cars. That is, if we let them take away our freedoms. That is the greatest threat to our way of life -- taking away our freedoms -- so we must not study, talk about, or think about this issue of climate change. We must completely ignore it. That is the only way our way of life can survive!

  • to "yale scientist"

    Hi again "yale scientist" at # 14, 26, and 40. You said it was your "personal opinion as a physicist evaluating climate science" that the state of the research is "pathetic," and then offered to show what is wrong with any "example of a paper you consider a good analysis."

    You get the burdens of proof wrong. The burden is on you to show why we should believe you despite the lack of peer-reviewed, published evidence. Either:

    (a) Other scientists share your view that all current papers a "pathetic" and easy to poke holes in, and have published their critiques in some kind of peer-reviewed venue. If so, then please, show us links! This would be very useful to read.

    (b) You are a lonelier critic than that, but you have published your observations poking holes in existing climate science papers in peer-reviewed journals or some other credible venue. Once again, please show us the links!

    (c) You and/or others have so far failed to publish your powerful critique(s) of existing mainstream climate science, despite said science being full of holes and wrongheaded, and clearly subject to your devastating critiques.

    If the answer is (c), then once again I have some choices for you. Is it that:

    (1) there is a conspiracy to stop you from publishing your devastating critiques;

    (2) this is not your area and you don't care enough to publish on this subject, despite having these brilliant insights about the huge holes in all current climate research that nobody else apparently sees; or

    (3) you're wrong.

    Your job is to show why the answer is not (c) --> (3). Do you have anything?

  • BR10

    This dude needs to visit Phil's Hairtyles.

  • Stop


    Stop. Feeding. The. Trolls.

    Although 'M. Sacras' does sometimes make me laugh, I admit.

  • Terry Hughes

    Rajendra Pachauri is an excellent addition to the Yale faculty. Regarding the science underlying the anti-AGW political movement:

    I merely observe that, depending on the study, large gaps exist in the reasoning. Things like, 1) the non-existence of historical comparisons; 2) the persistent focus on non-representative, but most easily accessible, coastal localities in Greenland and Antarctica; 3) an under-appreciation of seasonal fluctuations; 4) the non-correlation with human activity, or worse, whimsical correlations. Et cetera.

    But the main point is much simpler than that. Of course the ice is melting, and of course sea levels are rising. They have been doing so continuously for the last 18,000 years -- since the maximum glaciation towards the end of the last Ice Age. Leave out the context (as journalists well know) and you can make almost anything look Very Scary.


  • Terry Hughes

    The science of AGW is sometimes said to be "settled," but it some recent findings and approaches strongly suggest quite the contrary, including this one (released in the past few days by a team at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) that describes a new mathematical model and approach that predict anything but more warming:

    "[A] new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down. Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years. … Scientists said that the air and ocean systems of the earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other. … 'In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century,' Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."


    One new idea "could turn the climate change world upside down" Settled science? Really?