Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) and Nobel Prize Winner, will be awarded the degree of Doctor of Science honoris causa and deliver the 2008 Wallace Wurth Memorial Lecture entitled: “Our Vulnerable Earth – Climate Change, the IPCC and the role of Generation Green” at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, on Thursday, October 23, 2008. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
I hope somebody might care to ask Dr P. why the the IPCC is dedicated to the proposition that cattle and other livestock produce methane from what they eat, to the tune of around 85 million tonnes of methane p.a. (i.e 85 tera grams p.a.), when the seminal paper by Keppler et al of The Max Planck Institute (in Nature, Jan. 2006, p.189) reports their discovery that methane is present in most if not all terrestrial plant matter in very large quantities, at up to 236 tera grams p.a. It follows that ruminants may well be absorbing more CH4 from their feed than they emit. The FAO has similarly noted that livestock are carbon neutral (in their report linked by Haughton). It would be surprising if livestock emitted more CO2 and CH4 etc than they absorb via the food they eat , since weight gain is the aim of most livestock producers (except in the Alice in Wonderland world of the IPCC and Garnaut report).
Hopefully Dr P will allow us to get back to our grilled steaks without adopting the partly or wholly vegan diets also proposed by Hansen, Brook, Singer, Russell, and (to an extent) Garnaut.
Tim
Also have a go at estimating the water production from oxidising CH4.
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O
And they think that greenhouse gases are warming the air, and hence the solid earth, and causing sea levels to rise, ignoring the potentially enormous production of water from the oxidation of methane, whether from natural emissions of ruminants, or the burning of natural gas and coal, and oil.
The IPCC has this fact factored into the models, no ?
Tim, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has already delved into the meat vs vegies debate at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/
sep/07/food.foodanddrink when he said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems – including habitat destruction – associated with rearing cattle and other animals. He claimed it was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport.
The UNSW also describe him as an econmist and environmental scientist. From his CV he has two PHDs one in economics and the other in industrial engineering. Does any one know of his qualification that allows him to be described as an environmental scientist?
Cinders: qualifications are not the issue, nor is Dr P’s religion (he is a vegetarian Hindu). What is relevant is the science I cited showing that rearing cattle is not greenhosue negative. On the contrary, as that FAO report notes, given the huge (30%) increase in total stock over the last 30 years, the net effect of livestock rearing is greenhouse positive, i.e they act as a sink, not a source, because they have absorbed more carbon than they have emitted. It is true that the Garnaut report, and especially its so-called “Technical Rpeorts” (commissioned from the self-serving CASPI unit at Uni Melbourne) have no grasp at all of the difference between gross and net emissions. CASPI (#2, p.43) even admits it has not taken into account any natural uptakes in any of its modelled predictions for this century. It is also true that the Australian Greenhouse Office, like the IPCC, thinks that livestock emit without ever having eaten.
Louis: you are right, and I made that very point in my own submissions to Garnaut. His Report epitomises Australia’s long tradition of bastardry.
I wonder if Dr Pachauri will do the following:
1. Apologise to the world community for the blatant misreprentation of the extent of backing for the IPCC reports, when he stated that there are 2500 scientists who underpin the documents, when some parts were out together by less than 7.
2. Apologise for the way the Reports are put together with the main SPM being written by officials, not scientists, and done so prior to the completion of the technical parts
3. Apologise for the baised/selective use of editing, in the process.
4. Disassociate himself from the antics of his co winner of the Nobel peace prize namely Al Gore and the way in which he
put together the AIT, and the many egregious errors of fact and exaggeration, confirmed by
a legal process (which was significantly more open and transparent than his organisation), and,
5. Disassociate himself from the money grubbing antics of his co winner who already has made a nice pile for himself out of this scam–(despite the down turn.) by using the fraudulent prospectus called the AIT as the bait, and Pachauri and his cohorts by their silence support.
6. Speak about the improvements that have been called for,by that brave scientist here in Aust who compiled a list of things that could be done.
My bet is that because it will be in front of his adoring acolytes and members of the silly hats brigade he will perform as expected. All pomp and no performance.
… and even less acountability.
Malcolm Hill says: Pachauri should “Disassociate himself from the antics of his co winner of the Nobel peace prize namely Al Gore”
I think not:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7041747.stm
Indian scientist Rajendra Pachauri has spoken of his surprise at the UN panel he heads being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its work on global warming.
He said he felt privileged to share the prize with “someone as distinguished” as the former US vice president.
“Al Gore certainly deserves it. The amount of effort he has put into creating awareness about climate change has had a major impact.”
The two men spoke on the phone after the announcement.
“This is Pachy… I am certainly looking forward to working with you. I’ll be your follower and you’ll be my leader,” Dr Pachauri said.
Yuk!