The front page of The Australian (22/2/13) carries an article by Environmental Editor Graham Lloyd, in which he reports the comments from Railway Engineer and Soft Porn writer Rajendra Pashauri.

The UN’s climate change chief acknowledges the “17 year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed by the British Met Office”. Also reported is the forecast of no further increases to 2017, a total pause of 21 years.

This trend would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” he suggests to break the long term global warming trend. Not that he mentions how he arrived at the 30 to 40 years figure. So add 9 years to the 21 year pause predicted and if no further warming occurs, Pashauri can resume his writing career. Unless of course, there is further warming at any level after say 8.5 years onwards?

Lloyd points out that “Pashauri’s view contrasts with the arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported”. Thanks to ABC and others.

Dr. Pashauri is also quoted as acknowledging that the renewables industry “faced an uncertain future” (read collapsed by 90%) and the carbon trading markets had “slumped”. (by this he also means collapsed by 90%). No mention of the expiry of his beloved Kyoto.

Pashauri comments widely on the conformity with trends, he fails to mention that this new conformity is not related to failed predictions but rather with the IPCC’s conformity with the trend of empirically evidenced events.

Whilst warming the hearts of skeptics, he induces a sinking feeling amongst the warmists and the censorial media.

Unless of course, in inviting the “vital debate”, the warmists can explain (?) his latest position?

<<Rajendra Pashauri… acknowledges the “17 year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed by the British Met Office”. Also reported is the forecast of no further increases to 2017, a total pause of 21 years.>>

I hope he cleared it with Qanda before making that admission!

That's a laugh!

In "The Australian" you say....how terrifically unusual and unbiased!

It's like you holding up an article from WUWT as neutral on AGW.

Yup - if you want your climate science with butter and bias, the Australian is the place to go.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/australian-s-climate-correction

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/05/the-australians-war-on-science-54/

SPQR, Shush! qanda has not yet cleared it with himself!

It takes a while for reality to bond with emotive arguments, especially if those arguments are generated by the guru’s who now contradict their own orthodoxy.

We will no doubt shortly hear that Pashauri is a richard head, knows nothing about climate science, has failed to predict a single weather/climate event in the past 18 years, is a traitor to the cause, his science has failed to gain traction with 194 nations for a replacement for Kyoto, the renewable energy industry, the emissions trading markets and explain why the former Kyoto signatories are shifting to fossil fuel based energy production. Not to mention the stream of irrelevant links to their failed pseudo-science and the fact that these statement were published in The Australian, thus invalidating anythjing Pashauri has to say.

I say irrelevant pseudo science because it is no longer good enough to convince even their own supporters however, we can still expect them to ignore the reality and post even more links to that which has already failed them. That is what religious ideology does to soft minds.

So, SPQR, be patient, all will be revealed by Madame Poirot, warmair, qanda et al, as they try to explain to us deniers, why Pashauri has abandoned them and their “science” has failed even those who once supported them.

Be gentle with them for they are victims from the shallow end of the gene pool. We are yet to hear from Madame Poirot who will tell us that it has absolutely nothing to do with Pashauri’s comments; it is all about the fact that it was The Australian that published them

Here's the article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

You missed these bits, spindoc.

"Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming."

(that's "record levels".......9 of the 10 warmest years have been this century)

"What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards...what you should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions."

He is saying that it would take between a thirty and forty year halt for it to be considered that the long-term upward temperature trend has been broken.

Nice spinning, spindoc.

(Perhaps you can get a job with the Australian)

Thanks Poirot but we can actually read for ourselves, contrary to your intellectual fallacies. Your problem is, can you read?

What we were asking is how you “feel” about the shift in alarmism as promoted by the IPCC? I guess your answer is “whatever Pashauri says is spot on with my thinking”. Yeh, we get that. You sound so much like Bill Shorten?

You once told us that we faced Armageddon, now you tell us that it is not Armageddon but it “will” be Armageddon, maybe, at some stage, if we don’t listen to you and your science, after all Pashauri does not admit he was wrong, just misguided. Yep, we get it. Unfortunately you don’t. In your view it’s all about mitigation of previous declarations.
AR1 through 4 are good, AR 5 draft is bad?

Your prophets don’t seem to agree with you but no matter, you can always abuse the messenger and hey, who reads The Australian anyway?

Desperation always embraces its own stupidity, so why would anyone believe the IPCC? Ah well, we can always socialize Pashauri’s comments as, Ah well, these are not really his comments because they were from The Australian, so who believes them?

It must be very painful to have to justify the comments of your own high priest when he refutes that upon which you have built your obsession. You are looking really silly at this moment. Nothing new but it is refreshing for the skeptics. Perhaps we could have this article published in “Crikey” which might change the authenticity of the comments?

You are such a dud.