Reuters: Skeptics pummel Al Gore & IPCC chief Pachauri into ‘faded’ stars: The ‘glamor’ has gone’ – ‘We need new voices’ — ‘Gore has been worn down by criticisms, especially by U.S. Republicans who say his climate campaigns are alarmist and question the science behind them’
Reuters: 'Compared to the heady days in 2007 when U.S. climate campaigner Al Gore and the U.N.’s panel of climate scientists shared the Nobel Peace Prize, the risks of global warming may be greater but the stars preaching the message have faded…'We need new voices,' said Jennifer Morgan, of the World Resources Institute think tank in DC.
Much of the 'glamor' has gone since Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian chair of the IPCC, and Gore proudly showed off the Nobel gold medals in 2007, a time when firm global action on reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses seemed feasible. Gore's later ventures have been less high profile. He sold his struggling cable channel, Current TV, to Al Jazeera in January.'
Climate Change Stars Fade, Even If Risks Rise
September 26, 2013
Both Gore, the IPCC and Pachauri, now 73, won a series of international awards for their work in 2007. Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar and standing applause at U.N. negotiating sessions when it was shown. But Gore has also been worn down by criticisms, especially by U.S. Republicans who say his climate campaigns are alarmist and question the science behind them. His later ventures have been less high profile. He sold his struggling cable channel, Current TV, to Al Jazeera in January. Gore’s latest book, The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change, has won good reviews.
IPCC leaders including Pachauri have been less outspoken in recent months than before the 2007 report by the IPCC when he said, for instance, that he hoped it would “shock” the world into action.
A 2010 review by scientists in the InterAcademy Council (IAC), partly spurred by an error in the IPCC report that exaggerated a thaw in the Himalayas, said that IPCC leaders should stick to science and not recommend policies. “Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC’s credibility,” it said.
