'The  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC) elected Hoesung Lee of the Republic of Korea as its new Chair on Tuesday.

Hoesung Lee was elected by 78 votes to 56 in a run-off with Jean-Pascal van Ypersele. A total of six candidates had been nominated for the position.

"I am honoured and grateful that the Panel has elected me as the IPCC’s new Chair,” said Hoesung Lee. “The IPCC remains deeply committed to providing policymakers with the highest quality scientific assessment of climate change, but we can do more.”

“The next phase of our work will see us increase our understanding of regional impacts, especially in developing countries, and improve the way we communicate our findings to the public. Above all, we  need  to  provide  more  information about  the  options  that  exist  for  preventing  and  adapting  to climate  change. I  look  forward  to  working  with  my  IPCC  colleagues  to  reach  these  goals  and  I thank them for their support."

https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc42/151006_election_of_new_chair.pdf

Prof Hoesung Lee is an economist. He also used to work for Exxon Company USA.

http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/gtsp/topical-workshops/spring-2013/participant-biographies/

He is somehow going to prevent climate change.

another stooge imo.

Ajax wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

another stooge imo.

says the stalker  ::)

Why don't they put a climate scientist in charge?

You don’t think AGW has huge economic consequences?

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 12:36pm:

You don’t think AGW has huge economic consequences?

Seeing as we haven't quantified AGW; no.

Seeing as AGW was proposed to be outside the bounds of natural variability, the "pause", "hiatus", with increasing CO2, must be outside the bounds of natural variability.

If however, the "pause", "hiatus", is within natural variability; so is any AGW.

63 papers by climate scientists attempting to explain the "pause", "hiatus".

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html

But AGW is supposed to be science based. What would an economist know of climate science?

of course there is this-

'Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.'

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/253552/ipcc-climate-policy-redistributing-worlds-wealth-greg-pollowitz

First reported - Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

or Christina Figueres

'"This is  probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.'

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

One can then see a need for an economist.

lee wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 1:56pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 12:36pm: You don’t think AGW has huge economic consequences? Seeing as we haven't quantified AGW; no.

was the effect of CFCs on Ozone depletion quantified?

What was the international response in the early 1990s?

poor lee

poor sooky sooky lee

painting himself into a corner - once again

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

was the effect of CFCs on Ozone depletion quantified?

Nope. Now we have no CFC's and still have an ozone hole.

lee wrote on Oct 12^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 4:15pm: was the effect of CFCs on Ozone depletion quantified? Nope. Now we have no CFC's and still have an ozone hole.

lol, this sounds like a conversation  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o