politics

When will Pachauri Step Down?

73 Comments

I’m reading calls for Pachauri to step down trumpeted all over the place. On the one hand, it appears he didn’t break any rules: The IPCC evidently has no rules governing conflict of interest. It’s not a violation for the head of the IPCC to run a company that can benefit financially from specific findings in IPCC Climate Change reports. Go figure!

Still, I suspect Pachauri day’s as head of the IPCC are number less than 60. The guy has become a liability. The story about glaciergate will remain alive every day he remains in office. Worse, journalists motivated to keep the story fresh will dig, find other issues and run stories quoting the IPCC’s harshest critics.

I think Pachauri’s unseating now just a question of when. Anyone think I’m wrong and he might survive this? Anyone think it might be tomorrow?

73 thoughts on “When will Pachauri Step Down?”

  2. Still, I suspect Pachuri day’s as head of the IPCC are number less than 60. The guy has become a liability. The story about glaciergate will remain alive every day he remains in office. Worse, journalists motivated to keep the story fresh will dig, find other issues and run stories quoting the IPCC’s harshest critics.

    The deniers are baying for criminal action, and Anthony is doing all he can to stir up a feeding frenzy. But it’s been like that for years now, nothing has changed. The WGI was where all the focus was, since it is the physical basis for the AGW case. WGII did not have the same rigour applied to it. When you look at the IPCC reports, the quality is improving with the arrival of each new report. The focus on the politics just confirms the weak case the deniers have about the science.

  3. My sense is that he will last, just like ZH guesses. This is because the UN and its affiliates have no culture of responsibility. Which explains the lack of conflict of interest policy as well. I hope I will be proven wrong this time.

  4. bugs–
    Criminal action? Well, that’s not going to happen because he didn’t violate a law.

    WGII did not have the same rigour applied to it.

    Well… that buck stops at Pachuri’s desk, doesn’t it.

    The glacier-gate problem is that WGII contained information that was wrong, that wrong information came from a publication that was not supposed to be cited except very, very cautiously. Some people claim they sent in comments pointing out the error. And, last but by far not least, the inclusion of that wrong information benefitted Pachuri’s business interests.

    The focus on the politics just confirms the weak case the deniers have about the science

    That’s a very odd notion you got into your head. I don’t think people discussing one important particular issue tells you anything about the relative merits of arguments about a separate important issue.

    As for who is stirring up the feeding frenzy: The issue of Pachuri’s conflict of interest has traction because he has a conflict of interest, and the mistakes in the WGII are in the direction of pouring money into his pockets. This is a simple issue. People understand it and it’s going to get traction independent of any other issue.

  5. Gone by the end of Feb.

    If he was a reasonable and responsible person, or an american politician (don’t conflate the two) he would be gone already. Clearly mistakes were made under his watch, clearly he has both a conflict of interest and the appearance of wrongdoing in service of this interest, and clearly he has become a lightening rod attracting ever more scrutiny and criticism of his organization.

    ok – I basically just paraphrased your post.

    Bottom line: He has become a liability to the IPCC. If he cared about the reputation and effectiveness of that organization he would step down now. But he won’t. He’ll hang on and see the IPCC dragged through the mud through Feb.

  8. I think you’ll find that all the furious scribblings on all the denialist-tendency blogs matter little in the real world, and his position is quite secure. I think you’ll also find that his name is spelt Pachauri. I have observed before that you seem to have trouble accurately reproducing matters relating to the IPCC. Simple copying should not be that hard.

  9. Hey, guess who just popped up over at newsbusters.org

    ?
    Two different shots taken on CNN today.
    Very prescient and timely, this post…
    RR

  10. Hunter: your
    .
    I think you’ll find that all the furious scribblings on all the denialist-tendency blogs matter little in the real world, and his position is quite secure.
    .
    I think you will find that Lucia is NOT a denialist.
    .
    Pachauri’s security is the current subject of debate on this blog. Just because you proclaim it, does not make it so. Back this up with something solid.
    .
    I think you’ll also find that his name is spelt Pachauri.
    .
    Like I spelt it, right? I will give you marks for spelling, then. Good boy.
    .
    I have observed before that you seem to have trouble accurately reproducing matters relating to the IPCC. Simple copying should not be that hard.
    .
    Like the IPCC copied magazine articles? Or copied a wiki graph?

  11. lucia,
    Can you please help keep the troll who is using my name from squatting on it here?
    I am referring to:
    Hunter (Comment#31167)
    That is not me. This troll has done this elsewhere, and it is distracting and annoying and, now, unoriginal as well.

    bugs,
    We don’t need strong science. We are not trying to prove a thesis.
    We only have to show that the AGW theory is full of holes.
    It is.
    The AGW social movement is inextricably mingled with the bit of science that makes AGW somewhat plausible.
    That Pachauri is straddling the two and filling his coffers at the same time would, if AGW true believers were rational, be a big problem for you all.
    But you know implicitly that once the unravelling begins of either the AGW social movement or the AGW science that veneers it, it all falls apart.
    Which it is.

  12. Anybody seen the article in today’s Times?
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece
    John Beddington (GB Chief Science Advisor and usually a serious warmer) “The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change”
    He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”
    And then …
    Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, said: “Climate scientists get kudos from working on an issue in the public eye but with that kudos comes responsibility. Being open with data is part of that responsibility.”

    He criticised Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, for his dismissive response last November to research suggesting that the UN body had overstated the threat to the glaciers. Mr Pachauri described it as “voodoo science”.

    Professor Hulme said: “Pachauri’s choice of words has not been good. The question of whether he is the right person to lead the IPCC is for the 193 countries who make up its governing body. It’s a political decision.”

    Strange days indeed

  13. Pachauri will be there until 2014-2015, which is the timing of the next elections (I think). It says in the IPCC rules that the term of office runs until a year after the publication of the next report (that is why Pachauri faced re-election in 2008).

    As to the controversy, to me it seems another yawn. The real hunter may announce the end of “the AGW fraud” a few (hundred) more times, but beyond that …

  15. Warmists generally insist that only peer-reviewed literature (PRL) will do, when arguing their point.
    .
    The UEA e-mails showed that there is an active effort to suppress counter views in the PRL.
    .
    There are at least a dozen instances of the IPCC referring to non-PRL in the AR4.
    .
    At RC, they are arguing that non-PRL is acceptable, because the IPPC Principles (Annex 2) says that non-PRL may be used, under certain circumstances.
    .
    sniff…..sniff….
    .
    Is that hypocrisy I smell?

  16. I’m not entirely sure, but I may have been the first to actually predict Pachauri’s resignation, saying about 10 days ago that he would be gone by June 30. I do think it will be agenda driven. Typically at this level, the resignation is agreed on fairly early and there is considerable lead time, and the actual announcement is timed to either support or follow up a media event or major announcement. Anybody have a calendar of activities for these guys?

  17. Hunter & Hunter_other– I’ve indicated the other hunter as “hunter_other” for now. Hunter_other, feel free to pick an extension you prefer. I like people to use unique handles, and you are the second hunter, so the first one gets precedence.

    Thanks for noticing my spelling error.

  18. Tom: I will go one better, and predict the time and date.
    .
    Thursday, April 1, at 17:00 (±1 hour) GMT.
    .
    The choice of April Fools Day, while quite appropriate, is really serendipitous. The reason I chose this date, is it’s just before a very long weekend.
    .
    Failing this date, and a little less specific; it will be late in the afternoon, on the last week day, before a widely recognized EU holiday weekend. Or late on a Friday.

  19. David Gould,

    “to me it seems another yawn”

    I kind of do, too. And not surprising either, because AGW itself is a bedtime story for children… (yawn) 😉

    Andrew

  20. Hi,

    Things are certainly ‘warming up’ for old Pachauri…

    See

    Heat wave closes in on the IPCC

    Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform…

  22. It’s unfortunate that the IPCC can still put the blame on 1 guy. They will chuck him soooo fast — for the UN anyway. Consider their reaction to Haiti.

    The Pachauri kickback problem is a symptom of something greater.

  23. It’s a start – the real plus in this is that people who before did not feel ‘able’ to speak out will now find they are not alone and speak out.

    Just needs a certain critical mass of coverage to swing the MSM to cover it and the ball will decidedly start rolling the other way.

    My betting is he will be gone within 2 weeks; they need to be surgical.

  24. jeff: I agree that Pachauri is not the disease, but the symptom.
    .
    Wayyyy too much wrong with this whole organization.
    .
    No mandate to look at other than anthro-forcings.
    No mandate to include counter arguments.
    No conflict of interest policies, either financial or intellectual.
    No real leadership (Pachauri did not hesitate to throw his people under the glacier, and disavow his ownership).
    No adherence to its own guidelines.
    .
    It’s a mess. The IPCC is an academic Enron.

  26. jeff Id (Comment#31182) January 26th, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    It’s unfortunate that the IPCC can still put the blame on 1 guy. They will chuck him soooo fast — for the UN anyway. Consider their reaction to Haiti.

    You hate the UN that much you joke about the UN in that context? A lot of the UN response was killed in that earthquake, they were already there on the ground trying to help Haiti turn around from the disaster it already was.

    But thanks for confirming that a large part of the hatred directed at AGW researchers and support staff is really just petty minded vindictiveness.

    http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3095&art_id=nw20100125183830845C210300

    The January 12 temblor, which leveled the main headquarters of the UN mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), marks the deadliest disaster in the world body’s history.

    Among those killed, most of whom worked in the collapsed MINUSTAH headquarters, are 40 civilians, 24 troops and 18 police.

  27. I saw this headline on Google News and figured it had to be SM:
    Canadian scientist says UN’s global warming panel ‘crossing the line’
    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Canadian+scientist+says+global+warming+panel+crossing+line/2487264/story.html
    Surprise! It’s Andrew Weaver:
    A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations’ panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.

  28. Weaver says Pachauri, the panel’s chairman, should resign, not only for his recent failings but because he was a poor choice to lead the IPCC to begin with.

    Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, Ont., and a well-known IPCC critic, says the panel’s scientific failings, and its willingness to cross the line into advocacy, will eventually percolate into the policy arena.

    “The halo has come off the IPCC,” he says. “At the time of the 2007 report, there were very few politicians willing to question statements from the IPCC. Now, as this plays out, people will start to be embarrassed to cite the IPCC.”

    I notice to completely different points of view here. McKitrick is just playing the same old line that the whole IPCC case fails, Weaver says his problem is Pachauri is the wrong man in the first place, and wonders if there isn’t a better way to mange the AGW problem. He doesn’t see the science as the problem at all. The deniers still can’t argue the case, but continually hammer the AGW is wrong because Pachauri is not a good spokesman for it non-sequitor.

  30. bugs–
    Your interpretation of what Ross says doesn’t match the quote you posted. You can’t prove people wrong by first distorting what they say and then explaining that anyone who advanced your distorted version would be wrong. For people to be wrong, what they actually say has to be wrong.

  32. Personally, I lean to they will let him stay on until the end of his term, but don’t expect to see much of him. He’ll be too busy doing the IPCC’s scientific business, don’cha no.

  33. Seems likely he will be eased out if the bad press continues for a while more. If he becomes a distraction to the IPCC’s policy agenda, then there is really no reason for him to stay anyway. Since lots of people are aware of and paying attention to his conflicts of interest, most anything that he says with be considered with a view to his business interests; yet another reason for him to leave.

    But does it really matter? I think probably not. The IPCC is 100% run by AGW activists, so whoever might replace him would be pretty much a clone in terms of advocated policy, although maybe without his distracting conflicts of interests.

  34. He is probably not going anywhere until the rest of them figure out how to divvy up all the pokers he has in the fire…

  35. Pachauri is famously not a climate scientist, and he doesn’t perform a scientist’s job. My understanding is that his appointment is basically determined by UN politics, and his real constituency is the government of India. As such, he’ll probably stay as long as India wants him.

    But folks need to get real here. IPCC reports, even WG2, should not have errors. But you can’t expect the Chair of the IPCC to resign every time one is found. Conflict of interest is something else, but you need more than just that he’s director-general of TERI. That’s been known all along, and was part of the reason he was appointed in the first place.

  36. Just had strange thought, what if these mistakes by IPCC are deliberate? as in certain scientists within the IPCC have worked out the peer review process is such a farce that they have peppered inconsistencies all over the place just waiting to be discovered.

    Unlikely I know, but academia is such a strange place that you couldn’t completely discount it.

  37. bugs: your

    I notice to completely different points of view here
    .
    perhaps you didn’t read the whole article:
    .
    But Weaver admits the IPCC needs to change, for the sake of climate science, and for its own credibility.
    .
    .
    He also says the IPCC must stop producing huge, all-encompassing reports on every aspect of climate science and instead re-organize itself into a series of small, highly-focused groups, each tasked with examining a single specific scientific question and none required to publish their conclusions on quick deadlines.
    .
    .
    And he says IPCC officials must cease being “over enthusiastic” in pushing for policy changes.
    .
    .
    “Nobody should be using particular pieces of information to advance an agenda,” says Weaver. “The IPCC cannot be an advocate, because it’s not tasked to do that.”
    .
    .
    On this point, Weaver and McKitrick agree.
    .
    .
    “The IPCC is not going to be able to recover from this unless there’s an honest attempt to reform their procedures,” says McKitrick. “They need to start doing what they’ve always claimed to do — to be balanced, and open, and scientifically rigorous.”

  38. Eric: “If he was … an american politician … he would be gone already.”

    Right. Because there is so much honor in american politicians. They resign at the merest hint of impropriety.

  39. bugs: your
    .
    I notice to completely different points of view here. McKitrick is just playing the same old line that the whole IPCC case fails,
    .
    No, he says the IPCC should stick to the science. He does not criticize the IPCC science at all.
    .
    Weaver says his problem is Pachauri is the wrong man in the first place, and wonders if there isn’t a better way to mange the AGW problem. He doesn’t see the science as the problem at all.
    .
    No, Weaver says that the way the IPCC does the science, needs to change.
    .
    The deniers still can’t argue the case, but continually hammer the AGW is wrong because Pachauri is not a good spokesman for it non-sequitor.
    .
    The so-called deniers argue the case continually, and with science. While much critiscm is aimed at Pachauri, the major criticsm of the IPCC, is in the process, and not the majority of the science.

  40. Lucia I think you should read this:
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf just published by Watts and D’Aleo
    Basically ALL the surface data you have discussed was and is fraudalent as I have repeated here many times and I believe you refused to believe or wanted to believe or gave benefit of the doubt to these scammers who will be investigated have no doubt about this. The ONLY data that can be remotely trusted iis the RSS and UAH satellite. This is a watershed document which will initiate legal prosecutions in the USA

  41. There are several possibilities:

    1. The IPCC could fire Dr. Pachauri in the near future
    2. Dr.Pachauri could resign soon, within the next week or so
    3. Dr. Pachauri could resign quietly after all the fuss dies down, later in the year
    4. Dr. Pachauri could survive, to conduct business as usual.

    Each one of these options is pretty bad for the IPCC. As long as DR. Pachauri remains at the IPCC, he’s going to be used as a stick to beat the IPCC relentlessly, whether this be justified or not.

    IMO the least worst course for the IPCC is No.3, to have Dr.Pachauri resign with as little fuss as possible during the coming year – to pursue his business interests, or because he wants to spend more time with his family, or because of illness. Whatever – one of the usual reasons.

    So: “When will Pachauri step down?”: Later this year, in the summer, when most people are on holiday and have other interests.

  42. I don’t even believe in lukewarming anymore. Any of this data is not reliable. There probably has been no significant change in mean global temperatures for the past 200 years. None of us has experienced it, your great grand parents haven’t and neither will your grand children.

  45. I don’t think the issue is Pachauri being made responsible for mistakes within the IPCC (see, Nick Stokes (Comment#31199)) . His offense was delivering the usual pompous rap about peer-review, Great Consensus, ignorant denialist evil-doers, etc. in an instance when the IPCC was unambiguously wrong, thus undermining future use of that critically important shtick and eliminating his personal credibility as a spokesman.

    Better for the IPCC to dump him and replace him with a scientist with better PR skills and politely pretend Pachauri was the problem.

    From what I can glean from the emails and elsewhere, personal loyalty is not a big virtue in that crowd so cutting him loose will not be a big problem.

    He can be kicked upstairs into a new post in India and/or added to a another dozen corporate boards of companies trying to green up their image. He can depart declaring a desire to more actively advocate solutions and just take the money and move on. Lots of options. He will be gone before April 1.

  47. Nick Stoke writes:

    But folks need to get real here. IPCC reports, even WG2, should not have errors. But you can’t expect the Chair of the IPCC to resign every time one is found.

    It is not the scientific error per se that is driving the calls for the resignation. The issue is described in the following quotation from the author of the WG2 section. This inidcates that the IPCC has failed in its mission to generate adequate science to inform policy makers. it has strayed into policy advicacy. This is the responsibility of the management of the IPCC and Pachauri fulfils that role.

    We thought,” said IPCC author Murari Lal, according to The Mail on Sunday, “that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

  49. One thing is certain. Richard North has his teeth into Pachauri and he won’t let go until Pachauri is toast. Christopher Booker is tenacious too. Btween them Pachauri’s days are numbered.

  51. hunter–
    No problem. It’s always been my policy for people to have unique handles. I’ve put the other hunter’s info into the moderation script, so he’ll be moderated so I can check if he complies. (I may need to extend the moderation script to assign handles to email addresses. The problem has happened with some “gavins’ before too.)

  52. Nick Stokes:

    IPCC reports, even WG2, should not have errors

    It’s not the mistakes that were discovered, it’s how it was handled once the mistake that was made that is irritating people.

    Also there’s a difference between a mistake (2+2=5) and what some view as deliberate violating of IPCC policies, such as the manufacture of a figure that wasn’t in a paper, then attributing the figure to the paper. That wasn’t a simple error. Same applies to TAGs example. Nobody faults Pachauri for this, just for his running interference for the people who committed what some view as misdeeds.

    The other problem Pachauri (and the IPCC) has is the perception that he is unfairly benefiting monetarily from his position as head of IPCC.

    These are much more substantive issues than can be brushed off with “it happens all the time”.

  53. The WG2 report of effects of warming is, for policy purposes, as or more important than WG1. For WG2, the science clearly is not settled. Given the howlers that have been found, not to mention the official response to those finds, how is anyone not subject to the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect to believe anything in the report. If the consequences of warming have been, to put it somewhat tactfully, exaggerated, then the magnitude of the prospective warming and the urgency of mitigation efforts becomes far less important.

  54. Would it be possible to create a graphic with different scenarios?
    a. A projected date of departure if the rate of ‘found errors’ increases .
    b. A projected date of departure if ‘found errors’ continues at current rate.
    c. A projected date of departure if the rate of ‘found errors’ decreases.

    How could we put error bars on that?

  55. DeWitt Payne:

    The WG2 report of effects of warming is, for policy purposes, as or more important than WG1. For WG2, the science clearly is not settled.

    I absolutely agree.

    Most of the physical basis (WG1) doesn’t itself do anything more than establish that we are definitively warming and humans are playing a role. Unfortunately everybody on both sides of the argument seem to want to spend their time arguing over this.

    All of the real action is in WG2, because that is where policy decisions get made. And that is the part to me that resembles another Y2K social phenomenon where people seem to have carte blanche to ignore what the science actually says, to exaggerate the science, and even to manufacture new “science” when the existing science won’t do… in order to “impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

    I think conversation that DeWitt and I had over extinction was the only real example I’ve had at looking at and discussing the real issues at hand. Even Michael Tobis treats WG2 like a hot potato that he won’t touch.

  58. The hilarious thing is that Mike Hulme thought Pachauri was ok
    for the job because Susan Solomon was in charge of WGI and she had a firm grasp on the science, except for the issue of UHI were she couldn’t keep some facts straight. hehe. Pachauri in his eyes was right for the job because he could focus on WGII, which is an engineering job.

    Problem. you can’t engineer when the basic science has some unresolved issues. well you can, but I wouldnt fly in that plane or take that pill.

  59. My copy of Climategate arrived. I was so excited I read the preface, even though I was extremely tired when I got home last night.

    And no, I am not going to skip to the last page right away and read the ending. 😉

    Andrew

  63. Tom Fuller,

    I’ll continue my Climategate reading after I swill some cheap beer playing the Pres. Obama State Of The Union Drinking Game. 😉

    Andrew

  64. Hunter_other (Comment#31167) January 26th, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    “I think you’ll find that all the furious scribblings on all the denialist-tendency blogs matter little in the real world, and his position is quite secure. ”

    Funny, they told us that when we pushed to have hansen release his code.
    Funny, the CRU folks were furiously following the blogs since 2005 and ran themselves into some trouble over that.
    But I’ll play along. Don’t mind us. we have no impact. why even bother. nothing here to see or read.
    Do you think climategate scuttled Copenhagen?
    Do you think the person who did that was inspired by blogs?
    Na.
    Just ignore us.
    please.

  65. Re: steven mosher (Jan 27 17:43),
    Funny!

    Oddly enough, I wasn’t under the impression scribblings on blogs were what was going to cause Pachauri to step down. I was sort of noticing the growing number of mainline newspapers carrying articles and letters to the editor. Plus, some activists like Weaver.

    I suspect Hunter the other can detect typos, but has a bit of trouble noticing what’s being reported in papers.

  66. I love the human spell corrector’s. Everybody needs to rise to the thing they can do best. Some people make the news. Some people write the news. Some people comment on the news. And some people correct spelling mistakes. there is no i in Teem. crap.

  68. Re: steven mosher (Jan 27 17:55),

    Ah there is no I in team – but there is always me. (bad I know)

    BTW the general coverage around AGW and the various gates seems to be spreading; I’ve noticed a slight uptick in the ease of discovery in finding coverage in the MSM.

  69. Reality check

    Pachauri will not resign. He is too proud for that.
    The UNFCCC will not “sack” him or offend him in any way, he knows toooo much. These blokes (guys) are carreer diplomats/beurocrats, they survive on putting out fires and coming to acceptable terms/agreements on any issue thrown at them.

    My guess?
    Yes they realise R K P is now a liability to the UNFCCC and IPCC. Answer?

    They will PROMOTE HIM to another cushy UN post (thereby removing him from the IPCC position) with honour and dignity preserved for all. Heck they may even give him a UN honour or medal if such things exist.

    They will promote him. (worth saying twice)

  71. Steven Mosher:

    Ah there is no I in team – but there is always me. (bad I know)

    There is no “we” either….just meat.

  72. Your answer here by Tom Fuller examiner
    “None of them have spoken out defending Pachauri, at least as far as I can see. The lead post on Real Climate has 844 comments as of this writing. None of the inner circle of commenters have defended Pachauri. The Real Climate blogroll has heavy hitters like George Monbiot of the UK’s Guardian, Climate Progress, Grist, and the New York Time’s Dot Earth. It has small, very focused bloggers, like Deltoid and Rabett Run. If Pachauri has any defenders, they’re hiding someplace. In fact, only one blog, Climate Feedback, even posted on the current state of Pachaurigate. And they just laid out the facts of the story. Another blog, Knight Science Journalism Tracker, managed to cover recent events at the IPCC without even mentioning Pachauri by name.

    Nobody–not Al Gore, who shared a stage with Pachauri in Stockholm accepting a Nobel Prize, not James Hansen, no member of government–including the usually supportive EU–has stepped forward with even a kind word for Pachauri.”

    FINITO

  73. “The Indian Times” is raking him over the coals too. He managed to anger quite a few within the Indian government with his derisive comments about “voodoo science” and his overly defensive reaction.

    As Nick Stokes said: “My understanding is that his appointment is basically determined by UN politics, and his real constituency is the government of India. As such, he’ll probably stay as long as India wants him. ”

    Ye Gads! I’m agreeing with something Nick said!

    Based upon what is being written in the Indian press, it’s only a matter of time. So that brings us to the big question.

    My guess is no later than early June 2010.

Comments are closed.