The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faced a fresh round of criticism in the British media over the weekend, with revelations of more spurious sources and that its chief, Rajendra Pachauri, may have known about the false claims before Copenhagen.
The big stories
Times: Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Telegraph: UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
Sunday Times: UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.
The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists.
Guardian: Ed Miliband declares war on climate change sceptics
In an exclusive interview with the Observer, [UK climate secretary] Miliband spoke out for the first time about last month’s revelations that climate scientists had withheld and covered up information and the apology made by the influential UN climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which admitted it had exaggerated claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
The op-eds
Bob Ward, Guardian: ‘Disastergate’ is an excuse for IPCC critics to dig up old academic rows
What is clear is that it would be wrong to think of this as another mistake by climate researchers. In fact it looks more like a blatant attempt to dig up an old academic row in order to create the impression of an IPCC under siege.
Editorial, Times: Bad science needs good scrutiny
The IPCC’s evidence on the physical science is extensively peer-reviewed and remains largely intact. But when scientists allow claims from pressure groups into the public arena, without checking the evidence, they let themselves and everybody else down.
Editorial, Telegraph: We need facts, not spin, in the climate debate
… the IPCC has lost both its objectivity and the trust of the public. That is one of the main reasons why we, along with our sister newspaper The Daily Telegraph, believe that Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman, should step down.
Christopher Booker, Telegraph: Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC’s failures
Bereft of scientific or moral authority, the most expensive show the world has ever seen may soon be nearing its end.
Hey none of these are worse than the furphies told to justify the Iraq war.
I suppose if your objective is to kill people and drop bombs your allow to lie but if you want to stop pollution, save resources and provide an everlasting clean energy system you must be pure evil.
I know it true cos osama bin laden told me so.
The IPCC’s evidence on the physical science is extensively peer-reviewed and remains largely intact. What is clear is that it would be wrong to think of this as another mistake by climate researchers. In fact it looks more like a blatant attempt to dig up an old academic row.
But the telegraph sees it differently
I expect due to a foney call from osama?
I see TwoBob, perennially unoriginal, uses the infamous Ed Begley Defense.
Climategate showed that Phil Jones demanded that the journal Climate Research “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” when it published a paper dissenting from the “consensus”.
Whilst Michael Mann of hockey-stich infamy advises that “we have to stop considering the climate science journal ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers” …… thats to/from ‘Climate Research’ …….. gettit?
When another climate science journal Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Tom Wigley another “one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”, suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” They succeeded.
When yet another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Jones assures Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
The more frantically TwoBob, Mann, Jones et al talk “the physical science is extensively peer-reviewed” as the basis for automatic gainsaying of any criticism of pressuring publishers, firing editors and blacklisting scientists the more “peer review” and Science itself is buggarised by these most unscientific of people and whilst simultaneously their echo chamber shrivels.
Mmmm…. ‘peer review’…….. dontcha just love it?
Are you aware james that the paper you question was riddled with errors?
And that half of the editorial resigned over its publication?
In other words it was a factually inaccurate heap of shit that should never of been published.
Being loyal to a political party is your prerogative however rubbishing science with concocted bullshit when it threatens the quality of life for your own species and your own children is the epitome of stupidity.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It was predicted 30 years ago that as its concentration in the atmosphere increases the globes temperature would increase. Its concentration has increased and so has the globes temperature.
As it stands now there is no other explanation for the globes temperature increase and to continue to increase co2 under these circumstances is simply foolish. Regardless of who you support politicly it is foolish. Even if you stand to loose financially it is foolish.
This is simply appalling!!!
Because it allows Jimmy lad even more hot air! (Ooh sorry!! not hot air…, rapidly cooling air).